Evolution?

[I. Hustle]

OK I have a question about evolution. I want to start off saying a couple of things though. First I do not believe in evolution. Call me what you will and I am not trying to "convert" or convince you so I am not looking to argue. Second, this is a serious question that I have never figured out in the theory of evolution and again I am not trying to argue. Third, did I mention that I wasn't looking to fight?

Ok so now that I am done with the disclaimer here it is. People that believe in evolution and the evolutionary chart believe that we have evolved from microorganisms to fish to monkeys to whatever to now. Ok so I understand some people say we are still evolving and it takes millions of years but my question is why are the animals that we supposedly evolved from still around? I see examples where dinosaurs are now birds and how modern horses evolved from a species that was about the size of a small dog, etc. etc. So why are the apes that we evolved from still here?
I think I could grasp it more if the animals we supposedly evolved from were no longer around. Instead of examples of an arthritic man and a pigs tooth that explain where we came from. I mean if monkeys are still around where are the in betweens? Why are they gone but everything else still here?

Again I am being serious and want to know if maybe you have researched or have your own theories.

[clambake]

it won't always be this way.

you can find your answers in "the planet of the apes".

[koriwhat]

dude we didnt evolve from monkeys... not at all! both monkeys and humans evolved from another species a long ass time ago. anthro 101. i cant remember what that species was called.

[Slomo]

I'm far from being an expert, but isn't the explanation that we didn't evolve from the apes, but that we both had a common ancestor? As far as I know remains or evidence of this common ancestor have yet to be found.

Now I'll let the more knowledgeable poster correct me.

[koriwhat]

it won't always be this way.

you can find your answers in "the planet of the apes".

dr. zeus! dr. zeus! dr. zeus! dr. zeus! oooh dr. zeus!

[Drachen]

OK I have a question about evolution. I want to start off saying a couple of things though. First I do not believe in evolution. Call me what you will and I am not trying to "convert" or convince you so I am not looking to argue. Second, this is a serious question that I have never figured out in the theory of evolution and again I am not trying to argue. Third, did I mention that I wasn't looking to fight?

Ok so now that I am done with the disclaimer here it is. People that believe in evolution and the evolutionary chart believe that we have evolved from microorganisms to fish to monkeys to whatever to now. Ok so I understand some people say we are still evolving and it takes millions of years but my question is why are the animals that we supposedly evolved from still around? I see examples where dinosaurs are now birds and how modern horses evolved from a species that was about the size of a small dog, etc. etc. So why are the apes that we evolved from still here?
I think I could grasp it more if the animals we supposedly evolved from were no longer around. Instead of examples of an arthritic man and a pigs tooth that explain where we came from. I mean if monkeys are still around where are the in betweens? Why are they gone but everything else still here?

Again I am being serious and want to know if maybe you have researched or have your own theories.

Because an organism's evolution is in response to its environment. There are multitudes of environments in the same region, much less the world. The way you are describing it, evolution would look like a straight line from the first single celled microorganism to humans, and no other organism (plant or animal) would exist at the same time as another. The evolutionary track looks much more like a tree with many false starts, turns etc. Just as an example, I read an article about a year or so ago that it may be plausible that Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from Homo Erectus, but that both species evolved from a third common ancestor. The environments that each was subjected to caused different qualities to be valued by the evolutionary process with Sapiens emphasizing intelligence as evidenced by cranial capacity, and Erectus emphasizing strength (among many other things, but I am zeroing in on these for my example). Then when the enviroment changed (ice age, moving from one part of the world to another, whatever), the smarter Sapiens were able to more quickly adapt within their lifetimes due to greater ability to learn, and the Erectus' brute strength didn't help as much. This made erectus eventually die out. Hope this helps.

[rjv]

dr. zeus! dr. zeus! dr. zeus! dr. zeus! oooh dr. zeus!

the planet of the apes musical on the simpsons. a classic !

[I. Hustle]

OK so the whole third party thing makes more sense. At the same time there are things I still can't see. Certain animals, like us, have been around a really really long time. In that time the earth has changed and you can say that we have evolved intellectually but what about the other animals that have been around longer. Why do they continue to look the same even after all this time, like sharks, alligators/crocs, tortoiseseses?

[ATRAIN]

dude we didnt evolve from monkeys... not at all! both monkeys and humans evolved from another species a long ass time ago. anthro 101. i cant remember what that species was called.

Off topic but when is the fight? I cant wait to see you embarrass I.Hustle

[rAm]

Wait wait wait, you don't believe in evolution? That explains many things about your posts.

[Drachen]

OK so the whole third party thing makes more sense. At the same time there are things I still can't see. Certain animals, like us, have been around a really really long time. In that time the earth has changed and you can say that we have evolved intellectually but what about the other animals that have been around longer. Why do they continue to look the same even after all this time, like sharks, alligators/crocs, tortoiseseses?

Well, and I am no expert on this, there were prehistoric shark species that died out, replaced eventually by the ones that you see today. Great Whites for example (probably) did not exist 1 million years ago, but their predecessors did (same arguement for the other animals that you mentioned). So yes, there were sharks, alligators/crocs, and tortoisses, but not necessarily the same species as we see today. Also, as far as those sea turtles are concerned, their evolution (with all other things being equal) would go substantially slower than ours since their life span is 160+ years. Twice our current lifetime, but 3-8 times (or more) of our life span over the last 60,000 years. Remember the potential for evolution is a generational thing and it is very slow. If you are talking about evolution within a life time, then you are actually talking about adaptation (i.e. using the physical and mental tools that you already have in a different way in order to stay alive). Evolution on the other hand is the process of developing completely different physical and mental tools.

[Blake]

Why do they continue to look the same even after all this time, like sharks, alligators/crocs, tortoiseseses?

why not?

[z0sa]

Well, it's an interesting question. It's somewhat easily overcome, but one must wonder that if microevolution occurs because of changes to other animals in the food chain, or their environment changes, or your own changes, why do some continue persisting?

[RandomGuy]

OK I have a question about evolution. I want to start off saying a couple of things though. First I do not believe in evolution. Call me what you will and I am not trying to "convert" or convince you so I am not looking to argue. Second, this is a serious question that I have never figured out in the theory of evolution and again I am not trying to argue. Third, did I mention that I wasn't looking to fight?

Ok so now that I am done with the disclaimer here it is. People that believe in evolution and the evolutionary chart believe that we have evolved from microorganisms to fish to monkeys to whatever to now. Ok so I understand some people say we are still evolving and it takes millions of years but my question is why are the animals that we supposedly evolved from still around? I see examples where dinosaurs are now birds and how modern horses evolved from a species that was about the size of a small dog, etc. etc. So why are the apes that we evolved from still here?
I think I could grasp it more if the animals we supposedly evolved from were no longer around. Instead of examples of an arthritic man and a pigs tooth that explain where we came from. I mean if monkeys are still around where are the in betweens? Why are they gone but everything else still here?

Again I am being serious and want to know if maybe you have researched or have your own theories.

The apes we evolved from aren't actually still here. Modern apes are essentially our evolutionary cousins.

Things tend to go extinct because either they are adapted for an environment, and that environment changes faster than they do, or something new is introduced that totally outcompetes them for whatever resource that organism needs to eat/reproduce.

The single celled plants that float around in the ocean are still there because they don't compete with land based oak trees. There are enough resources for both because they inhabit different ecological niches.

Modern understanding of evolutionary processes has itself, pardon the expression, evolved from a "steady march" model, in which things change gradually at a fairly steady pace, to a "punctuated equilibrium" where you get some small steady changes over long periods of time with sudden bursts of change.

Many many of the "in between" animals have been found for many modern plant and animal lines, but due to the way fossils are formed, it is unlikely we will ever have a 100% picture with every single "in between" animal.

[RandomGuy]

OK so the whole third party thing makes more sense. At the same time there are things I still can't see. Certain animals, like us, have been around a really really long time. In that time the earth has changed and you can say that we have evolved intellectually but what about the other animals that have been around longer. Why do they continue to look the same even after all this time, like sharks, alligators/crocs, tortoiseseses?

Humans have only been around for approximately 100,000 years.

That is a miniscule amount of time compared to the vast age of the planet and life itself.

Land animals tend to face more environmental change than sea animals, to my understanding. For what that is worth. You still see a wide variety of fairly primitive fish out there.

[RandomGuy]

I'm far from being an expert, but isn't the explanation that we didn't evolve from the apes, but that we both had a common ancestor? As far as I know remains or evidence of this common ancestor have yet to be found.

Now I'll let the more knowledgeable poster correct me.

They have come closer and closer to finding that direct common ancestor.

The real problem is that we have to depend on bone fragments and so forth, as opposed to genetic testing.

We can make fairly good guesses on about when our last common ancestor with any given species was around based on fossils and genetic drift.

[MiamiHeat]

The fact is, the Lord God Most High created all things.

[Drachen]

The fact is, the Lord God Most High created all things.

LOL, This reminds me of that family guy episode where Jesus says "I'll catch up to y'all later, I have to bury these dinosaur bones to confuse them later on."

Anyway, I don't think this was his question since he stated that even though he doesn't believe in evolution, he wanted to know certain things about those that do. The evolution v. creation debate isn't really appropriate here.

[Kermit]

The fact is, the Lord God Most High created all things.

Thank you Jesus for my porns.

[CuckingFunt]

OK I have a question about evolution. I want to start off saying a couple of things though. First I do not believe in evolution. Call me what you will and I am not trying to "convert" or convince you so I am not looking to argue. Second, this is a serious question that I have never figured out in the theory of evolution and again I am not trying to argue. Third, did I mention that I wasn't looking to fight?

Ok so now that I am done with the disclaimer here it is. People that believe in evolution and the evolutionary chart believe that we have evolved from microorganisms to fish to monkeys to whatever to now. Ok so I understand some people say we are still evolving and it takes millions of years but my question is why are the animals that we supposedly evolved from still around? I see examples where dinosaurs are now birds and how modern horses evolved from a species that was about the size of a small dog, etc. etc. So why are the apes that we evolved from still here?
I think I could grasp it more if the animals we supposedly evolved from were no longer around. Instead of examples of an arthritic man and a pigs tooth that explain where we came from. I mean if monkeys are still around where are the in betweens? Why are they gone but everything else still here?

Again I am being serious and want to know if maybe you have researched or have your own theories.

Evolution =/= replacement.

People have already mentioned the common ancestor factor in human evolution, but in general it is entirely possible (in fact quite frequent) for different populations of a single species to evolve differently for their specific environments. One population of deer could become isolated on a mountain, for example, and evolve into a completely new and different species of deer while their distant deer relatives continue to live as normal. When a species branches apart and becomes two new things, they'll both continue to live independently for as long as they can continue to adapt to a changing world.


OK so the whole third party thing makes more sense. At the same time there are things I still can't see. Certain animals, like us, have been around a really really long time. In that time the earth has changed and you can say that we have evolved intellectually but what about the other animals that have been around longer. Why do they continue to look the same even after all this time, like sharks, alligators/crocs, tortoiseseses?

Evolution only happens as much as is necessary. Species don't just radically change for the hell of it.

Sharks have changed quite a bit throughout their evolutionary history, they just haven't had any environmental reason to stop looking shark-like.

[RandomGuy]

Sharks have changed quite a bit throughout their evolutionary history, they just haven't had any environmental reason to stop looking shark-like.

Yeah, why would sharks want to stop looking to cool? I know I wouldn't. :lol

[MiamiHeat]

LOL, This reminds me of that family guy episode where Jesus says "I'll catch up to y'all later, I have to bury these dinosaur bones to confuse them later on."

Anyway, I don't think this was his question since he stated that even though he doesn't believe in evolution, he wanted to know certain things about those that do. The evolution v. creation debate isn't really appropriate here.

The fact is, evolutionary change does not explain where we come from.

Humans try to be too intelligent for their own good. The Lord God, Most High, is responsible for our creation, and evolutionary change is normal within His plan.

[rAm]

is your avatar part of his plan as well?

retard

[Drachen]

The fact is, evolutionary change does not explain where we come from.

Humans try to be too intelligent for their own good. The Lord God, Most High, is responsible for our creation, and evolutionary change is normal within His plan.

Different thread, but thanks for trying (again).

[I. Hustle]

Honestly i knew it would go this route but I wasn't trying to make it a religious debate. I truly was asking just to hear different theories. I mean because when it all comes down to it it is mostly theories right? I mean we can say that we evolved from this or that but there is no concrete evidence showing that correct? Unless by some miracle (lol) we find a way to get some kind of dna or stumble upon some ancient genetic material how could you ever know for sure.
I mean for the most part we aren't even sure that most dinosaurs really look the way we see them in museums and television. We find certain bones and then they try to figure what the whole must look like from some spare parts. Of course I know there are a few fossils that show the whole shabang but this stuff is all interesting to me.

[Drachen]

Honestly i knew it would go this route but I wasn't trying to make it a religious debate. I truly was asking just to hear different theories. I mean because when it all comes down to it it is mostly theories right? I mean we can say that we evolved from this or that but there is no concrete evidence showing that correct? Unless by some miracle (lol) we find a way to get some kind of dna or stumble upon some ancient genetic material how could you ever know for sure.
I mean for the most part we aren't even sure that most dinosaurs really look the way we see them in museums and television. We find certain bones and then they try to figure what the whole must look like from some spare parts. Of course I know there are a few fossils that show the whole shabang but this stuff is all interesting to me.

I knew it would go that way too, which is why I didn't feed the troll.

Also despite my scientific leanings on the subject, I will admit that there is some amount of faith ascribed to both theories (creation v. evolution). I won't go any further with this subject (at least the this v. that part of this subject). LOL

[TheManFromAcme]

The fact is, evolutionary change does not explain where we come from.

Humans try to be too intelligent for their own good. The Lord God, Most High, is responsible for our creation, and evolutionary change is normal within His plan.

:tu

Well put Miami, well put.

[tp2021]

People read phylogenies wrong.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/bio112/112cp/midterm03key_files/image004.jpg

You might look at this and (incorrectly) think that humans evolved from gorillas.

What the phylogeny is actually saying:
There was an ancestral hominid at #150, and evolution by some mechanism (be it natural selection, genetic drift, or what have you) caused this hominid to change and diverge into 2 distinct groups, ultimately becoming their own species themselves, unique from the ancestor, but both descendants of that ancestor. One group became the orangutans, and the other one became the precurser to humans/gorillas/chimps. I'll stop explaining this part of it, and instead talk about the whole "humans evolved from gorillas" thing.

Imagine a family tree. With humans. Two brothers will be linked by the parent. The brothers branch off from the parent (descendents branching off from ancestor). You wouldn't say that one brother descended from the other; they are both branches off of the same ancestor. Likewise, saying a human evolved from a gorilla is like saying you descended from your own brother.

