BTW top cherry, i do believe in a Supreme Being, no BS
Printable View
BTW top cherry, i do believe in a Supreme Being, no BS
Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
he makes a good point
if you look at our mitochondrial RNA or rRNA animal family trees
why is it that the 'more advanced' species are capable of being taught and doing more things that a 'less advanced' species
why can't dogs learn to do sign language?
why chimps? is it coincidence that they're closest to us humans?
why would God make that a coincidence?
a religion teacher once told me that all coincidences are really just God in action
and i'm still waiting for our friendly neighborhood pirate (jochehehjaaaam) to post in this thread...he is the one afterall who said evolution was far fetched and full of holes.....where the F are you? searching for the black pearl? Fucking Keira Knightley? If so, i commend you. She's one fine peice of ass :tu
"What if's" aren't reality. So what do they really matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Bible says humans were made to God's image.
Sorry if I don't care "what if" a horse worshiped. :)
Let's just say I wasn't. :)Quote:
Really? I was raised Roman Catholic, went to Roman Catholic school from grades K-12, and took theology classes each year the whole way.
How were you raised?
Sorry if I don't feel like going into religions.
And I really appreciate it. It really is interesting.Quote:
You're totally allowed to believe that, i wasn't trying to convince your beliefs, i swear, i was just trying to clear up what an evolutionist would say to your questions...just trying to get you to realize what evolution is all about. thats it.
I was just posting on why I believe what I do and also clarify some things.
Not at all. The fact that it can happen, doesn't lead me to believe it is how it happened.Quote:
what do you say of experiments involving selection?
IE if a man gets a population of Drosophila, and breeds for red eyes, and keeps breeding red eyes with red eyes, and eventually ends up with a population that gives 100% red eyes. Do u think experiments like this are totally falsified?
Do you think if we were allowed to test on humans, and bred humans with red hair, with humans with red hair, and did this over and over again, that we WOULDN'T end up with a population giving 100% red hair?
If you do think this could happen, what do you call this phenomena?
And what would I call it?
Things which can be made possible. Just not a proof as to that happening before we came along.
One word... "Near".Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
That last part I would maybe agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
You just messed me up when you told me you belive in God. :D
Why can dogs do a lot more things than ants can? Why can birds fly and not tigers? Why can parrots repeat speech and not rabbits?
They're just made differently. With different attributes and things which make us go "Wow!". To me, it's nothing else.
:)
Someone once said What If the earth was round. Someone once said What If there are other planets.Quote:
Originally Posted by TOP-CHERRY
Perhaps you should start asking yourself What If.
So you admit selection experiments yield results which comply with evolution, but you dont think this happens? I don't understand what you mean here.Quote:
Not at all. The fact that it can happen, doesn't lead me to believe it is how it happened.
Science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things and supports things. If you didn't realize this until now, realize it now. Science experiments are done mostly to disprove theories, not to prove them. Because theories are just that, Theories. The very word's definition provides you all you need to know of its nature. Noone ever mentioned in this thread "the LAW of evolution"Quote:
And what would I call it?
Things which can be made possible. Just not a proof as to that happening before we came along.
You say things which can be made possible...
so you're saying if a tribe of 100 Astrolophiticus split into two....and they went to two seperate environments....and one environment had mostly plants as food source, and the other mostly animals
that if these two tribes stayed seperate, they would not yeild different types of humanoids after 1000's of years?
if we can acheive a human population of 100% red heads after just 5-6 generations, then what IS possible after 1000's of years?
Human populations have stayed geographically and genetically isolated from each other for thousands and thousands of years...
how do you account for different skin types? Why is it that blacks from Africa have Ribisomal RNA that is far more heterogenic than people from Europe?
My beliefs provide a decent explanation for this.
What is your position on this?
I believe in Evolution.
God created the Big Bang.
An ants functions are much more limited than a Dogs, Ants function in a unit where they are given orders and have to carry them out. Birds and Tigers are different species. Unlike humans, parrots do not have vocal cords. Instead, they learn to control the movement of the muscles in the throat to direct the airflow in such a way as to reproduce certain tones and sounds—sometimes even human sounds.Quote:
Why can dogs do a lot more things than ants can? Why can birds fly and not tigers? Why can parrots repeat speech and not rabbits?