Additionally, phylogenies can be used to see which species are the closest related. Humans are actually more closely related to chimps than to gorillas; trace back to the MOST RECENT common ancestor: the human-chimp ancestor (#14) appeared more recently than the gorilla-human/chimp ancestor (#70). This can also be analogous to a family tree; you are more closely related to your brother (most recent common ancestor: parents) than your cousin (most recent common ancestor: grandparents).

[rAm]

Honestly i knew it would go this route but I wasn't trying to make it a religious debate. I truly was asking just to hear different theories. I mean because when it all comes down to it it is mostly theories right? I mean we can say that we evolved from this or that but there is no concrete evidence showing that correct? Unless by some miracle (lol) we find a way to get some kind of dna or stumble upon some ancient genetic material how could you ever know for sure.
I mean for the most part we aren't even sure that most dinosaurs really look the way we see them in museums and television. We find certain bones and then they try to figure what the whole must look like from some spare parts. Of course I know there are a few fossils that show the whole shabang but this stuff is all interesting to me.

I mean, who are you crying too? You are only not sure about all of this because you have been lied to your whole life. Now that you are getting older and finding out more facts, your brain is telling you something is not right. Hence your reasoning to start a thread and start asking about all of these things.

The reason this turns into a one side vs the other is because one side is not open to new ideas because it contradicts everything they have been preaching and stealing money with for the past two thousand years. While the other side might have many theories, but they all agree that the earth is more than 10,000 years old or however long creationists believe its been since god shat out the entire universe.

[tp2021]

I am a believer in God, and I know that evolution is one of the most sound Scientific theories out there (Scientific theory=/=layman definition of theory). What's to say that the Creator didn't put in place a mechanism that would allow all of His creations on Earth to exist and go forth their own way, and changing over time on their own? I'm sure God wouldn't want to sit up there and make all the changes for us. If He has the power to put the driving mechanisms of evolution into us, giving us as His creations the power to grow and change, why wouldn't he?

[angel_luv]

For questions about man's origin, I like to point people to Psalm 139.


Psalm 139
For the director of music. Of David. A psalm.
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.

3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.

4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.

9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,"

12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

17 How precious to [b] me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!

18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.

[rAm]

That's fine, and a theory that all scientists and believers in science can get down with because no one really knows what existed before the "big bang".

The thing I have a problem with is this: http://www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2010/02/09/the-science-of-the-creation-museum/

[MiamiHeat]

I mean, who are you crying too? You are only not sure about all of this because you have been lied to your whole life. Now that you are getting older and finding out more facts, your brain is telling you something is not right. Hence your reasoning to start a thread and start asking about all of these things.

The reason this turns into a one side vs the other is because one side is not open to new ideas because it contradicts everything they have been preaching and stealing money with for the past two thousand years. While the other side might have many theories, but they all agree that the earth is more than 10,000 years old or however long creationists believe its been since god shat out the entire universe.

With all due respect, the Bible does not have any information about the age of the Earth. Any theories about the age of the Earth are fiction, including the '10,000' number.

The Lord God did not specify when He created the Earth, only that He did create it... and that is a fact.

[rAm]

oh spare us angel_luv, go live in your ignorant bubble and continue to be a sheep

what about all the books the early christians removed from the Bible? what were in those? how come those didn't fit in the plan for the christian "church", who took an inspirational man in Jesus and played it to their favor to gain power and money.

[rAm]

With all due respect, the Bible does not have any information about the age of the Earth. Any theories about the age of the Earth are fiction, including the '10,000' number.

The Lord God did not specify when He created the Earth, only that He did create it... and that is a fact.

Fact how? did god come down from his clouds and tell you that?

You picked one number from my post and harped on it instead of attacking the real issues. Just like the rest of your ilk. Whatever the number is, its retarded, and a lie, and you believe it, which makes you a sheep.

[leemajors]

With all due respect, the Bible does not have any information about the age of the Earth. Any theories about the age of the Earth are fiction, including the '10,000' number.

The Lord God did not specify when He created the Earth, only that He did create it... and that is a fact.

Prove it.

[leemajors]

A lot of Christians cannot reconcile their beliefs in creation with evolution because they insist on interpreting the Bible literally. Being a book stuffed full of allegory, parables, and borrowed numerology, it makes it hard to base a sound argument for creation on such a foundation.

[MiamiHeat]

Evolution does not contradict the Lord God.

[rAm]

Your posts contradict evolution.

[MiamiHeat]

Prove it.

I am only a human, I have no power or authority on this Earth concerning the Lord's affairs.

If He wanted you to have the proof you desire, He would handle it. It is not my place, nor is it within my power, to act on behalf of the Most High.

I am, and you are, only His children, here on Earth to live a virtuous life and serve Him.

[tp2021]

You guys HAVE to watch this presentation.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30825_Recommended-_Ken_Millers_Only_a_Theory

Given by Ken Miller, who writes Biology textbooks, you may have seen this one:



http://today.brown.edu/files/article_images/BiologyBook.jpg

He was also a guest on The Colbert Report once, which is actually in his presentation that I linked to. He gave this lecture at UT a few years back, I was lucky enough to attend. Seriously, he addresses and refutes a whole shitload of crap that people throw out saying evolution isn't real.

[MiamiHeat]

A lot of Christians cannot reconcile their beliefs in creation with evolution because they insist on interpreting the Bible literally. Being a book stuffed full of allegory, parables, and borrowed numerology, it makes it hard to base a sound argument for creation on such a foundation.

The parables, allegories, and anything else in the Bible is there for the Lord to teach us in a way we can understand.

The Earth is temporary, and ultimately going to pass away.

[I. Hustle]

I mean, who are you crying too? You are only not sure about all of this because you have been lied to your whole life. Now that you are getting older and finding out more facts, your brain is telling you something is not right. Hence your reasoning to start a thread and start asking about all of these things.

The reason this turns into a one side vs the other is because one side is not open to new ideas because it contradicts everything they have been preaching and stealing money with for the past two thousand years. While the other side might have many theories, but they all agree that the earth is more than 10,000 years old or however long creationists believe its been since god shat out the entire universe.

I am not "crying" to anyone. Show me where I was whining or complaining. I was just stating that I was asking a serious question. Look dude I know you are probably one of those people that scoffs at religion and thinks you are superior to everyone else and that is cool, that's your right. If you think that organized religion is the only group that has been "stealing" money from it's followers than you are an idiot.
I didn't ask why this turn into a one side vs the other thread. I knew why. I just wanted to hear the theories of those who believe in evolution. Nothing you say is going to sway me into believing it but I like to hear the theories and reasoning behind those theories.

[Blake]

I'm wondering if rAm is really MiamiHeat and is using himself to troll himself

[angel_luv]

oh spare us angel_luv, go live in your ignorant bubble and continue to be a sheep

what about all the books the early christians removed from the Bible? what were in those? how come those didn't fit in the plan for the christian "church", who took an inspirational man in Jesus and played it to their favor to gain power and money.

The account of creation is in Genesis, which is still safe and sound in the Bible. So I am not sure how your post is relevent to the discussion at hand.


Maybe you are just in a baaad mood?

[leemajors]

I am only a human, I have no power or authority on this Earth concerning the Lord's affairs.

If He wanted you to have the proof you desire, He would handle it. It is not my place, nor is it within my power, to act on behalf of the Most High.

I am, and you are, only His children, here on Earth to live a virtuous life and serve Him.

Having faith and having facts are different, but not mutually exclusive. I do, however, think the Lord would prefer you stating We are His children so his message is less muddled.

[Drachen]

Well I.Hustle, we kept it as a good, civil, and intelligent Q and A for as long as we could. Now its over.

:slowly backs away

[angel_luv]

Well I.Hustle, we kept it as a good, civil, and intelligent Q and A for as long as we could. Now its over.

:slowly backs away

My apologies for interupting.

[tp2021]

The account of creation is in Genesis, which is still safe and sound in the Bible. So I am not sure how your post is relevent to the discussion at hand.


Maybe you are just in a baaad mood?

:rollin

angel said, "U mad?" :lol

[rAm]

I am not "crying" to anyone. Show me where I was whining or complaining. I was just stating that I was asking a serious question. Look dude I know you are probably one of those people that scoffs at religion and thinks you are superior to everyone else and that is cool, that's your right. If you think that organized religion is the only group that has been "stealing" money from it's followers than you are an idiot.
I didn't ask why this turn into a one side vs the other thread. I knew why. I just wanted to hear the theories of those who believe in evolution. Nothing you say is going to sway me into believing it but I like to hear the theories and reasoning behind those theories.

Not at all. I was born half jewish / half catholic (whatever the fuck that means) so every week my family would switch off going to temple and church. I was able to see both sides of the religions and let me tell you, church is nothing but sensational mumbo jumbo. For christ's sake (see the pun) every time you attend church they make you raise both hands to the lord and scream swear your praise to the priest. The jewish religion is so much more down to earth its ridiculous, you don't see them combating science with lies and propaganda. Why? because they don't view their parish as customers who are supporting the church, they don't give a fuck if you believe in god or not. They don't meddle with evolution because it isn't going steal their lifeforce from them. I don't consider myself jewish or catholic (well I consider myself jewish by blood) but growing up with both influences it was clear to me which side is genuine and which side is out of their mind.

The church isn't the only organization that steals you are right, but its the fucking CHURCH. The organization that gives a majority of our country their morals. Oh yea, and they rape little boys, was that in god's plan? Hate to go there, but its just ludicrous how blind people are. Read an evolution text book, open your eyes little man.

[I. Hustle]

oh spare us angel_luv, go live in your ignorant bubble and continue to be a sheep

what about all the books the early christians removed from the Bible? what were in those? how come those didn't fit in the plan for the christian "church", who took an inspirational man in Jesus and played it to their favor to gain power and money.

What about all the money funded for research? All the money put into people finding ONE bone and creating a whole being in whatever thought pops into their head. You buy it and say "Yeah that is exactly how the T-Rex looked", to me it is the same thing. You are putting your faith in whatever these people say no matter how many holes there are.
I didn't attack anyone in here or complain about what they were saying. So what's the problem little guy?

[I. Hustle]

Well I.Hustle, we kept it as a good, civil, and intelligent Q and A for as long as we could. Now its over.

:slowly backs away

To be honest. It actually lasted longer than anticipated. The flood gates opened and the morons poured in.

[MiamiHeat]

Having faith and having facts are different, but not mutually exclusive. I do, however, think the Lord would prefer you stating We are His children so his message is less muddled.

Some "facts" are subjective to the evidence currently provided. They change all the time, and will continue to. Anthropology is guess work, educated guess work, using the limited 'facts' available.

Anthropologists are constantly proven wrong, forced to shift their 'facts' around, change them, revise them, due to the nature of the field.

My facts are written down. Your facts are tiny bone fragments which may or may not belong to an ancient humanoid or a shaggy cocker spaniel.

[koriwhat]

For questions about man's origin, I like to point people to Psalm 139.

give me a break already...

[rAm]

What about all the money funded for research? All the money put into people finding ONE bone and creating a whole being in whatever thought pops into their head. You buy it and say "Yeah that is exactly how the T-Rex looked", to me it is the same thing. You are putting your faith in whatever these people say no matter how many holes there are.
I didn't attack anyone in here or complain about what they were saying. So what's the problem little guy?

It's not just one guy who found one bone and was like hey look this is what a t-rex looked like. It's hundreds of years of anthropology study, tied in with all the other fields of science to bring you "what we think the t-rex looks like". No one is saying exactly what they look like, it is just interpretation based on science. But one thing is sure, there are bones, that are millions of years old, that are found together of creatures that don't exist any more. THAT is what they are saying. What's your problem little choir boy?

[tlongII]

It's called "branches of the evolutionary tree." Anybody that doesn't believe in evolution is freaking clueless in my opinion. I know that will upset some people, but so be it. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.

[I. Hustle]

Not at all. I was born half jewish / half catholic (whatever the fuck that means) so every week my family would switch off going to temple and church. I was able to see both sides of the religions and let me tell you, church is nothing but sensational mumbo jumbo. For christ's sake (see the pun) every time you attend church they make you raise both hands to the lord and scream swear your praise to the priest. The jewish religion is so much more down to earth its ridiculous, you don't see them combating science with lies and propaganda. Why? because they don't view their parish as customers who are supporting the church, they don't give a fuck if you believe in god or not. They don't meddle with evolution because it isn't going steal their lifeforce from them. I don't consider myself jewish or catholic (well I consider myself jewish by blood) but growing up with both influences it was clear to me which side is genuine and which side is out of their mind.

The church isn't the only organization that steals you are right, but its the fucking CHURCH. The organization that gives a majority of our country their morals. Oh yea, and they rape little boys, was that in god's plan? Hate to go there, but its just ludicrous how blind people are. Read an evolution text book, open your eyes little man.


I am very sorry you were raped by your priest. That shouldn't happen to anyone. I can understand why you hate the church so much now. I for one am not catholic so I don't believe in going to confessional or raising my hands to a "priest" so your little argument doesn't really stick with me.
I have seen a lot of cases like yours though, where people grow up in families with conflicting beliefs. Hell I have seen a ton of kids that rebel against the christian church because they were coddled the whole time and never given the chance to experience life.
Believe it or not but most believers don't believe in church leaders raping little boys. I am willing to bet that most of them would be there to support you and console you.

[MiamiHeat]

It's not just one guy who found one bone and was like hey look this is what a t-rex looked like. It's hundreds of years of anthropology study, tied in with all the other fields of science to bring you "what we think the t-rex looks like". No one is saying exactly what they look like, it is just interpretation based on science. But one thing is sure, there are bones, that are millions of years old, that are found together of creatures that don't exist any more. THAT is what they are saying. What's your problem little choir boy?

Again, the Bible does not specify when the Lord created the Earth.

If the bones are millions of years old or only 1 year old, it has no relevance towards the Lord. I don't see how you do not understand that.

[I. Hustle]

It's not just one guy who found one bone and was like hey look this is what a t-rex looked like. It's hundreds of years of anthropology study, tied in with all the other fields of science to bring you "what we think the t-rex looks like". No one is saying exactly what they look like, it is just interpretation based on science. But one thing is sure, there are bones, that are millions of years old, that are found together of creatures that don't exist any more. THAT is what they are saying. What's your problem little choir boy?

Nothing you just proved my point. You are all for money going to schools and research just for someone to say "eeehhhh that looks about right". Hundreds of years of study doesn't mean it's right. Isn't that your argument against the bible? I mean, putting all your faith into people's designs and ideas based on a few facts and handed down beliefs?

[koriwhat]

Some "facts" are subjective to the evidence currently provided. They change all the time, and will continue to. Anthropology is guess work, educated guess work, using the limited 'facts' available.

Anthropologists are constantly proven wrong, forced to shift their 'facts' around, change them, revise them, due to the nature of the field.

My facts are written down. Your facts are tiny bone fragments which may or may not belong to an ancient humanoid or a shaggy cocker spaniel.

youre clueless man. cluefuckinless!

[I. Hustle]

It's called "branches of the evolutionary tree." Anybody that doesn't believe in evolution is freaking clueless in my opinion. I know that will upset some people, but so be it. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.

And all I was asking is what your theories were. In your opinion how is the evidence overwhelming? Is it concrete and something that cannot be disproved? That is all I am asking. If you believe it that is cool I just want to know why.

[I. Hustle]

lol I keep getting KW and MH mixed up with each other. I thought it was the same person fighting with then against AL.

[koriwhat]

What about all the money funded for research? All the money put into people finding ONE bone and creating a whole being in whatever thought pops into their head. You buy it and say "Yeah that is exactly how the T-Rex looked", to me it is the same thing. You are putting your faith in whatever these people say no matter how many holes there are.
I didn't attack anyone in here or complain about what they were saying. So what's the problem little guy?

as for not knowing what a trex looks like... well thats what professionals in the field of anatomy are for. by studying such subjects you get a feel for what the bones would look like with meat on them.

[MiamiHeat]

youre clueless man. cluefuckinless!

We are all clueless from birth. We only know what we can see, feel, hear, taste, or touch.

Anything past that, is faith. Faith in the Lord or faith in a fragmented bone chip found in some sand.

[leemajors]

Some "facts" are subjective to the evidence currently provided. They change all the time, and will continue to. Anthropology is guess work, educated guess work, using the limited 'facts' available.

Anthropologists are constantly proven wrong, forced to shift their 'facts' around, change them, revise them, due to the nature of the field.

My facts are written down. Your facts are tiny bone fragments which may or may not belong to an ancient humanoid or a shaggy cocker spaniel.

Your facts were written down centuries after they were initially spoken. Not only that, they have been translated numerous times to get into a language you can read. Subjective?

[koriwhat]

Isn't that your argument against the bible? I mean, putting all your faith into people's designs and ideas based on a few facts and handed down beliefs?

show me the facts of the bible... i mean shit if i could create a fine ass woman out of 1 of my ribs id have no rib cage.

[rAm]

I am very sorry you were raped by your priest. That shouldn't happen to anyone. I can understand why you hate the church so much now. I for one am not catholic so I don't believe in going to confessional or raising my hands to a "priest" so your little argument doesn't really stick with me.
I have seen a lot of cases like yours though, where people grow up in families with conflicting beliefs. Hell I have seen a ton of kids that rebel against the christian church because they were coddled the whole time and never given the chance to experience life.
Believe it or not but most believers don't believe in church leaders raping little boys. I am willing to bet that most of them would be there to support you and console you.

Coddled? Did you not read? I grew up in a JEWISH CATHOLIC family who switched off going to different places of worship. You have seen a lot of cases like mine? How many Jewish Catholics do you know ? If anything my upbringing shows how little my parents cared for religion since they didn't mind their children going to opposing places of worship. I grew up being able to see both sides instead of being brainwashed. I'm not rebelling against the christian church, because I was never part of it like you are.

I'm over trying to enlighten you. Enjoy your little happy bubble you live in, you will go to heaven when you die and have your ass sit in clouds while you shit down on earth. Spare me. Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answer to.

[rAm]

as for not knowing what a trex looks like... well thats what professionals in the field of anatomy are for. by studying such subjects you get a feel for what the bones would look like with meat on them.

no no no, people that devote their whole lives to help solve the puzzle of the universe are wrong.

but people that devote their whole lives to preaching, feeding people crackers, and raping boys are right.

[MiamiHeat]

Your facts were written down centuries after they were initially spoken. Not only that, they have been translated numerous times. Try again.

Oral tradition was commonplace in those times. The world was still fairly illiterate. At one time, the ability to read and write was a trade secret known only to professional scribes. It is only recently that literacy has become more and more common.

For example, in 1730 France, 70% of the population was illiterate.

Thus, the Word of God was passed on, orally, until it was written down.

[rAm]

Nothing you just proved my point. You are all for money going to schools and research just for someone to say "eeehhhh that looks about right". Hundreds of years of study doesn't mean it's right. Isn't that your argument against the bible? I mean, putting all your faith into people's designs and ideas based on a few facts and handed down beliefs?

:lol

"eeehhhh that looks about right"

yea that's exactly what they say :lol

keep lying to yourself kid. I am not arguing against the bible, the bible is a great piece of text written by people much smarter than the people that are in charge of said bible today. The opposite is true of scientists

[I. Hustle]

show me the facts of the bible... i mean shit if i could create a fine ass woman out of 1 of my ribs id have no rib cage.


I am talking about facts like Jesus existed and that he did start the church and things like that. The argument I meant was that people believe in the bible based on some of the facts gathered. Believe it or not there are people named in the bible that were real.
That was all I was saying.

[koriwhat]

We are all clueless from birth. We only know what we can see, feel, hear, taste, or touch.

Anything past that, is faith. Faith in the Lord or faith in a fragmented bone chip found in some sand.

youre really reaching man...

i got faith in myself... faith in the fact that im breathing, living, and experiencing daily.

get back to me after youve found the void.

read something other than fictitious books like the bible, though i doubt youve even read that harry potter classic.

[leemajors]

Oral tradition was commonplace in those times. The world was still fairly illiterate. At one time, the ability to read and write was a trade secret known only to professional scribes. It is only recently that literacy has become more and more common.

For example, in 1730 France, 70% of the population was illiterate.

Thus, the Word of God was passed on, orally, until it was written down.

Purple monkey dishwasher. Duh.

[I. Hustle]

Coddled? Did you not read? I grew up in a JEWISH CATHOLIC family who switched off going to different places of worship. You have seen a lot of cases like mine? How many Jewish Catholics do you know ? If anything my upbringing shows how little my parents cared for religion since they didn't mind their children going to opposing places of worship. I grew up being able to see both sides instead of being brainwashed. I'm not rebelling against the christian church, because I was never part of it like you are.

I'm over trying to enlighten you. Enjoy your little happy bubble you live in, you will go to heaven when you die and have your ass sit in clouds while you shit down on earth. Spare me. Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answer to.

Ask some of the first people that posted in here if I insulted them for their different beliefs.

I am not sure if you know this but there are other religions besides Judaism and Catholicism. So when I said conflicting beliefs it wasn't limited to those two religions.
So if a person believes that when they die they are going to heaven that pisses you off? Why? Why do you care as long as they aren't shoving it down your throat? If anything I feel like I respected the ones in here that believe in evolution, with the exception of you of course but that is because you are one of those preachy people that can't stand to be questioned...hhhmmmm that sounds familiar.

[MiamiHeat]

Purple monkey dishwasher. Duh.

The Lord inspired man to write His Word down on paper. When He did this, he guided and inspired man to correctly record the Word of God.

This is known as Divine Inspiration. Any inaccuracies would have been eliminated.

[MiamiHeat]

Ask some of the first people that posted in here if I insulted them for their different beliefs.

If anything I feel like I respected the ones in here that believe in evolution, with the exception of you of course but that is because you are one of those preachy people that can't stand to be questioned...hhhmmmm that sounds familiar.


To be honest. It actually lasted longer than anticipated. The flood gates opened and the morons poured in.

[I. Hustle]

no no no, people that devote their whole lives to help solve the puzzle of the universe are wrong.

but people that devote their whole lives to preaching, feeding people crackers, and raping boys are right.

I never called anyone wrong. I just asked what the thories were. Show me where I said "No you are wrong for believing in evolution you idiot." Just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean I can't ask questions.

How many priests got to you to make you so bitter?

[Kermit]

The Lord inspired man to write His Word down on paper. When He did this, he guided and inspired man to correctly record the Word of God.

This is known as Divine Inspiration. Any inaccuracies would have been eliminated.

The bible has contradictions and inaccuracies. I'm sure MiamiHeat will blame them on the typists. Either that or God stuttered.

[MiamiHeat]

youre really reaching man...

i got faith in myself... faith in the fact that im breathing, living, and experiencing daily.

get back to me after youve found the void.

read something other than fictitious books like the bible, though i doubt youve even read that harry potter classic.

What is the point you wanted to convey in this post?

[MiamiHeat]

The bible has contradictions and inaccuracies. I'm sure MiamiHeat will blame them on the typists. Either that or God stuttered.

Show me where. I have heard this argument before, and I have never been presented with truth behind it.

[I. Hustle]

duh

The morons I was talking about weren't limited to one group. I meant you too.

[rAm]

You aren't even discussing evolution anymore because everything you say doesn't make sense to anyone but yourself. It's like you started this thread, because you knew it would push buttons, just so you can feel like a victim.

[rAm]

How old are you?

[Drachen]

And all I was asking is what your theories were. In your opinion how is the evidence overwhelming? Is it concrete and something that cannot be disproved? That is all I am asking. If you believe it that is cool I just want to know why.

Well since you asked, and since I already stated that both sides have at least SOME faith attached to it, I will answer this question. The reason why I have put more faith in my faith (science), than your faith (religion) is exactly because it is always changing. The fact that science CONSTANTLY challenges its own conclusions is what attracts me. Carl Sagan wrote in Demon Haunted World that there is nothing that a scientist would love more than to DISprove something that is held in extremely high regard, like gravity. Therefore, challenges to beliefs that are widely accepted are commonplace, but the scientific method doesn't only require proof but repeatability of such proof. Essentially, if the science of how humans came into being was represented by a target, evolution may (or may not) have hit the target, but with each new piece of evidence the aim is corrected ever so slightly and the theory moves closer to the bullseye (the answer).

I do not see the same thing happening with religion (and I don't know how you could even try to follow such a method with regards to religion outside of a time machine). The bible and other such texts written, as the bible, after the fact are essentially the only shreds of "evidence" that exist. Using the same target, the bible's "shot" could have hit dead center, or it could have been shot in the complete opposite direction from the target. Unfortunately, there is no way (that I can think of) to correct the aim, or triangulate its position with regard to the target.

[Kermit]

Show me where. I have heard this argument before, and I have never been presented with truth behind it.

I'm sure you have. They're pretty easy to find. Either way, you'll claim God's infallibility.

[MiamiHeat]

I never called anyone wrong. I just asked what the thories were. Show me where I said "No you are wrong for believing in evolution you idiot."


The morons I was talking about weren't limited to one group. I meant you too.

[I. Hustle]

You aren't even discussing evolution anymore because everything you say doesn't make sense to anyone but yourself. It's like you started this thread, because you knew it would push buttons, just so you can feel like a victim.

I don't feel like a victim at all. I started this thread to ask questions about people that might have studied a thing or two. Those people stopped posting because of idiots like you. You haven't brought up one thing about evolution aside from how bible thumpers are wrong and you are right. Now I am just having fun with you guys.

[MiamiHeat]

I'm sure you have. They're pretty easy to find.

Where are they? Post them.

[Kermit]

The Lord inspired man to write His Word down on paper. When He did this, he guided and inspired man to correctly record the Word of God.

This is known as Divine Inspiration. Any inaccuracies would have been eliminated.

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

[Kermit]

The Lord inspired man to write His Word down on paper. When He did this, he guided and inspired man to correctly record the Word of God.

This is known as Divine Inspiration. Any inaccuracies would have been eliminated.

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

[I. Hustle]

Well since you asked, and since I already stated that both sides have at least SOME faith attached to it, I will answer this question. The reason why I have put more faith in my faith (science), than your faith (religion) is exactly because it is always changing. The fact that science CONSTANTLY challenges its own conclusions is what attracts me. Carl Sagan wrote in Demon Haunted World that there is nothing that a scientist would love more than to DISprove something that is held in extremely high regard, like gravity. Therefore, challenges to beliefs that are widely accepted are commonplace, but the scientific method doesn't only require proof but repeatability of such proof. Essentially, if the science of how humans came into being was represented by a target, evolution may (or may not) have hit the target, but with each new piece of evidence the aim is corrected ever so slightly and the theory moves closer to the bullseye (the answer).

I do not see the same thing happening with religion (and I don't know how you could even try to follow such a method with regards to religion outside of a time machine). The bible and other such texts written, as the bible, after the fact are essentially the only shreds of "evidence" that exist. Using the same target, the bible's "shot" could have hit dead center, or it could have been shot in the complete opposite direction from the target. Unfortunately, there is no way (that I can think of) to correct the aim, or triangulate its position with regard to the target.

See! I can respect this post because he took the time to explain his beliefs for and against. I was actually just asking about theories you might have about evolution but the post was good nonetheless.

[Kermit]

The Lord inspired man to write His Word down on paper. When He did this, he guided and inspired man to correctly record the Word of God.

This is known as Divine Inspiration. Any inaccuracies would have been eliminated.

How many stalls and horsemen?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

[rAm]

Well since you asked, and since I already stated that both sides have at least SOME faith attached to it, I will answer this question. The reason why I have put more faith in my faith (science), than your faith (religion) is exactly because it is always changing. The fact that science CONSTANTLY challenges its own conclusions is what attracts me. Carl Sagan wrote in Demon Haunted World that there is nothing that a scientist would love more than to DISprove something that is held in extremely high regard, like gravity. Therefore, challenges to beliefs that are widely accepted are commonplace, but the scientific method doesn't only require proof but repeatability of such proof. Essentially, if the science of how humans came into being was represented by a target, evolution may (or may not) have hit the target, but with each new piece of evidence the aim is corrected ever so slightly and the theory moves closer to the bullseye (the answer).

I do not see the same thing happening with religion (and I don't know how you could even try to follow such a method with regards to religion outside of a time machine). The bible and other such texts written, as the bible, after the fact are essentially the only shreds of "evidence" that exist. Using the same target, the bible's "shot" could have hit dead center, or it could have been shot in the complete opposite direction from the target. Unfortunately, there is no way (that I can think of) to correct the aim, or triangulate its position with regard to the target.

Good Analogy.


I don't feel like a victim at all. I started this thread to ask questions about people that might have studied a thing or two. Those people stopped posting because of idiots like you. You haven't brought up one thing about evolution aside from how bible thumpers are wrong and you are right. Now I am just having fun with you guys.

Having fun? sure you are.

[MiamiHeat]

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

This is because of the way the Jewish Levirite Law works.

Both of those passages are correct, but need to be explained so you may understand.


In Jewish law, if a man dies without having created any children, his brother is to marry his widow, and the first son that is born would legally be the dead man's heir (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

In the story of Ruth, we see that this was not limited to brothers; the nearest male relative willing to take on the responsibility would marry the widow.

The logical (and traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox) understanding is that Joseph's mother was originally the wife of Heli, but that he died without offspring. His kinsman Jacob then took the widow as his wife, and she bore Joseph. So, while "Jacob begat Joseph", legally Joseph was the son of Heli. Both were descendants of Zerubabel, and apparently Jacob was the nearest kinsman to Heli willing to fulfill the Levirite duty.