There is no question that some parrots show signs of intelligence. Yet, it is important to understand that these mimicking birds do not really understand what they are saying. Parrots just repeat sounds that they have been taught. Talking to a parrot is basically like talking to a tape player or a Furby doll. (And even then, you never know if a parrot will talk back.) The fact is, even though some birds can be "trained" to do certain things, they cannot reason or have real, human-like conversations. Rabbits do not or have the capability to use the muscles inside the mouth like Parrots do. Rabbits are more into reproducing, eating and caring for they're offspring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
no doubt...mimicry is a very primitive form of 'intelligence'
it in no way disproves the fact that the closer animals are to humans the 'more intelligent' they are
I'd say a dolphin is more intelligent than a chimp but, a chimp is way more related to us than dolphin is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
You mean the same ones who should've looked in the Bible to know that before they even asked what if? In it it clearly talked of the earth being round, and there being other celestial bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
:D
I don't really understand what exactly it is you want me to answer.Quote:
So you admit selection experiments yield results which comply with evolution, but you dont think this happens? I don't understand what you mean here.
That because these experiments aren't false, that evolution is what made us, and not God, or that God made us, but evolution exists?
Well clearly, the environment humans live in makes them adapt differently, look differently.Quote:
Science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things and supports things. If you didn't realize this until now, realize it now. Science experiments are done mostly to disprove theories, not to prove them. Because theories are just that, Theories. The very word's definition provides you all you need to know of its nature. Noone ever mentioned in this thread "the LAW of evolution"
You say things which can be made possible...
so you're saying if a tribe of 100 Astrolophiticus split into two....and they went to two seperate environments....and one environment had mostly plants as food source, and the other mostly animals
that if these two tribes stayed seperate, they would not yeild different types of humanoids after 1000's of years?
if we can acheive a human population of 100% red heads after just 5-6 generations, then what IS possible after 1000's of years?
Human populations have stayed geographically and genetically isolated from each other for thousands and thousands of years...
how do you account for different skin types? Why is it that blacks from Africa have Ribisomal RNA that is far more heterogenic than people from Europe?
My beliefs provide a decent explanation for this.
What is your position on this?
A man and a woman with blue eyes make babies with blue eyes. A couple with brown eyes make brown-eyed babies. Same goes with skin tones, hair color, etc.
Yeah. It's completely evident. There's no denying it.
Do I think this is a result of evolution? No. We are all the same in regards to the number of bones in our bodies, same number of fingers, same anatomical structure. We all have hair. We all walk with 2 feet. We always have and we always will. We all have different DNA, yes. That's what makes us different in regards to our exterior. Nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
on the plus side, they're still mammals, and closer to humans than the average person may think
Ever heard of Galileo? He was charged with treason on saying things like that by the Church and was forced to take back what he said or he'd face exile.Quote:
You mean the same ones who should've looked in the Bible to know that before they even asked what if? In it it clearly talked of the earth being round, and there being other celestial bodies.
The old testament also says that God will smite down with heavenly fire any of those who don't take his word seriouslyQuote:
Originally Posted by TOP-CHERRY
have you ever sinned in your life?
if you have...have u ever been smited with fire from the heavens?
I wanted you to explain to me the results of selection (if evolution is a car, selection is the engine) experiments. Do you agree that the process of selection is possible/does exist?Quote:
I don't really understand what exactly it is you want me to answer.
That because these experiments aren't false, that evolution is what made us, and not God, or that God made us, but evolution exists?
Ok, so you do agree with selection. Thats all i wanted to know. So you do agree that if Robert Swift had a child with Peggy Bundy that they'd most likely have a red-head child.Quote:
Well clearly, the environment humans live in makes them adapt differently, look differently.
A man and a woman with blue eyes make babies with blue eyes. A couple with brown eyes make brown-eyed babies. Same goes with skin tones, hair color, etc.
Yeah. It's completely evident. There's no denying it.