Matthew follows the natural line of descent, while Luke follows the legal line of descent.

Nonetheless, the Word of God is accurate.

[Kermit]

The Lord inspired man to write His Word down on paper. When He did this, he guided and inspired man to correctly record the Word of God.

This is known as Divine Inspiration. Any inaccuracies would have been eliminated.

:lmao

Moses' personality
NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

[MiamiHeat]

One at a time, please.

I just explained the first one, if you have a response or apology, bring it now.

[Kermit]

The Lord inspired man to write His Word down on paper. When He did this, he guided and inspired man to correctly record the Word of God.

This is known as Divine Inspiration. Any inaccuracies would have been eliminated.

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - MAT 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - MAR 14:30


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

[I. Hustle]

Having fun? sure you are.

I am. If I was really going to get into a religious debate based on what I have seen here I would probably just pm Drachen. You really don't got the chops to hold a real debate little guy.

[Blake]

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - MAT 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - MAR 14:30


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

that's a lot of cock for one post.


Kermit......I thought you were better at spotting a troll job than that.

MH is king of the monkey men.

[Kermit]

One at a time, please.

I just explained the first one, if you have a response or apology, bring it now.

I'm not playing this game. You asked for some and I gave them to you. There are websites out there chock full of these. If you want to cut and paste as I have been doing, go to town.

[Kermit]

that's a lot of cock for one post.


Kermit......I thought you were better at spotting a troll job than that.

MH is king of the monkey men.

It's fun. You'll see how I bow out now having sown my seeds. See, bible parlance.

[Blake]

I'm not playing this game.


It's fun.

ok.

[MiamiHeat]

:lmao

Moses' personality
NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

This is not an inaccuracy. If you were to describe yourself as an honest man, and in the future, you tell a lie, does it mean you were inaccurate when you described yourself?

We are human, and we have free will. We may be humble today, behave differently tomorrow.

Numbers 12:3 was saying that, at the time, Moses was meek, humble. A future action does not change that he was meek at the time.

[Drachen]

Ram, have you ever studied the history of Hinduism, Buddism, etc just for the sake of cultural understanding or just because you are interested?

[Kermit]

ok.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0911/top.dogs/images/MackBrown.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

I'm not playing this game. You asked for some and I gave them to you. There are websites out there chock full of these. If you want to cut and paste as I have been doing, go to town.

You were just proven wrong. You posted a supposed "biblical inaccuracy" and were proven wrong. It is not an inaccuracy.

Do you not admit when you are wrong?

[Phenomanul]

addressing only the opening post's line of questioning....

The Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) has been around for *360+ million years and has pretty much remained unchanged. Its current psysiology matches that of coelacanth fossils from that era (fossil coelacanths have been found in all continents with the exception of Antartica). By no means is this fish at the top of the food chain in the Indian Ocean, where the two (known) prominent populations live. It is not too terribly fast, nor is it poisonous. It can reproduce every year, reaching sexual maturity by age 5, give live birth to over 20 pups, and can live as long as 80 years (though its colonies are still very rare)... Yet we are led to believe that this fish didn't change much in that extensive span of time? (of course, before being led to believe that it was all but extinct for over 70-85 million years).

Before its recent re-discovery (1938) it was believed that this fish was a transitional species between other fishes and amphibians... yet it displays little desire to come close to land. The coelacanth inhabits deep ocean waters (400 - 2500 feet deep), where there are submarine caverns, deep reefs and volcanic slopes...

Why haven't we found Coelacanth-derived progeny from the observed Coelacanth populations???... as in we've found coelacanths remarkably close to the original species (again from fossil comparisons). Yet we see no other variants around. After 360+ million years no less? Why doesn't it keep spawning variants that want to crawl on land? Those are all tougher questions.

[Blake]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0911/top.dogs/images/MackBrown.jpg

I heard the one on the right in the new defensive coordinator in waiting

[Kermit]

I heard the one on the right in the new defensive coordinator in waiting

Yeah, he's only allowed one visit now. Too bad. He was Mack's ace in the hole.

[MiamiHeat]

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - MAT 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - MAR 14:30


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

This is not an inaccuracy.

Mark is giving you more detail, whereas the others just tell you the punchline. They do not contradict each other. One is merely more in detail.

[Kermit]

This is not an inaccuracy.

Mark is giving you more detail, whereas the others just tell you the punchline. They do not contradict each other. One is merely more in detail.

Sure. God told more to Mark. Or Mark sniffed more glue that day. Or more cock.

[MiamiHeat]

So then, once again, the myth that the Word of God contradicts itself has failed again.

May the Light of the Almighty shine in our hearts. Amen.

[Kermit]

So then, once again, the myth that the Word of God contradicts itself has failed again.

May the Light of the Almighty shine in our hearts. Amen.

So sayeth MiamiHeat. Local douche, who has done nothing to disprove anything.

[MiamiHeat]

Sure. God told more to Mark. Or Mark sniffed more glue that day. Or more cock.

It does not only have to be that "God spoke" to the writers.

Remember, oral tradition. This was passed down until it was written down.

So, the Lord could have chosen specific people who had kept the accurate Word of God, virtuous men, men who served God.

So, perhaps one man chose to write down "twice" and the rest just told you about the punchline. The Word of God does not change it's meaning either way.

[Blake]

addressing only the opening post's line of questioning....

The Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) has been around for *360+ million years and has pretty much remained unchanged. Its current psysiology matches that of coelacanth fossils from that era (fossil coelacanths have been found in all continents with the exception of Antartica). By no means is this fish at the top of the food chain in the Indian Ocean, where the two (known) prominent populations live. It is not too terribly fast, nor is it poisonous. It can reproduce every year, reaching sexual maturity by age 5, give live birth to over 20 pups, and can live as long as 80 years (though its colonies are still very rare)... Yet we are led to believe that this fish didn't change much in that extensive span of time? (of course, before being led to believe that it was all but extinct for over 70-85 million years).

Before its recent re-discovery (1938) it was believed that this fish was a transitional species between other fishes and amphibians... yet it displays little desire to come close to land. The coelacanth inhabits deep ocean waters (400 - 2500 feet deep), where there are submarine caverns, deep reefs and volcanic slopes...

Why haven't we found Coelacanth-derived progeny from the observed Coelacanth populations???... as in we've found coelacanths remarkably close to the original species (again from fossil comparisons). Yet we see no other variants around. After 360+ million years no less? Why doesn't it keep spawning variants that want to crawl on land? Those are all tougher questions.


Claim CB930.1:
The coelacanth, thought to have been extinct for seventy million years and used as an example of a fish-tetrapod transition, is found still alive, unchanged in form, today.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 82-83,89.
Response:
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."


Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.


Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

[MiamiHeat]

So sayeth MiamiHeat. Local douche, who has done nothing to disprove anything.


Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

This is because of the way the Jewish Levirite Law works.

Both of those passages are correct, but need to be explained so you may understand.


In Jewish law, if a man dies without having created any children, his brother is to marry his widow, and the first son that is born would legally be the dead man's heir (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

In the story of Ruth, we see that this was not limited to brothers; the nearest male relative willing to take on the responsibility would marry the widow.

The logical (and traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox) understanding is that Joseph's mother was originally the wife of Heli, but that he died without offspring. His kinsman Jacob then took the widow as his wife, and she bore Joseph. So, while "Jacob begat Joseph", legally Joseph was the son of Heli. Both were descendants of Zerubabel, and apparently Jacob was the nearest kinsman to Heli willing to fulfill the Levirite duty.

Matthew follows the natural line of descent, while Luke follows the legal line of descent.

Nonetheless, the Word of God is accurate.

[koriwhat]

Ram, have you ever studied the history of Hinduism, Buddism, etc just for the sake of cultural understanding or just because you are interested?

i have and have taken college courses on them too... still not very interested in religion.

[stretch]

evolution never happened

end of story, you ignorant fucks

[koriwhat]

This is because of the way the Jewish Levirite Law works.

Both of those passages are correct, but need to be explained so you may understand.


In Jewish law, if a man dies without having created any children, his brother is to marry his widow, and the first son that is born would legally be the dead man's heir (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

In the story of Ruth, we see that this was not limited to brothers; the nearest male relative willing to take on the responsibility would marry the widow.

The logical (and traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox) understanding is that Joseph's mother was originally the wife of Heli, but that he died without offspring. His kinsman Jacob then took the widow as his wife, and she bore Joseph. So, while "Jacob begat Joseph", legally Joseph was the son of Heli. Both were descendants of Zerubabel, and apparently Jacob was the nearest kinsman to Heli willing to fulfill the Levirite duty.

Matthew follows the natural line of descent, while Luke follows the legal line of descent.

Nonetheless, the Word of God is accurate.

stop regurgitating your shit man.

[koriwhat]

mavs never won shit

end of story, im an ignorant fuck

[Drachen]

It does not only have to be that "God spoke" to the writers.

Remember, oral tradition. This was passed down until it was written down.

So, the Lord could have chosen specific people who had kept the accurate Word of God, virtuous men, men who served God.

So, perhaps one man chose to write down "twice" and the rest just told you about the punchline. The Word of God does not change it's meaning either way.

I am sorry, but I do have to step in here. You said that it was the word of god. One could derive that this means, that it is not open to the interpretations or desires of the man holding the pen (i.e. one felt like writing one, the other two). Now, if you allow that the man holding the pen had creative license, then we are back to square one with this arguement (i.e. how do we know that what a man wrote anywhere from 100 years to centuries after the fact was accurate).
You also say that oral traditions were used at first (and used this to explain a discrepancy). Did God divinely inspire the story at the beginning of the oral tradition, or did he inspire the person who finally wrote it down? If the former, then the process of story telling over a period from 100 to several hundered years could cause the story to become full of embellishments. If the latter, then each time it was written should have allowed for no discrepancies.

As far as that father/brother/kinsman thing, this explanation seems to work except for two things. Gods word is supposed to be the absolute truth, not the absolute truth passed through the lens of someone's culture. It would seem that if gods words are subjected to the filter of someone's culture then isn't it more likely that this culture created him, rather than the other way around. If you want to respond that it was written through the lens of the culture, so not necessarily the absolute truth, but very close, and that the reason why god did this was to be able to communicate better with his people, ok, fine. I have to ask two questions, though, how much was the absolute truth changed to the almost absolute truth for cultural preferences, and why, during the 5th century (for example), didn't god intervene in the copying process and switch things back to the absolute truth. "Joseph son of this guy and kinsman of this guy."

Yes I feel dirty for jumping in the fray. Dang it.

[MiamiHeat]

i have and have taken college courses on them too... still not very interested in religion.

That is your own journey. We are all ready at different times.

Sometimes, we need to go through certain experiences, follow our paths, discover ourselves, many things.

May the Lord bless you.

[MiamiHeat]

I am sorry, but I do have to step in here. You said that it was the word of god. One could derive that this means, that it is not open to the interpretations or desires of the man holding the pen (i.e. one felt like writing one, the other two). Now, if you allow that the man holding the pen had creative license,

Apparently, Mark records the word 'twice'

the others only record that the 'cock crew'

They didn't say "once", they simply got to the point.

All of them are correct, and that is not a contradiction or 'creative license'

[Drachen]

i have and have taken college courses on them too... still not very interested in religion.


No the reason I asked this is that he was getting all bend out of shape by Hustle asking some questions about something that Hustle stated he doesn't believe in. Now I gather that you and hustle have your differences (because someone mentioned it earlier in the thread), and you may come back with something along the lines of "hustle acts moronic in other threads, so I am going to get up in arms in this thread." I don't see it that way. To me, he was asking some questions about what the "opposition" thinks. Inquiry is the root of learning, regardless of if it changes your opinion or not. So, I was going to liken it (for RAM), to someone studying hinduism, or any other religion. You don't believe in it but you are studying it to a) better understand the culture, b)because you are just interested, c)any other reason you can think of. Hustle was learning about something with which he doesn't agree, and until BOTH sides started coming in here and made it a this v. that argument as opposed to a Q & A session about one side, hustle conducted himself well, asking questions, and follow up questions.

So... that was the point of the hindu question.

[Phenomanul]

Claim CB930.1:
The coelacanth, thought to have been extinct for seventy million years and used as an example of a fish-tetrapod transition, is found still alive, unchanged in form, today.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 82-83,89.
Response:
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."

Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

Except for the fact that Coelacanth fossils have been found almost everywhere. Are you considering all of those environments to be non-changing? Especially after 360 million years of geologic activity? Further still, is their current environment considered non-changing? They live in the Indian Ocean off of Africa (and another family around Indonesia) around tectonic plates no less..? If anything, how is the fact that all the other fish species surrounding the coelacanths have drastically changed over hundreds of thousands of generations not considered a change? Have Coelacanths kept the same diet all those years? How did their diet not suddenly become the predator given all those years to adapt? I mean they could have evolved to grow larger than the coelacanths who suprisingly remained fairly unchanged in that same span.

Yet another logical fallacy in your bible's rebuttal (talkorigins.com).

Oh BTW... the coelacanth fossils in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Madagascar are from the same family as those living today. Talkorigins is outright lying by suggesting that they have no fossil record. Just thought you'd want to know that before you tossed away the entire argument...

Seems like they have to work harder.



Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

Yet none of them venture close to land because they live in the depths of the open sea floor.

Mudskippers which are probably the closest fish-to-amphibian species (not including lung-fishes) are so distantly related to Coelacanths that it's not even funny.

Use your own thinking skills blake... sadly, I know you'll just continue to rebuttal with cut&paste jobs... I don't have the time to deal with that.

You'll just end up seeing everything with those Godless lenses of yours.

Been there... done that... x1000 here at SpursTalk.com

What's the point?

-Peace

[MiamiHeat]

As far as that father/brother/kinsman thing, this explanation seems to work except for two things. Gods word is supposed to be the absolute truth, not the absolute truth passed through the lens of someone's culture. It would seem that if gods words are subjected to the filter of someone's culture then isn't it more likely that this culture created him, rather than the other way around. If you want to respond that it was written through the lens of the culture, so not necessarily the absolute truth, but very close, and that the reason why god did this was to be able to communicate better with his people, ok, fine. I have to ask two questions, though, how much was the absolute truth changed to the almost absolute truth for cultural preferences, and why, during the 5th century (for example), didn't god intervene in the copying process and switch things back to the absolute truth. "Joseph son of this guy and kinsman of this guy." .

It is the Truth.

Jesus spoke in parables, so that we may understand His Word. The Lord teaches us in ways that we may understand.

Thus, it is in this way that the Lord had man to write His Word down.

Both of the passages are correct about Joseph, however, they are seen through human eyes, so that we may understand.