Quote:
Do I think this is a result of evolution? No. We are all the same in regards to the number of bones in our bodies, same number of fingers, same anatomical structure. We all have hair. We all walk with 2 feet. We always have and we always will. We all have different DNA, yes. That's what makes us different in regards to our exterior. Nothing else.
I agree with everything you say here....but you just said you agreed that selection does exist and is a force amongst our lives...but then went back to how you think this has nothing to do with evolution
the fact is...it DOES! The founder of evolution's theory was called "the theory of natural selection"
I think Robert Swift is Luke Ridnours son
Humans do not need to do any evolving........We can manipulate our surroundings with tools whether we be a midget or Shaq. Why do you think they're more giraffes with longer necks then they are with shorter ones? Well because of natural selection the ones with the taller necks were able to eat the off the tree's and the ones that weren't able to died out making that the dominant gene. Ever notice more people have dark hair than blonde, more brown pupils than blue etc... Because the dominant genes are the ones carryed out through reproduction.Quote:
Do I think this is a result of evolution? No. We are all the same in regards to the number of bones in our bodies, same number of fingers, same anatomical structure. We all have hair. We all walk with 2 feet. We always have and we always will. We all have different DNA, yes. That's what makes us different in regards to our exterior. Nothing else
Everyone sins. It has to do with us not being perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Do I believe God's patience has a limit? Ofcourse.
Do I believe he will take action? Yep.
But for you to understand it better, it takes reading and comprehending what the Bible means.
Red-head's DNA + Red-head's DNA = Red-head DNAQuote:
Ok, so you do agree with selection. Thats all i wanted to know. So you do agree that if Robert Swift had a child with Peggy Bundy that they'd most likely have a red-head child.
Yeah...
Uh-huh... Sorry, I didn't study evolution in high school... if selection means a red-head choosing a red-head to have his babies, will create a red-head, then yes. It's only logical.Quote:
but you just said you agreed that selection does exist and is a force amongst our lives...but then went back to how you think this has nothing to do with evolution
the fact is...it DOES! The founder of evolution's theory was called "the theory of natural selection"
It doesn't change their anatomical structure, though. Never will humans evolve into some sort of monsters or a 20 foot whatever.
Humans will never need to evolve to adapt to there enviorment. We don't need excessive hair for those who live in the cold, we can build homes and shelter with heaters etc. We don't need long arms/big bodies to grab food from trees we can build machines/use tools to do that for us.......Quote:
It doesn't change their anatomical structure, though. Never will humans evolve into some sort of monster or 20 foot whatever.
^Agreed.
They're are things called allelles(sp). Red hair is obviously not a common trait. It's not dominante so when scientists use a Mendel Chart they would give red hair a recessive symbol.Quote:
Red-head's DNA + Red-head's DNA = Red-head DNA
Yeah...
yeah theres no doubt that humans are the most advanced species
but it doesn't mean we're it, we're the final product
how do you know God didn't intend the human to be very important in his sytem, but servant to a higher being that is still yet to come into existence?
we dont, i dont
but its possible...
The more humans rely on machines the sooner we'll evolve into big fat balls of nothing but human flesh.
That's what you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
But based on my beliefs, which are based largely on the bible, it leads me to believe very strongly and confidently that it's not happening. It's just not stated there.
:lol :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
they probably could but their paws might make it a little hard for us to read what they're saying. Dogs are able to communicate in lots of other ways. They are excellent at reading body language and they can learn up to 50 words. They are also very emotional animals, they like some people, dislike others, they feel jealousy, anger, guilt, fear, love, sadness and they mourn when an owner or companion dog dies. They develop social hierarchy in groups, set up boundaries and can communicate with each other. In fact, most animals are capable of these things. It is pure idiocy to think of animals as "machines". And it is beyond me why anyone would ponder the purpose of every life form based on how that life form serves humans. We don't eat or play with tigers and leopards Top Cherry. At least I don't. All animals are not suitable for us to eat, plenty of them are not cuddly playthings, and still more are just too dangerous for humans to be around. The idea that they're all here for human pleasure is sheer lunacy.
That's all I really have to say on this matter. Any serious person who doesn't believe in evolution may as well proclaim their life long membership in the Flat Earth Society.
i just dont understand how you can say that after you've agreed that selection existsQuote:
Originally Posted by TOP-CHERRY
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Jelly
Yeah? It's not logical for us to believe tigers weren't the furocious creatures they are today? That they didn't see humans as a threat before? The fact that they became such defendants of their territory doesn't mean they once weren't.Quote:
And it is beyond me why anyone would ponder the purpose of every life form based on how that life form serves humans. We don't eat or play with tigers and leopards Top Cherry. At least I don't. All animals are not suitable for us to eat, plenty of them are not cuddly playthings, and still more are just too dangerous for humans to be around. The idea that they're all here for human pleasure is sheer lunacy.
We all stare in wonder whenever we see or read about a new discovery of species, of a new reason for this, a new reason for that, a new purpose to this and that. We never really stop learning about animals, plants, insects, the environment.
Tell me how that isn't human pleasure.
Congratulations. You are officially the first person to try to be offensive of other people's beliefs.Quote:
That's all I really have to say on this matter. Any serious person who doesn't believe in evolution may as well proclaim their life long membership in the Flat Earth Society.
How the hell do you know if I'm not laughing right now at all the things I'm reading? Hmm?
You don't see me telling them how much I find this to be "ridiculous".
:D
What Can't_Be_Faded is trying to say is
If something were to happen to a group of humans and some die and some survive why does that happen? Because of natural selection the ones that don't die have the selected genes to survive.
I'd have to study evolution before I go on in this thread.
I'm done.
.
This is getting old it's fun debating but, theres no point.
I couldn't find a "delete" button for the post.Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
:)
I was trying to reply to your above post so after you changed yours I changed mine. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TOP-CHERRY
Maybe people who made up god are just lazy bastards. Fuck it...it takes too long to figure out how we got here. So let's just say someone made us.
Makes sense.
Maybe God made lazy bastards who don't pay their debts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
Top Cherry,
I haven't read all of your posts in this thread, because after reading the first few I got this gist of what you were trying to say.
First of all, to say that emotions are strictly human is incorrect. There is every reason to believe that certain animals display emotional structure. You may not be aware of the social complexity in higher apes but there are many ways in which they display emotions.
As far as physical traits on a human, there is a traceable reason for almost everything on our bodies. In fact, I can't think of anything that has adapted in a way that was suitable for the way of life that best worked for any particular species. Taste buds are not limited to humans and work much in the same way in many other animals. The sense of taste is an offshoot of the sense of smell and is not limited to humans.
The large variety of species on this earth exsist because each one fills a niche. They are able to fit in somewhere because of their specialized traits and work to keep the entire planet in a balance.
The majority of your posts are based on misconceptions and ignorance. You assume that because you do not understand the reasoning for something, it must have been placed by a higher being for human enjoyment or use.
Top Cherry,Quote:
Originally Posted by TOP-CHERRY
Sorry if I offended you. (sincerely) But I'd be lying if I said I didn't think your ideas on this matter were fairly insane.
Well, I've evolved from the young kid I was at 16 to the big kid I am now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
Off topic...but this is not correct. Galileo was not forced to recant a belief in heliocentricity. He was told to recant for saying that heliocentricity was a fact, rather than a theory.
Copernicus, who put forth the theory, was a Catholic priest.
Actually, the primary (though not the only) resistance to heliocentricity as even a possibility was brought by the Protestant Reformers.
Actually, I don't believe humans are evolving into a "superior" being either...but not for any theological reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Because humans have reached a certain point of both intelligence and technological ability, we now have the ability to alter our environment rather than adapt to it. (DISCLAIMER...I am using "environment" in its most general sense here, not as "climate". This is not a global warming discussion.) Were natural selection still in full effect with humans, we would no longer need glasses, for example. Hemophiliacs would have died out a long time ago. Many other genetic disorders definitely inimical to survival would have also died out.
Instead, we humans make glasses...and try to treat genetic disorders...
Galileo made his point to the church like Cindy Sheehan is making hers. He could have been a lot more diplomatic about it, and basically was charged for pissing people off and being an asshole. Still not a high point in Church/science relations, but politicized and used as an argument by atheists for centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
Edit: Damn! Travis beat me to it. :jack
Evolution is very humbling. Cosmology is even more so.