This is how God cares for us and teaches us.

[koriwhat]

That is your own journey. We are all ready at different times.

Sometimes, we need to go through certain experiences, follow our paths, discover ourselves, many things.

May the Lord bless you.

haha!

i believe in myself as i believe in a higher being, you call him/it LORD. im no ignorant to my surroundings or my experiences and therefore i believe in something more than any of us can even perceive.

the one thing i found funny about all those religious courses was the fact that what i experienced on LSD back in the day was exactly what most would shy away from but what most seem so eager to find... the void. i think a little LSD would do us all great wonders!

i thought it was a bit odd that after my craziest trip i kept telling everyone about the void and only to find out yrs and yrs later in those religious courses that all religions hint on such a thing.

did i find god? no. did i find peace? yes. but in the end i realized theres more out there than i can even imagine trying to wrap up into a book that is not as real as the drug i took to get closer to your lord.

eh drug talk. fuck it!

all i know is what i can control and that is me. i am the driver of this person and thats why i say i believe in myself. believe in yourself!

[monosylab1k]

again? really?

[Drachen]

Apparently, Mark records the word 'twice'

the others only record that the 'cock crew'

They didn't say "once", they simply got to the point.

All of them are correct, and that is not a contradiction or 'creative license'


It is, however, creative license since it was dependent on the whims of the writer and is not the same as that written by the other writers. Also, if the cock crows once, it crows period so specifying twice is different than saying the cock crows. If I say you will kick be before I speak, it is different than me saying you will interrupt me before I speak 2 words.

[koriwhat]

No the reason I asked this is that he was getting all bend out of shape by Hustle asking some questions about something that Hustle stated he doesn't believe in. Now I gather that you and hustle have your differences (because someone mentioned it earlier in the thread), and you may come back with something along the lines of "hustle acts moronic in other threads, so I am going to get up in arms in this thread." I don't see it that way. To me, he was asking some questions about what the "opposition" thinks. Inquiry is the root of learning, regardless of if it changes your opinion or not. So, I was going to liken it (for RAM), to someone studying hinduism, or any other religion. You don't believe in it but you are studying it to a) better understand the culture, b)because you are just interested, c)any other reason you can think of. Hustle was learning about something with which he doesn't agree, and until BOTH sides started coming in here and made it a this v. that argument as opposed to a Q & A session about one side, hustle conducted himself well, asking questions, and follow up questions.

So... that was the point of the hindu question.

nah nah... hustle and i are cool! hey hustle who was it you made a wager with me to beat down? haha. i cant remember what troll that was that was giving you shit.

[stretch]

:lmao

[koriwhat]

monos a bitch! a primitive one at that which has not evolved at all.

[I. Hustle]

nah nah... hustle and i are cool! hey hustle who was it you made a wager with me to beat down? haha. i cant remember what troll that was that was giving you shit.

It was MiamiHeat. The Hustle vs. KW card was switched to KW vs. MH. That dude is an idiot.

[koriwhat]

It was MiamiHeat. The Hustle vs. KW card was switched to KW vs. MH. That dude is an idiot.

i thought it was MH but i wasnt quite sure... hmm... interesting!

[IronMexican]

I believe I am half-human, half-Saiyan.

[stretch]

i think this should be the new "KFC" post

just a shitload of shit to ruin gayass threads

[marini martini]

I heart C.S. Lewis' writings!!!:tu

[koriwhat]

man IGNORE is a wonderful feature!

[stretch]

man im BUTTHURT and its a wonderful feature!

cool story bro :tu

[dirk4mvp]

Remembah det one time someone got pissed off and started a thread about mono being a shitty troll due to posting these fine literary works?

[Phenomanul]

mono's reaction is a cowardly act of frustration that shows us all what the spirit of discourse means to him.

It's like a little boy yelling "blah blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!" when being asked to behave in a civil manner.

At this point we shouldn't expect more from him...

"Since they oppose my viewpoint and don't believe as I do... I will simply wipeout any semblance of discourse on their part with my childish antics..."

LAME

:td

[jaffies]

I heard GiG has a SCREWTAPE out there on the net

[koriwhat]

cool story bro :tu

you make no sense man... next!

[monosylab1k]

mono's reaction is a cowardly act of frustration that shows us all what the spirit of discourse means to him.

It's like a little boy yelling "blah blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!" when being asked to behave in a civil manner.

At this point we shouldn't expect more from him...

"Since they oppose my viewpoint and don't believe as I do... I will simply wipeout any semblance of discourse on their part with my childish antics..."

LAME

:td

I haven't even posted my viewpoint in this thread you fucking dipshit.

[Phenomanul]

I haven't even posted my views in this thread you fucking dipshit.

This is not the first time you've done this. (and or you Mavs friends clambake & stretch) :wakeup

[monosylab1k]

other than the fact that another God vs. Evolution thread is, for the millionth time, fucking retarded.

[monosylab1k]

anyways, I'm eager to know what happens next.

[Phenomanul]

other than the fact that another God vs. Evolution thread is, for the millionth time, fucking retarded.

Like I said... you're nothing more than a child.

Grow up.

[MiamiHeat]

May the Lord bless you

Amen.

[monosylab1k]

Like I said... you're nothing more than a child.

Grow up.

It's the fucking internet.

Grow up.

[monosylab1k]

May the Lord bless you

Amen.

Thank you sons.

[jaffies]

FADE OUT ...

that's bullshit!

Dr. Walsh's assistant wasn't killed in the lab fire, so she knows that Castor is Archer and Archer is Castor. But didn't tell ANYONE?!?

[monosylab1k]

that's bullshit!

Dr. Walsh's assistant wasn't killed in the lab fire, so she knows that Castor is Archer and Archer is Castor. But didn't tell ANYONE?!?

I know!

[CuckingFunt]

Is "Archer" any good? I like H. Jon Benjamin, but was never a fan of "Frisky Dingo."

[tlongII]

And all I was asking is what your theories were. In your opinion how is the evidence overwhelming? Is it concrete and something that cannot be disproved? That is all I am asking. If you believe it that is cool I just want to know why.

It's definitely something that cannot be disproved.

[clambake]

This is not the first time you've done this. (and or you Mavs friends clambake & stretch) :wakeup

you didn't thank me for removing that sig after your meltdown.

[MiamiHeat]

As I said before, evolution still fits into the Lord's plan.

[clambake]

which lord?

[MiamiHeat]

which lord?

The same Lord of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

[phyzik]

google Ardi. Make your own conclusions.

[Blake]

Except for the fact that Coelacanth fossils have been found almost everywhere. Are you considering all of those environments to be non-changing? Especially after 360 million years of geologic activity? Further still, is their current environment considered non-changing? They live in the Indian Ocean off of Africa (and another family around Indonesia) around tectonic plates no less..? If anything, how is the fact that all the other fish species surrounding the coelacanths have drastically changed over hundreds of thousands of generations not considered a change? Have Coelacanths kept the same diet all those years? How did their diet not suddenly become the predator given all those years to adapt? I mean they could have evolved to grow larger than the coelacanths who suprisingly remained fairly unchanged in that same span.

Yet another logical fallacy in your bible's rebuttal (talkorigins.com).

Oh BTW... the coelacanth fossils in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Madagascar are from the same family as those living today. Talkorigins is outright lying by suggesting that they have no fossil record. Just thought you'd want to know that before you tossed away the entire argument...

Seems like they have to work harder.


Coelacanths
Two Living Species of Latimeria and their Evolution.
Jan 12, 2007 John Blatchford

The genus Latimeria (the coelacanths) has only two known living representatives. These are Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis . They both live in deep water (one off the coast of Africa and the other in Indonesian waters). The two species diverged a long time ago, maybe as much as 40M years, and their ancestors are known from the fossil record for as far back as 400M. But are they really ‘living fossils’?

I would argue that every creature alive today is equally ‘modern’. The coelacanth developed his body-form a long time ago, but surely he has been evolving ever since – just like the rest of us? There are no known fossils of the two living species, and all we have is their relatives.

http://fishinsects.suite101.com/article.cfm/_old_four_legs_

Seems like you should work harder.


Use your own thinking skills blake... sadly, I know you'll just continue to rebuttal with cut&paste jobs... I don't have the time to deal with that.

My thinking skills tell me a slappy like you that's blabbering on a sports message board isn't really a reliable source of information.

Sadly for you, I have the time to cut&paste the arguments from scientific sources that own you.




Been there... done that... x1000 here at SpursTalk.com

What's the point?

-Peace

I don't know. What is the point of you taking the time to get beat down x1000 here at ST?

[MB20]

I´d like to know what you think happened to Dinosaurs...

(copied and pasted from the www)

The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24–31)

God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2–3; 7:8–9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark.

/end copy-paste

If they were on the Ark...they should be alive, right?
If they were too big and were left behind to die...why did God killed them all?

Not trolling. Serious question.

[DarkReign]

I love these threads. Always brings out the crazy in otherwise normal people.

[monosylab1k]

oh jeez, did some other little pussy cry to Kori because I was being mean on the internet?

:cry :cry :cry

[I. Hustle]

I´d like to know what you think happened to Dinosaurs...

(copied and pasted from the www)

The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24–31)

God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2–3; 7:8–9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark.

/end copy-paste

If they were on the Ark...they should be alive, right?
If they were too big and were left behind to die...why did God killed them all?

Not trolling. Serious question.

Here is my opinion. In the bible it says that he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh but it also says that a thousand years to us is like one day to God and that God "inhabits eternity". So our concept of time is not necessarily His concept of time.
That was my small thought on that and I will not discuss it any further since this thread has already been derailed enough.

[I. Hustle]

oh jeez, did some other little pussy cry to Kori because I was being mean on the internet?

:cry :cry :cry

Who are you? Are you talking about me since this is the thread I started? If you are dude then sorry but I didn't even notice you but if you are talking about someone else then my bad.

[tlongII]

Here is my opinion. In the bible it says that he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh but it also says that a thousand years to us is like one day to God and that God "inhabits eternity". So our concept of time is not necessarily His concept of time.
That was my small thought on that and I will not discuss it any further since this thread has already been derailed enough.

Where does it say that?

[Blake]

Where does it say that?

I know a lot of people knock google, but a 5 second search using key words like "Bible" and "thousand years" really makes things easy.

2 peter 3:8

[I. Hustle]

Where does it say that?


But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.

[tlongII]

Thanks. Just askin...

[monosylab1k]

Who are you? Are you talking about me since this is the thread I started? If you are dude then sorry but I didn't even notice you but if you are talking about someone else then my bad.

I had no clue you even started this thread, I was talking about someone else.

[I. Hustle]

I had no clue you even started this thread, I was talking about someone else.

Oh ok... um well... carry on?

[I. Hustle]

Thanks. Just askin...

That's cool. I appreciate the civility

[MiamiHeat]

Dinosaurs fit in with God's plan.

The passage of time as we know it does not relate to the Most High.

The Bible clearly states that a "day" to the Lord is like a thousand years to us.

It clearly says that time on earth passes much quicker than to the Lord. Remember, we are taught in a way that we may understand. Do not make the mistake of trying to figure out an equation like 1 day = 1 thousand years, because that's not the case.

For all we know, one moment for the Lord is 1 billion years on Earth. The Most High God did not fully explain all of this, He just told us enough to understand that the concept of time on earth is much different in Heaven.

[101A]

Dinosaurs fit in with God's plan.



What do you mean?

It's not like their existence for millions of years, millions of years ago has conveniently provided any type of useful resource for us today.

http://247wallst.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tx-00338-coil-well-gusher-odessa-texas-posters.jpg

[I. Hustle]

Dinosaurs fit in with God's plan.

The passage of time as we know it does not relate to the Most High.

The Bible clearly states that a "day" to the Lord is like a thousand years to us.

It clearly says that time on earth passes much quicker than to the Lord. Remember, we are taught in a way that we may understand. Do not make the mistake of trying to figure out an equation like 1 day = 1 thousand years, because that's not the case.

For all we know, one moment for the Lord is 1 billion years on Earth. The Most High God did not fully explain all of this, He just told us enough to understand that the concept of time on earth is much different in Heaven.

You are reaching now. Blake and I already posted two examples from scripture. I know you are really trying to aggravate people but at least come up with your own stuff.
If I was going to argue against evolution and the people who say that the earth is older than what creationist believe those are the scriptures I would have used. You probably hadn't even heard of them until now. Here is a scripture for you

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


If you are going to argue using the bible then don't come here with that weak sauce. Anyone can google and randomly find stuff but you have to know what you are talking about in order to have a valid debate.

[MiamiHeat]

What do you mean?

It's not like their existence for millions of years, millions of years ago has conveniently provided any type of useful resource for us today.

Yes, exactly. All with a purpose.

[Ignignokt]

Wow, why is I. Hustle doubting evolution. I thought he was under the tutelage of the late great BacksideBasics trailer park prophet, who strongly believes in evolution.

[Ignignokt]

You are reaching now. Blake and I already posted two examples from scripture. I know you are really trying to aggravate people but at least come up with your own stuff.
If I was going to argue against evolution and the people who say that the earth is older than what creationist believe those are the scriptures I would have used. You probably hadn't even heard of them until now. Here is a scripture for you


If you are going to argue using the bible then don't come here with that weak sauce. Anyone can google and randomly find stuff but you have to know what you are talking about in order to have a valid debate.


Rofl, what does II Timothy say about evolution?

[MiamiHeat]

You are reaching now. Blake and I already posted two examples from scripture. I know you are really trying to aggravate people but at least come up with your own stuff.
If I was going to argue against evolution and the people who say that the earth is older than what creationist believe those are the scriptures I would have used. You probably hadn't even heard of them until now. Here is a scripture for you


If you are going to argue using the bible then don't come here with that weak sauce. Anyone can google and randomly find stuff but you have to know what you are talking about in order to have a valid debate.


I see no point to all of this yammering other than "I discovered the 1 day, 1 thousand years passage! Nobody ever knew about it and you copied me wahhh!"


Obviously you are incorrect about my previous knowledge, and you made no other point in that post. Moving on.

[I. Hustle]

Wow, why is I. Hustle doubting evolution. I thought he was under the tutelage of the late great BacksideBasics trailer park prophet, who strongly believes in evolution?

That shows how much you know. I was just asking people their thoughts and theories. The only people I am debating with on here are the ones that are just acting like idiots and they are on both sides of the argument. I enjoy history, science, etc. so I like to hear peoples thoughts on the subject.
As far as B2B, he and I have completely different views on a variety of topics including but not limited to religion and homosexuality but that does not mean we can't be friends.

[MiamiHeat]

I love these threads. Always brings out the crazy in otherwise normal people.

What is normal and what is crazy, to you?

Isn't it all relative? subjective of time and place?

We all have faith, each and every one of us.

[Ignignokt]

That shows how much you know.

It's not my fault your happenings are a boring humorless narrative akin to Malcolm in the middle.

[I. Hustle]

I see no point to all of this yammering other than "I discovered the 1 day, 1 thousand years passage! Nobody ever knew about it and you copied me wahhh!"


Obviously you are incorrect about my previous knowledge, and you made no other point in that post. Moving on.

ALL you r other stuff is just copied and pasted and has nothing to do with anything you might have actually studied. That was just an example of how you are just repeating the same stuff over and over.

[MiamiHeat]

oh jeez, did some other little pussy cry to Kori because I was being mean on the internet?

:cry :cry :cry

It wasn't me, but I just wanted to say what you did wasn't mean.

It was just spam, and what's the point of that? Trying to control what other people are doing because you don't like the same conversation being debated again?

Just ignore it.

May the Lord Bless you. Amen.

[I. Hustle]

It's not my fault your happenings are a boring humorless narrative akin to Malcolm in the middle.

Then who do I blame it on? This whole time I was blaming you.

[MiamiHeat]

ALL you r other stuff is just copied and pasted and has nothing to do with anything you might have actually studied. That was just an example of how you are just repeating the same stuff over and over.

You speak of things you do not know anything about. You have zero knowledge of my understanding, or my studies, of the Word of God.

Peace be to you, and I pray that the Most High will give you humility and understanding towards others.

[Blake]

If you are going to argue using the bible then don't come here with that weak sauce. Anyone can google and randomly find stuff but you have to know what you are talking about in order to have a valid debate.

:troll

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112981&highlight=zoroastrianism

[Ignignokt]

Then who do I blame it on? This whole time I was blaming you.

You're blaming me for you being a humorless boring idiot?

I didn't know i had such power.

[Ignignokt]

Btw,

MiamiHeat has totally SPWNED I hustle here.


MiamiHeat is the best troll on this site BARNONEah!

[Phenomanul]

Seems like you should work harder.


Just cause your athiest friends say so? not likely. :lmao

If I believed everything I read in scientific journals I would be running around like "chicken little" believing that we are headed towards climatic doom.

Science isn't as "pure" as you believe it to be.



My thinking skills tell me a slappy like you that's blabbering on a sports message board isn't really a reliable source of information.

Sadly for you, I have the time to cut&paste the arguments from scientific sources that own you.

It's a shame that you have to admit that YOU can't handle defense of your own beliefs. Cut&Paste jobs are still lame, considering you can't back up what they're saying anymore than you'd allow yourself to believe that what I was saying was actually true or even plausible. Fact of the matter is that those glasses you're wearing predetermine and bias what you perceive as truth... that convenient filtration however, in no way invalidates absolute TRUTH. And what is that exactly? Reality as perceived by the Creator. You can't change that reality no matter how hard you scream and kick in the process.




I don't know. What is the point of you taking the time to get beat down x1000 here at ST?
Says you... but you can continue deluding yourself all you want.

For that matter, you can continue to believe that evidence for a cosmic origin has no philosophical impact. Even though the notion that energy/matter does not randomly appear from "nothing" has been constantly affirmed and never disproven.

You can continue to believe that multiverses exist just so that in the context of infinite time and infinite possibilities your side can make your improbable math work out.

You can continue to believe that the combination of finely tuned universal constants was achieved by pure luck (even when mathmatically this is all but impossible).

You can continue to believe that the creation of DNA, and the odds against viable genetic code, are a walk-in-the-park from a probability standpoint. Purpose be damed! Molecular stability be damed! Entropy be damed! and logic be damed! After all, your side believes that DNA and soft tissues can remain intact without degradation after millions of years.

You can continue to turn away from the fact that abundant genetic wealth already exists within a species' genome (see canine family). So rather than admit that creatures are adapting by the turning off-turning on or the recombination of genes already present in their genome, you'd rather believe the fairy tale that species somehow develop new, beneficial, genetic code through mostly deleterious genetic processes.

etc... etc... etc...

Lastly, you would have me believe that all such gaps in your beloved theories can one day be closed out to support your views. Much like the belief that coelacanths were a transitionary species even when the current renditions live in deep sea waters without exhibiting any desire to crawl on land... faux conclusions to support an evolutionary view??? Say it aint so!

Keep wearing your Godless Goggles blake! No one's stopping you.

-Peace

[I. Hustle]

You're blaming me for you being a humorless boring idiot?

I didn't know i had such power.

Well I thought it was you this whole time. You didn't know you had the power but you do. So are you saying that you are taking credit or you aren't taking credit? I am confused now.

[z0sa]

For that matter, you can continue to believe that evidence for a cosmic origin has no philosophical impact. Even though the notion that enery/matter does not randomly appear from "nothing" has been constantly affirmed and never disproven.

You can continue to believe that multiverses exist just so that in the context of infinite time and infinite possibilities your side can make your improbable math work out.

You can continue to believe that the combination of finely tuned universal constants was achieved by pure luck (even when mathmatically this is all but impossible).

You can continue to believe that the creation of DNA, and the odds against viable genetic code, are a walk-in-the-park from a probability standpoint. Purpose be damed! Molecular stability be damed! Entropy be damed! and logic be damed! After all, your side believes that DNA and soft tissues can remain intact without degradation after millions of years.

You can continue to turn away from the fact that abundant genetic wealth already exists within a species' genome (see canine family). So rather than admit that creatures are adapting by the turning off-turning on or the recombination of genes already present in their genome, you'd rather believe the fairy tale that species somehow develop new, beneficial, genetic code through mostly deleterious genetic processes.

etc... etc... etc...

Lastly, you would have me believe that all such gaps in your beloved theories can one day be closed out to support your views. Much like the belief that coelacanths were a transitionary species even when the current renditions live in deep sea waters without exhibiting any desire to crawl on land... faux conclusions to support an evolutionary view??? Say it aint so!

:clap

[Ignignokt]

Well I thought it was you this whole time. You didn't know you had the power but you do. So are you saying that you are taking credit or you aren't taking credit? I am confused now.

Either way, you've admitted you're a boring humorless idiot, you can stay confused on the part on who to blame. I like it this way better.

[clambake]

Ouija board is all you need.

[MiamiHeat]

Ouija board is all you need.

Such practices are not to be done....

[clambake]

Such practices are not to be done....

tell that to phen.

[I. Hustle]

Either way, you've admitted you're a boring humorless idiot, you can stay confused on the part on who to blame. I like it this way better.

I admit it completely but what am I supposed to do now? I mean I thought I was doing ok until you pointed this out for me. Since you pointed out my flaws I figured you would have the answer for me.

[Ignignokt]

I admit it completely but what am I supposed to do now? I mean I thought I was doing ok until you pointed this out for me. Since you pointed out my flaws I figured you would have the answer for me.

I don't think there's much you can do about it. That's my awnser.

[I. Hustle]

I don't think there's much you can do about it. That's my awnser.

Look dude, are you going to help me or not? If you are going to point out the mistakes then you have to know how to fix them. My hands are tied here. I don't know which way is up anymore and I am coming to you for the awnser

[Blake]

Just cause your athiest friends say so? not likely. :lmao

If I believed everything I read in scientific journals I would be running around like "chicken little" believing that we are headed towards climatic doom.

Science isn't as "pure" as you believe it to be.

If I believed everything I read in the Bible I would be running around like "chicken little" believing that we are headed towards climatic doom.

Real science is more pure than your baloney posts.



It's a shame that you have to admit that YOU can't handle defense of your own beliefs. Cut&Paste jobs are still lame, considering you can't back up what they're saying anymore than you'd allow yourself to believe that what I was saying was actually true or even plausible. Fact of the matter is that those glasses you're wearing predetermine and bias what you perceive as truth... that convenient filtration however, in no way invalidates absolute TRUTH. And what is that exactly? Reality as perceived by the Creator. You can't change that reality no matter how hard you scream and kick in the process.

Fact of the matter is you are all opinion with no links, no sources and no research of your own. You fail to prove what you are saying is actually true or even plausible. No amount of screaming and kicking on your part proves anything you have been saying.



Says you... but you can continue deluding yourself all you want.

For that matter, you can continue to believe that evidence for a cosmic origin has no philosophical impact. Even though the notion that energy/matter does not randomly appear from "nothing" has been constantly affirmed and never disproven.

we are talking evolution, not abiogenesis.



Lastly, you would have me believe that all such gaps in your beloved theories can one day be closed out to support your views. Much like the belief that coelacanths were a transitionary species even when the current renditions live in deep sea waters without exhibiting any desire to crawl on land... faux conclusions to support an evolutionary view??? Say it aint so!

I wouldn't have you believe anything you don't want to.

What it is is that I don't believe anything you say. I'll go ahead and take the word of a scientific journal's study over your opinion.


Keep wearing your Godless Goggles blake! No one's stopping you.

-Peace

Keep on taking the time to respond even though you continually complain that you really have no time to do so. No one's stopping you.

-Peace

[leemajors]

Fact of the matter is that those glasses you're wearing predetermine and bias what you perceive as truth... that convenient filtration however, in no way invalidates absolute TRUTH. And what is that exactly? Reality as perceived by the Creator. You can't change that reality no matter how hard you scream and kick in the process.

I think it's great you have faith. It's also convenient to claim your faith is the only possible reality and absolute unshakable truth/fact. Of course science isn't pure. Religion isn't either. But at least scientists are open to being proven wrong.

[Ignignokt]

Look dude, are you going to help me or not? If you are going to point out the mistakes then you have to know how to fix them. My hands are tied here. I don't know which way is up anymore and I am coming to you for the awnser

I'm sorry guy, but i've already helped you out by pointing out to you that you're a humorless boring idiot, there's nothing you can do 'bout it.

[Rappin' Raptor]

I exist!!! RAWR!

[MB20]

Here is my opinion. In the bible it says that he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh but it also says that a thousand years to us is like one day to God and that God "inhabits eternity". So our concept of time is not necessarily His concept of time.
That was my small thought on that and I will not discuss it any further since this thread has already been derailed enough.

So, if a day to God is like one thousand years for us, it is possible for the Earth to be 1 million years old (human years). Nobody knows how many thousand years (for humans) were the first 5 days when God created the Earth.
Or the 7th day, when God rested, could have lasted...say...2 million (human) years.
Since humans were created on the 6th day, then by the time the 7th day ended, humans could have possibly been around for 2 million (human) years...

[I. Hustle]

So, if a day to God is like one thousand years for us, it is possible for the Earth to be 1 million years old (human years). Nobody knows how many thousand years (for humans) were the first 5 days when God created the Earth.
Or the 7th day, when God rested, could have lasted...say...2 million (human) years.
Since humans were created on the 6th day, then by the time the 7th day ended, humans could have possibly been around for 2 million (human) years...

Right. Even people that that believe in the bible can believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old if they actually studied what it is that they believe. From my standpoint if you believe in God then you should know that His way of thinking is not necessarily your way of thinking. So His concept of time is completely different from ours.
For instance on average we live to be what like 80? Imagine if you lived to be 2,000 or even just 200. Your concept of days, months or years would be completely different.

[Blake]

Right. Even people that that believe in the bible can believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old if they actually studied what it is that they believe. From my standpoint if you believe in God then you should know that His way of thinking is not necessarily your way of thinking. So His concept of time is completely different from ours.
For instance on average we live to be what like 80? Imagine if you lived to be 2,000 or even just 200. Your concept of days, months or years would be completely different.

Methuselah was really 5 when he died.

[MB20]

Methuselah was really 5 when he died.

Human´s years or God´s years?

[I. Hustle]

Methuselah was really 5 when he died.

I was actually talking about the creation process.

[mouse]

So, if a day to God is like one thousand years for us, it is possible for the Earth to be 1 million years old (human years). Nobody knows how many thousand years (for humans) were the first 5 days when God created the Earth.
Or the 7th day, when God rested, could have lasted...say...2 million (human) years.
Since humans were created on the 6th day, then by the time the 7th day ended, humans could have possibly been around for 2 million (human) years...


That is actually a great point. when I used to post in these topics I had no problem pointing that out. If the Bible folks (I don't like to use bible thumpers it's a childish name) would have some flexibility on that issue and maybe not bring up Noah and the burning Bush they could be taken seriously but it's hard to quote the Bible 80% and try and leave out the other 20% of unrealistic folklore. That is why I had to leave the church I didn't want to be a half ass Christian so now I keep my religious views out of any debate that requires facts and logic.

Since I don't believe in Darwin and I don't use the bible on Evolution and age of the earth debates I am in a class by myself and I am free from ridicule from both sides when I show evidence that proves the age of the solar system .


The Intelligent design people had a good thing going they allowed another point of view on this subject but they embraced the Bible and got labeled Creationist and they fucked up.

I on the other hand founded AD Alternative design where we don't use the Bible as a reason why man is here we use intelligence and common sense.

Something you rarely find at this website when talking about Evolution.

[Phenomanul]

I think it's great you have faith. It's also convenient to claim your faith is the only possible reality and absolute unshakable truth/fact. Of course science isn't pure. Religion isn't either. But at least scientists are open to being proven wrong.

Not when a majority of them are self-dependent and arrogantly believe to have it all figured out. Many scientists justify their work on the basis that they believe it crushes the spiritual aspect of our lives. That it justifies their own disbelief. They consider spirituality or matters of 'faith' as mere foolishness, as an intellectual crutch.

If one questions their motives... they become defiantly aggressive and condescending.

I'm not claiming faith is the only possible reality. The crux of my statement was that absolute TRUTH cannot be defined by the perspective of any one person. For that matter it cannot be defined by anyone on earth. It is inherently much larger than that. Larger than the Universe even. To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to proposing that no absolute TRUTH exists. But if that were the case, then that would mean that everyone is right; TRUTH is no longer absolute, but relative. That's why the posit of a cosmic origin, and the fact that we have scientific evidence for a cosmic origin... raises such intriguing questions.

The grandness of the scale involved is why neither 'religion' or 'science' or the 'perspective of truth' can be man-centered. It has to be centered outside of our own understanding. Yeah it's evident that I made my decision long ago to reconcile that conundrum. The problem is that people in the atheistic camp believe that they are above questioning. So back to your comment... sure, scientists will accept being proven wrong on matters of numbers, data-crunching, certain conclusions or anything that doesn't challenge their 'long-standing' belief that no GOD exists. Question that, and they become as stubborn as those they criticize. At that point, they aren't really open to change...

[Blake]

Human´s years or God´s years?

I have it backwards....

If one day might be a million years to God, and Methuselah was said to be 969 years old when he died.....

then 365 million x 969 = Methuselah really being 35.4 billion years old when he died.

[Blake]

I was actually talking about the creation process.

I know. I was shifting to a different point about concepts of time in the Bible.

[Blake]

That is actually a great point. when I used to post in these topics I had no problem pointing that out.