With God, we're an integral part of God's plan in creation, beloved, cared for, made in his image with intellect, conscience, and personhood, so valuable that God himself tasted death in order to redeem us for himself.
Without God, we're basically fancy monkeys on a tiny planet around an insignificant star far out on an arm of an ordinary galaxy somewhere in an isolated corner of the universe. We're just infintesimal specks in the scope of things.
Theologically, modern science should be very useful to the believer in terms of gaining the proper perspective in his relationship with God.
Here is my question: why does DNA replicate? Why doesn't it follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and break up into smaller, less organized molecules with simpler structures with more stable bonds? The answer is, of course, because it is alive and can supply energy to replicate itself in its complex form. The 2nd law of thermodynamics still applies, and is a source for genetic mutations that are part of evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
However, what about that 1st "self-replicating" DNA molecule? Was it "alive"? What outside force was supplying energy for the reaction? Sure, energy in sunlight or heat from the earth could have been the source. But -why the hell did it want to self-replicate, as opposed to other molecules that don't?
Ruling out intelligent design is like creationists ruling out evolution. Someone said it before, evolution is a mechanism, and intelligent design is a philosophy.
You've made a mistake in applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The entropy of the universe is increasing, yes. But with a sufficiently large source of energy, this tendency toward disorder can be overcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire
In our case, that is the sun.
Simpler molecules also self-replicate.Quote:
However, what about that 1st "self-replicating" DNA molecule? Was it "alive"? What outside force was supplying energy for the reaction? Sure, energy in sunlight or heat from the earth could have been the source. But -why the hell did it want to self-replicate, as opposed to other molecules that don't?
But that's still not enough. Even if there is some property of matter that causes certain compounds to self-replicate, why does matter have those properties and not some other ones?
That was me.Quote:
Ruling out intelligent design is like creationists ruling out evolution. Someone said it before, evolution is a mechanism, and intelligent design is a philosophy.
We are. I'm quoting somebody but when we see beyond ourselves then we'll find that life goes on within us and without us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
In the end, it doesn't matter. 500 years from now nobody will remember you, or me. Unless you do something like cure cancer or AIDS, your ripples through time will end the day you die.
I think that's the problem with religion to me, I don't think nobody wants to accept that once you die it's the end, they want to believe that there is something more to it to justify their sorry ass lives.
One could make the arguement that evolution is not bound to organic changes. Glasses are a form of evolution, if you will. As is the rest of what you mentioned. Language was probably the largest evolutionary step of all. Think of how humanity has advanced as a result of language. It is exponential.Quote:
Originally Posted by travis2
But, even from a purely biological standpoint, Humans have already changed a great deal from the first Homo Sapiens.
I would put glasses in the category of "devolution", personally...a technological aid to what would otherwise be a trait inimical to survival.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
What changes in particular?
He hopes this is true so that his debt will be forgotten...:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
I think you would call that innovation, not evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Language is an organic change.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Glasses are technology, not biological evolution. Technology is one of the things that make us unique. We are able to overcome physiological deficiencies that otherwise might inhibit reproduction.
You're using a very general definition of "evolution." A plasma HDTV certainly is much more highly "evolved" than an old RCA from 1949.
The problem is that thinking this way causes a misconception about biological evolution -- organisms don't "optimize" the way technology does. There are many features of the human body that if done that way by an engineer, would get the engineer fired. We're designed just well enough to get by.
Our knees are designed very poorly. They are laterally unstable. The idea of having the urethra go over the prostate gland is stupid. Forcing an infant's skull to go through the mother's pubic bone is asinine. And don't get me started about all the extra weight and needless bulk in our head and neck necessary to keep our eyes working. Spiders have a much better design than this "rotating orb" thing we got going.
While these features aren't optimized, they stuck because at whatever time, that mutation was one of the ones that helped that particular organism adapt to its environment and reproduce instead of an organism with a less favorable mutation. But we won't "evolve" out of those features unless there is something in the environment that is incompatible with those features so that we die off before we can reproduce or so we reproduce less.