Luckily you never post in these topics any more except for today.


Since I don't believe in Darwin and I don't use the bible on Evolution and age of the earth debates I am in a class by myself and I am free from ridicule from both sides when I show evidence that proves the age of the solar system .

Actually you are still ridiculed from the side that understands that evolution exists.


The Intelligent design people had a good thing going they allowed another point of view on this subject but they embraced the Bible and got labeled Creationist and they fucked up.

Intelligent design on it's own merit without using Biblical reference got shot down in a court of law as not being science.

Even ID founder Behe admitted it on the stand.


I on the other hand founded AD Alternative design where we don't use the Bible as a reason why man is here

How did man get here by AD?


intelligence and common sense.

Something you rarely find at this website when talking about Evolution.

so true.

[Blake]

Not when a majority of them are self-dependent and arrogantly believe to have it all figured out. Many scientists justify their work on the basis that they believe it crushes the spiritual aspect of our lives. That it justifies their own disbelief. They consider spirituality or matters of 'faith' as mere foolishness, as an intellectual crutch.

If one questions their motives... they become defiantly aggressive and condescending.

I'm not claiming faith is the only possible reality. The crux of my statement was that absolute TRUTH cannot be defined by the perspective of any one person. For that matter it cannot be defined by anyone on earth. It is inherently much larger than that. Larger than the Universe even. To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to proposing that no absolute TRUTH exists. But if that were the case, then that would mean that everyone is right; TRUTH is no longer absolute, but relative. That's why the posit of a cosmic origin, and the fact that we have scientific evidence for a cosmic origin... raises such intriguing questions.

The grandness of the scale involved is why neither 'religion' or 'science' or the 'perspective of truth' can be man-centered. It has to be centered outside of our own understanding. Yeah it's evident that I made my decision long ago to reconcile that conundrum. The problem is that people in the atheistic camp believe that they are above questioning. So back to your comment... sure, scientists will accept being proven wrong on matters of numbers, data-crunching, certain conclusions or anything that doesn't challenge their 'long-standing' belief that no GOD exists. Question that, and they become as stubborn as those they criticize. At that point, they aren't really open to change...

If anyone's motives are to have been questioned over the years, it's been the creationists' motives.

The majority of them like you are self dependent and arrogantly believe you have it all figured out using phrases like "keep looking through your godless goggles".

When I question your sources, you become defiantly aggressive and condescending.

You aren't really open to change.

[I. Hustle]

I have it backwards....

If one day might be a million years to God, and Methuselah was said to be 969 years old when he died.....

then 365 million x 969 = Methuselah really being 35.4 billion years old when he died.

OK but thing that I was trying to stress was that the concept of time differs from ours. 969 years could have really been 97 years. I don't think it was until later that it started to shift into the time we use now.

I think the thing that both sides get too caught up in is trying to understand things that are impossible to grasp. No creationist can truly understand the mind of God and no evolutionist can really grasp the complexities of what makes us up. There is always a WHY and as long as that WHY is there faith will have it's place on both sides.

[mouse]

OK but thing that I was trying to stress was that the concept of time differs from ours. 969 years could have really been 97 years. I don't think it was until later that it started to shift into the time we use now.

I think the thing that both sides get too caught up in is trying to understand things that are impossible to grasp. No creationist can truly understand the mind of God and no evolutionist can really grasp the complexities of what makes us up. There is always a WHY and as long as that WHY is there faith will have it's place on both sides.



most of that may be true, but we do know how long it takes a hot cup of coffee to finally cool off, we do know you need water to grow plants, and we do know a mans sperm mixed with a woman's egg can produce a child.

Evolutionist have no proof other than some old bones and dusty fossils that man evolved from a fish so who is really trying to grasp the complexities
of life?

[I. Hustle]

most of that may be true, but we do know how long it takes a hot cup of coffee to finally cool off, we do know you need water to grow plants, and we do know a mans sperm mixed with a woman's egg can produce a child.

Evolutionist have no proof other than some old bones and dusty fossils that man evolved from a fish so who is really trying to grasp the complexities
of life?

Both. When you think that you fully understand God and His way of thinking then you fail. Life is so complex that you always have to study and there is always more to learn.
I will say this for evolutionist. I don't agree with the way they think but as long as they keep searching and don't just say this is the way it is and that is that then I respect them.

[mouse]

Both. When you think that you fully understand God and His way of thinking then you fail.


I didn't mention God.

[I. Hustle]

I didn't mention God.

Ok so leaving God and evolution out of it you are still left with WHY. Sure we know that when a sperm and egg meet they produce a baby but why? What is it that gives the two the power to do so? To tell me that it is simple and easy to understand and not complex whatsoever would mean that you know every detail. The reality is we don't know exactly what that spark is that gives us life. If you could answer that then death wouldn't be a problem overpopulation would.
Every aspect of life is complex when you continue to break it down. As soon as you explain one you can dig deeper and find another why.

[MiamiHeat]

No man can try to understand the Lord.

We are arrogant by nature, and must humble ourselves. Evolution, dinosaur bones, all of this fits within His plan.

[Blake]

OK but thing that I was trying to stress was that the concept of time differs from ours. 969 years could have really been 97 years. I don't think it was until later that it started to shift into the time we use now.

Seeing as how we live longer now than ever, it could really also have been 47 years.


I think the thing that both sides get too caught up in is trying to understand things that are impossible to grasp. No creationist can truly understand the mind of God and no evolutionist can really grasp the complexities of what makes us up. There is always a WHY and as long as that WHY is there faith will have it's place on both sides.

there is faith in God and then there are other beliefs at how we arrived here including abiogenesis.

there is no need for faith in evolution. It has been pretty well established.

[Blake]

Evolutionist have no proof other than some old bones and dusty fossils that man evolved from a fish so who is really trying to grasp the complexities
of life?

so what do you think happened?

[Blake]

Ok so leaving God and evolution out of it you are still left with WHY.

you are assuming purpose over randomness.

that falls into the philosophical arena.

[Phenomanul]

If anyone's motives are to have been questioned over the years, it's been the creationists' motives.

The majority of them like you are self dependent and arrogantly believe you have it all figured out using phrases like "keep looking through your godless goggles".

When I question your sources, you become defiantly aggressive and condescending.

You aren't really open to change.

:lmao

Since you never offer any real counterpoint other than taking my quotes and throwing them back (oh yeah! Blake is real witty... :rolleyes) ... I take it you aren't capable of doing so for yourself.

Now hurry... Go find some more copy&paste articles that you can find atheistic reassurance in...

Rinse and repeat... rinse and repeat...

Fact is 'science' is not the catch all, be all, end all tool you claim it is. Just as you accuse 'religion' of being flawed by man... so too has 'science' become a religion. Keep living in denial about it though. Keep thinking your side is governed solely by logic and data and incapable of pushing agendas... Keep believing that 'faith' amounts to nothing more than stupid fairy tales... and that its proponents are devoid of any intellectual aptitudes...

Run away from undesired questions by suggesting that you don't want to discuss them ("we were talking evolution... not abiogenesis") <--- Even though I was talking about cosmic origins in that particular point.... Then again, you conveniently glossed over the entire section...

Oh and keep monitoring my time management... We all need someone to let us know when it's OK/ not OK to post on SpursTalk... I guess you're good for that... :wakeup

[Phenomanul]

Anyways... I have to run...

-Peace

[I. Hustle]

Seeing as how we live longer now than ever, it could really also have been 47 years.

there is faith in God and then there are other beliefs at how we arrived here including abiogenesis.

there is no need for faith in evolution. It has been pretty well established.

Yeah it could have been 30 years. That is exactly my point. No there does need to be faith in evolution. You can't tell me that theories don't change and with the finding of anything new whether it be fossils or new species like the ones discovered not too long ago. In order to believe in evolution you have faith in what these people have researched and studied and theorized.



you are assuming purpose over randomness.

that falls into the philosophical arena.


No that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is you will never know why. I am not assuming one way or the other. All I am saying is that there will always be questions no matter what you believe in. If this wasn't true then there wouldn't be any more research or scientific discoveries.

[mouse]

so what do you think happened?


You want another theory I have or do you want me to post the other five theories I already posted in the other five Evolution topics?

[usckk]

OK I have a question about evolution. I want to start off saying a couple of things though. First I do not believe in evolution. Call me what you will and I am not trying to "convert" or convince you so I am not looking to argue. Second, this is a serious question that I have never figured out in the theory of evolution and again I am not trying to argue. Third, did I mention that I wasn't looking to fight?

Ok so now that I am done with the disclaimer here it is. People that believe in evolution and the evolutionary chart believe that we have evolved from microorganisms to fish to monkeys to whatever to now. Ok so I understand some people say we are still evolving and it takes millions of years but my question is why are the animals that we supposedly evolved from still around? I see examples where dinosaurs are now birds and how modern horses evolved from a species that was about the size of a small dog, etc. etc. So why are the apes that we evolved from still here?
I think I could grasp it more if the animals we supposedly evolved from were no longer around. Instead of examples of an arthritic man and a pigs tooth that explain where we came from. I mean if monkeys are still around where are the in betweens? Why are they gone but everything else still here?

Again I am being serious and want to know if maybe you have researched or have your own theories.


I haven't read the whole thread besides this opening post, so I haven't seen what has already been discussed already. Excuse me if I repeated something that someone has already said.

As a biochemistry/microbiology major, I have a pretty strong background in this area. First, evolution is a FACT. This cannot be argued. Evolution is the change in inherited traits of a population through successive generations. The changes occur from a variety of things, such as mutations and genetic recombination. The changes that that stay today are the ones that are especially helpful for the organism to survive. Again, this is a FACT. You can easily see this with the changes seen in pathogenic microorganisms. Because they reproduce in a fast rate compared to humans, there are a lot of changes in relatively short period of time. This is why many of the drugs that worked before against certain microorganism are no longer useful, such as penicillin. In other words,the microorganisms have evolved with drug-resistance. With the luck of the draw, some microorganisms have genes that allow them to escape harm from drugs. These genes are then selected for because the other microorganisms cannot survive as well under the new environment where drugs are used.

The only argument you can make about evolution is that humans did not evolve from another species. In other words, humans has it's own evolutionary path completely separate from the other millions of species out there today. Of course, I don't believe this, but this is the only argument I can see against the evolution of humans. Really, the only argument creationist have is that God created a world in which evolution exists, instead of it arising spontaneously.

About your ape question and why they are still here, speciation (the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise) does not require the original species to die out for the new species to arise. For example with
Staph infections, there are new stands of it nowadays that are resistant to methicillin. These are called the methicillin-resistant staphylococcus. So there's a new strand, but the old strand of staphylococcus aureus still exists today. I know this isn't a perfect example because we're talking about different strands and not species. But the same principal applies.

If you have any questions, let me know. I couldn't go to much detail now because I have class early in the morning.

[I. Hustle]

I haven't read the whole thread besides this opening post, so I haven't seen what has already been discussed already. Excuse me if I repeated something that someone has already said.

As a biochemistry/microbiology major, I have a pretty strong background in this area. First, evolution is a FACT. This cannot be argued. Evolution is the change in inherited traits of a population through successive generations. The changes occur from a variety of things, such as mutations and genetic recombination. The changes that that stay today are the ones that are especially helpful for the organism to survive. Again, this is a FACT. You can easily see this with the changes seen in pathogenic microorganisms. Because they reproduce in a fast rate compared to humans, there are a lot of changes in relatively short period of time. This is why many of the drugs that worked before against certain microorganism are no longer useful, such as penicillin. In other words,the microorganisms have evolved with drug-resistance. With the luck of the draw, some microorganisms have genes that allow them to escape harm from drugs. These genes are then selected for because the other microorganisms cannot survive as well under the new environment where drugs are used.

The only argument you can make about evolution is that humans did not evolve from another species. In other words, humans has it's own evolutionary path completely separate from the other millions of species out there today. Of course, I don't believe this, but this is the only argument I can see against the evolution of humans. Really, the only argument creationist have is that God created a world in which evolution exists, instead of it arising spontaneously.

About your ape question and why they are still here, speciation (the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise) does not require the original species to die out for the new species to arise. For example with
Staph infections, there are new stands of it nowadays that are resistant to methicillin. These are called the methicillin-resistant staphylococcus. So there's a new strand, but the old strand of staphylococcus aureus still exists today. I know this isn't a perfect example because we're talking about different strands and not species. But the same principal applies.

If you have any questions, let me know. I couldn't go to much detail now because I have class early in the morning.


That was really informative dude. Thanks.

[TheManFromAcme]

God is great.

I pity those who want to make God into this cosmic plasma stuff.

In due time lads. In due time...

[admiralsnackbar]

God is great.

I pity those who want to make God into this cosmic plasma stuff.

In due time lads. In due time...

I pity those whose imagination is too limited to imagine that God works in ways which our ancient forebears couldn't have grasped as much as those who close their minds entirely to the idea of God on the basis of what precious little we do know.

[boutons_deux]

"make God into this cosmic plasma stuff"

God is EVERYTHING, including that cosmic plasma stuff. Or do you think He's only some bearded white/Jewish dude in clean white robes floating around in the sky?

[TheManFromAcme]

"make God into this cosmic plasma stuff"

God is EVERYTHING, including that cosmic plasma stuff. Or do you think He's only some bearded white/Jewish dude in clean white robes floating around in the sky?

Fair enough.

Science is a tool for us to understand him. He is plasma, cosmic, atomic, sub-atomic or whatever scientific terminology you want to use.

God is great. :toast

The first part of Genesis is all I need to know.
Sure I took science. 12 hours of it to be precise in College.
I am just not locked solely unto science to explain the unexplainable or what is percieved as "already" explainable.

That's part of his plan. :toast

[tlongII]

Oh great. Let's get into a discussion of what God is now... :rolleyes

[tlongII]

Fair enough.

Science is a tool for us to understand him. He is plasma, cosmic, atomic, sub-atomic or whatever scientific terminology you want to use.

God is great. :toast

The first part of Genesis is all I need to know.
Sure I took science. 12 hours of it to be precise in College.
I am just not locked solely unto science to explain the unexplainable or what is percieved as "already" explainable.

That's part of his plan. :toast

LMAO @ plan!

[TheManFromAcme]

Yup. His plan alright.

Sorry.

[DarkReign]

Wow, why is I. Hustle doubting evolution. I thought he was under the tutelage of the late great BacksideBasics trailer park prophet, who strongly believes in evolution.

Evolution is not a belief. Do we all have to believe in mathematics now, too?

Evolution is real, its measurable, its documented.

The only doubt assigned to evolution is the process of how all life on earth got where it is today. That we humans have a common ancestor with other primates, etc.

Its a bold theory, and so far, the only one supported with evidence, but no conclusion.

[DarkReign]

Just because I know the inevitable crap that will come of my previous post.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/greatspeciator/

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28039291/Evolution-in-the-Fast-Lane-Rapidly-Evolving-SexRelated-Genes-in-Drosophila

Evolution is fact. Its hard science. Its measurable, observable and repeatable.

What is not, however, is the theory of how all life on Earth came to be.

Thus, the Theory of Evolution.

Its important to differentiate between the two. Evolution ≠ Theory of Evolution

[DarkReign]

I missed usckk's post. He killed my momentum. Props.

[I. Hustle]

Just because I know the inevitable crap that will come of my previous post.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/greatspeciator/

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28039291/Evolution-in-the-Fast-Lane-Rapidly-Evolving-SexRelated-Genes-in-Drosophila

Evolution is fact. Its hard science. Its measurable, observable and repeatable.

What is not, however, is the theory of how all life on Earth came to be.

Thus, the Theory of Evolution.

Its important to differentiate between the two. Evolution ≠ Theory of Evolution

:tu good post

[Phenomanul]

I haven't read the whole thread besides this opening post, so I haven't seen what has already been discussed already. Excuse me if I repeated something that someone has already said.

As a biochemistry/microbiology major, I have a pretty strong background in this area. First, evolution is a FACT. This cannot be argued. Evolution is the change in inherited traits of a population through successive generations. The changes occur from a variety of things, such as mutations and genetic recombination. The changes that that stay today are the ones that are especially helpful for the organism to survive. Again, this is a FACT. You can easily see this with the changes seen in pathogenic microorganisms. Because they reproduce in a fast rate compared to humans, there are a lot of changes in relatively short period of time. This is why many of the drugs that worked before against certain microorganism are no longer useful, such as penicillin. In other words,the microorganisms have evolved with drug-resistance. With the luck of the draw, some microorganisms have genes that allow them to escape harm from drugs. These genes are then selected for because the other microorganisms cannot survive as well under the new environment where drugs are used.

The only argument you can make about evolution is that humans did not evolve from another species. In other words, humans has it's own evolutionary path completely separate from the other millions of species out there today. Of course, I don't believe this, but this is the only argument I can see against the evolution of humans. Really, the only argument creationist have is that God created a world in which evolution exists, instead of it arising spontaneously.

About your ape question and why they are still here, speciation (the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise) does not require the original species to die out for the new species to arise. For example with
Staph infections, there are new stands of it nowadays that are resistant to methicillin. These are called the methicillin-resistant staphylococcus. So there's a new strand, but the old strand of staphylococcus aureus still exists today. I know this isn't a perfect example because we're talking about different strands and not species. But the same principal applies.

If you have any questions, let me know. I couldn't go to much detail now because I have class early in the morning.



Just because I know the inevitable crap that will come of my previous post.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/greatspeciator/

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28039291/Evolution-in-the-Fast-Lane-Rapidly-Evolving-SexRelated-Genes-in-Drosophila

Evolution is fact. Its hard science. Its measurable, observable and repeatable.

What is not, however, is the theory of how all life on Earth came to be.

Thus, the Theory of Evolution.

Its important to differentiate between the two. Evolution ≠ Theory of Evolution

One needs to further differentiate the terms...

I would say that your statement applies only to Micro-Evolution... the genetic responses to environmental stimuli can effectively be studied to show that species develop new traits (i.e. drug resistance, color patterns, slight anatomical variances, etc...)...

That said, the laboratory setting cannot be used to present a convincing case for Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution is simply not repeatable. The data obtained can only be used for observational purposes (for example: the percentage of genomic similarity between different taxidermic classes and orders). But inherently, massive genetic rifts that occured that 'long ago' cannot be repeated today, and as such observations from the fossil record cannot be presented as 'hard science'. Furthermore, when it comes to the great transitions between families and orders we tend to speculate, we fill in the gaps, we assume. None of that is hard science. Nevermind the fact that viable genetic material simply doesn't exist for the majority of the fossil record. Unfortunately, that 'little tecnicality' hasn't stopped people from pushing the agenda that the driving forces behind Micro-Evolution also prove Macro-Evolution by proxy. That leap in judgement is one that shall not be questioned.

Hey... at least some of you all are finally starting to realize that the Theory of Evolution does not address the question of biological Origins.

[admiralsnackbar]

One needs to further differentiate the terms...

I would say that your statement applies only to Micro-Evolution... the genetic responses to environmental stimuli can effectively be studied to show that species develop new traits (i.e. drug resistance, color patterns, slight anatomical variances, etc...)...

That said, the laboratory setting cannot be used to present a convincing case for Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution is simply not repeatable. The data obtained can only be used for observational purposes (for example: the percentage of genomic similarity between different taxidermic classes and orders). But inherently, massive genetic rifts that occured that 'long ago' cannot be repeated today, and as such observations from the fossil record cannot be presented as 'hard science'. Furthermore, when it comes to the great transitions between families and orders we tend to speculate, we fill in the gaps, we assume. None of that is hard science. Nevermind the fact that viable genetic material simply doesn't exist for the majority of the fossil record. Unfortunately, that 'little tecnicality' hasn't stopped people from pushing the agenda that the driving forces behind Micro-Evolution also prove Macro-Evolution by proxy. That leap in judgement is one that shall not be questioned.

Hey... at least some of you all are finally starting to realize that the Theory of Evolution does not address the question of biological Origins.

Taxonomy is different than taxidermy.

Second: We are made of cells. Bacteria are cells. Connect the dots. That's what theories do: connect the dots. If a theory comes along that connects the dots more coherently and is able to answer more questions, it becomes the leading theory. Even though the fossil record is, as you point out, extremely incomplete, genetics is doing more to further cement the theory of evolution as fact than any collection of skeletons ever could.

I suspect you know this, yet you will insist on bringing up Coelacanths as though they constitute egg on science's face, when all they really represent is a) an animal that hasn't needed to adapt for thousands or millions of years, and; b) that you don't really understand how science works, that it is always in a state of becoming. What you seem to want from "hard science" is total knowledge, or revelation, which isn't tenable... what IS tenable is exactly that: what is tenable. A theory on the basis of which we can make predictions which we can then check against the theory. Back and forth, forever ))<>((

I believe in God, but I don't believe in feeling that my faith is even remotely threatened by science, and as you and nearly everybody else has pointed out, Darwin's theory doesn't concern itself with the origin of Life, just of species. Like it says in the title of the book.

[Phenomanul]

Second: We are made of cells. Bacteria are cells. Connect the dots. That's what theories do: connect the dots. If a theory comes along that connects the dots more coherently and is able to answer more questions, it becomes the leading theory...

So you're perfectly fine with evidence for micro-evolution being presented as proof for the validity of macro-evolution???

That's quite the jump to conclusions. If you're OK with that... fine... Just don't expect me to label such standards as 'hard science'. People here toss that moniker around as if macro-evolution was as proven as "2+2=4" (in response to the analogy that questioning evolution was like questioning math... really people? :rolleyes).

If my last post wasn't clear enough... Part of what makes scientific analysis 'hard-science' is that it the conclusions be based on the repeatability of the experiment, that the observations support that conclusion and that the conclusion can be used to further predict the dynamic at play. Evolutionary proponents wave the 'magic wand' of time to suggest that their process most-definitively and without question produced the biological diversity we see today. If the majority of the 'links' between organisms today are missing how is it that the Macro-Evolutionary process be deemed scientifically repeatable??? Just because the proverbial 'shoe fits' doesn't mean that a line of thinking is justified... the 'hard-science' you all scream of really isn't there.



Even though the fossil record is, as you point out, extremely incomplete, genetics is doing more to further cement the theory of evolution as fact than any collection of skeletons ever could.

???? My post WAS referencing the fact that the genetic history of earth's immense biodiversity is missing. It does us no good to point to bones and suggest that this creature led to that creature which led to that creature, etc... only the genomic comparison can do that. Genomes, which for the umpteenth time are almost completely missing... Only that comparison can produce viable scientific data... data that would allow us to connect such "dots"... Everything else is just observational...

Ironically enough... we do have genetic material from soft tissues found inside a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex remains... from the Jurassic Period no less, millions and millions of years ago... a real head-scratcher that one... :wakeup


I suspect you know this, yet you will insist on bringing up Coelacanths as though they constitute egg on science's face, when all they really represent is a) an animal that hasn't needed to adapt for thousands or millions of years, and; b) that you don't really understand how science works, that it is always in a state of becoming.

The crux of that whole subject was to point out that scientists long believed coelacanths to be a link between fishes and amphibians...

The fact that they're still around and have no desire whatsoever to 'crawl' on land... or even exhibit the slightest behavior that would indicate that this observation was even applicable... not even the assumption of their habitat was correct... that's the "slap in the face"...

Evolutionary proponents at the turn of the previous century felt that the widespread distribution of coelacanth fossils helped solidify the probabilities that the coelacanth's amazing fins could somehow be a precursor to terrestrial limbs... They were so willing to find such a transitionary species to fill in the gaps that they never imagined coelacanths were still around. The modern rediscovery of the coelacanth was a slap in their face only because that ''connection of dots''... was well... premature, and agenda driven.

Simply put; that's why people just can't go around making such 'connections' and loosly call them fact just because it makes observational sense to do so... in this case, coelacanths provided a creature with remarkable fins that could, given our imagination, be used to walk around like mudskippers... unfortunatly for those proponents... we now know that their assumption was way off base.



What you seem to want from "hard science" is total knowledge, or revelation, which isn't tenable... what IS tenable is exactly that: what is tenable. A theory on the basis of which we can make predictions which we can then check against the theory. Back and forth, forever ))<>((

Loosely connected assumptions can't hold much weight when it comes to embodying the scientific foundation for such an overencompassing and grand theory as the Theory of Evolution. Belief in Macro-Evolution requires certain elements of faith in that context.

You won't hear me arguing against the hard-science delivered by micro-evolutionary experiments (the Drosophilia flies experiment being the most convincing and complete study in that area). The conclusions from experiments such as this one however, cannot be used to prove the validity of the former.



I believe in God, but I don't believe in feeling that my faith is even remotely threatened by science, and as you and nearly everybody else has pointed out, Darwin's theory doesn't concern itself with the origin of Life, just of species. Like it says in the title of the book.

Evolution doesn't challenge or threaten my belief in GOD whatsoever. The fact that you've come to that conclusion just because I don't buy Macro-Evolution... while not surprising... is completely misplaced. People around here always seem to assume more than they're able to prove. It's no wonder they don't find anything wrong with that dynamic when applied to other walks of life.

[Blake]

So you're perfectly fine with evidence for micro-evolution being presented as proof for the validity of macro-evolution???


Micro-evolution entirely on it's own? No. But combined with all of the other scientific finds, studies and breakthroughs? Yes, it makes for a nice argument for the validity of macro-evolution.

Obviously you don't do your homework. I could copy and paste some more from some real legit sources, but chances are, you will just whine about them being agenda driven and ramble on some more about how you don't have the time to ramble on.

You're an idiot.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Micro-evolution entirely on it's own? No. But combined with all of the other scientific finds, studies and breakthroughs? Yes, it makes for a nice argument for the validity of macro-evolution.

Obviously you don't do your homework. I could copy and paste some more from some real legit sources, but chances are, you will just whine about them being agenda driven and ramble on some more about how you don't have the time to ramble on.

You're an idiot.

Blake you are stirring up a hornet's nest of unimaginably epic magnitude by calling out phenomanul.
This dude will go on for thirty pages about how the theory is not complete therefore god exists. And how he dropped knowledge on park rangers in the grand canyon about rock formation and shit.

[MB20]

Blake you are stirring up a hornet's nest of unimaginably epic magnitude by calling out phenomanul.
This dude will go on for thirty pages about how the theory is not complete therefore god exists. And how he dropped knowledge on park rangers in the grand canyon about rock formation and shit.

If this is the Blake I know (the one who used to discuss Rasho vs Nazr), then 30 pages would be a piece of cake for him. :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

So you're perfectly fine with evidence for micro-evolution being presented as proof for the validity of macro-evolution???

Are you suggesting it disconfirms it? Or do you have a better theory?



That's quite the jump to conclusions. If you're OK with that... fine... Just don't expect me to label such standards as 'hard science'. People here toss that moniker around as if macro-evolution was as proven as "2+2=4" (in response to the analogy that questioning evolution was like questioning math... really people? :rolleyes).

I don't care what you call it, really. Do you think the theory of electro-magnetism isn't "hard science?" There's a lot we don't know there, too -- and yet the theory we have is useful, and grows more complete by the day. LOL @ wanting to repeat "macro-evolution" in order to prove it.



???? My post WAS referencing the fact that the genetic history of earth's immense biodiversity is missing. It does us no good to point to bones and suggest that this creature led to that creature which led to that creature, etc... only the genomic comparison can do that. Genomes, which for the umpteenth time are almost completely missing... Only that comparison can produce viable scientific data... data that would allow us to connect such "dots"... Everything else is just observational...

You do realize we don't need the genomes of missing links in order to help chart the evolution of species. That WAS my point. PS, a little hint: science at the theoretical level IS observational. And incomplete. And fallible. But as things stand, there is no better model, and there is no reason to assume your "macro-evolution" took place in a different way than bacterial evolution does.



Ironically enough... we do have genetic material from soft tissues found inside a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex remains... from the Jurassic Period no less, millions and millions of years ago... a real head-scratcher that one... :wakeup


Err... why? If they evolved from, say, bacteria, and we did, too -- it would follow that we share genetic information.



The crux of that whole subject was to point out that scientists long believed coelacanths to be a link between fishes and amphibians...

The fact that they're still around and have no desire whatsoever to 'crawl' on land... or even exhibit the slightest behavior that would indicate that this observation was even applicable... not even the assumption of their habitat was correct... that's the "slap in the face"...

Evolutionary proponents at the turn of the previous century felt that the widespread distribution of coelacanth fossils helped solidify the probabilities that the coelacanth's amazing fins could somehow be a precursor to terrestrial limbs... They were so willing to find such a transitionary species to fill in the gaps that they never imagined coelacanths were still around. The modern rediscovery of the coelacanth was a slap in their face only because that ''connection of dots''... was well... premature, and agenda driven.

Simply put; that's why people just can't go around making such 'connections' and loosly call them fact just because it makes observational sense to do so... in this case, coelacanths provided a creature with remarkable fins that could, given our imagination, be used to walk around like mudskippers... unfortunatly for those proponents... we now know that their assumption was way off base.


So a supposition from over a century ago was disproven, therefore baby goes with bathwater and the theory is now implausible? Have I said you make farcically unrealistic demands of science already?

Anyway, you believe as you will -- I've got to get back to work.

[admiralsnackbar]

You're an idiot.

Shit... quoting you would have saved me a lot of trouble.

[clambake]

phen uses a ouija board.

and i'm not kidding.