Given those criteria, I would argue that modern technology can be an evolutionary disadvantage, because on average the people who benefit the most from it reproduce less than those who don't have it.
Well, theres the phsyical differences between Neandertals and "Modern" Humans. They were taller, broader, and typically had bigger brains. We have differences with early Cro Magnon man as well.
Then you also hear about how the average height of the American male is going up. That is evolution in action as well.
If you want to see a severe case of short term evolution due to selective breeding, take a look at the African American population today. Do you think breeding practices during slavery might have something to do with their dominance of sports in this country today?
I think you make a very valid point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Sincerely,
Jimmy the Greek
Neanderthals are not Homo Sapiens.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
And I would counter that increased height and longer life-span (you didn't mention that, but I consider it in the same category) are more a product of innovation (as SWC) puts it than evolution. Again, we humans are altering our environment rather than adapting to it. Better diet, better medicine and medical practices, etc...
Increased height is from evolution. Because standing upright enabled early man-like beings to see farther away. Instead of very limited field of vision with his back hunched.Quote:
Originally Posted by travis2
Homo sapiens could already stand upright. We are discussing differences in average height between early and modern Homo sapiens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
Not necessarily. Nutrition has a lot to do with that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Another thing to keep in mind is that mutations happen all the time. If you separate populations of a species, they will diverge somehow over time, even absent environmental stresses. For example, British women have larger breasts on average than other European women. There is no reason for this.
Perhaps intelligent designers could argue that God just chose to bless British men.
In the case of humans, since environmental stresses no longer factor in, we may well just become more diverse. However, that will take a long time, and for now, virtually all of our genetic diversity is in Africa.
Assuming that happened, I guess it follows the model. The intervention of the slaveholder would be the environmental stress. Genetic variation with regard to strength, speed, quickness, and physical coordination was already present in the human species. So existing mutations were selected to affect the gene pool of the entire population.Quote:
If you want to see a severe case of short term evolution due to selective breeding, take a look at the African American population today. Do you think breeding practices during slavery might have something to do with their dominance of sports in this country today?
Of course, we should add that it was morally repugant to breed human beings like cattle.
P.S. With regard to genetic variation within a species, look at the common dog. Compare a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Keep in mind that all dogs descend from a small group of mentally impaired grey wolves, and that they're really still the same species, since if your dog gets away and mates with a grey wolf, the offspring will still be fertile.
The degree humans are able to change their environment is directly related to biology. That is one reason you can consider it an evolutionary trait. Evolution - at least the way I look at it - is not limited to biological mutations in the least, but encompasses any change which then has an effect on the species.
I think you and I (or you and Stout...or SWC) are going to have a hard time debating the finer points because you hold a (fairly) radically different definition of "evolution"...different enough that basic terms hold different meanings.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Not a value judgement...just a practical observation.
I agree, I'm of the school of thought that goes beyond biological evolution.
With the increased use of the internet and children accessing it at earlier ages I'm surprised humans have not evolved and grown a 6th finger on each hand as well as a 3rd ear for cell phones.
I was thinking that with the explosion of Internet porn, the male index finger would evolve into a penis.Quote:
Originally Posted by ididnotnothat
Or his hand a vagina.
All the same to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Quote:
Off topic...but this is not correct. Galileo was not forced to recant a belief in heliocentricity. He was told to recant for saying that heliocentricity was a fact, rather than a theory.
Copernicus, who put forth the theory, was a Catholic priest.
Actually, the primary (though not the only) resistance to heliocentricity as even a possibility was brought by the Protestant Reformers.
The Church said that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun was a gift from God. Galileo proposed the Sun was the center and other planets orbited it and so did the Earth. The Church charged him with heresy. He went to Rome to defend his beliefs and then later took back everything he said. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy, because it was contrary to the accepted understanding of the Holy Scriptures.Quote:
Galileo made his point to the church like Cindy Sheehan is making hers. He could have been a lot more diplomatic about it, and basically was charged for pissing people off and being an asshole. Still not a high point in Church/science relations, but politicized and used as an argument by atheists for centuries.
Edit: Damn! Travis beat me to it.
Also, I just want to add how is it that Humans have different ethnicities and races etc... if we were derived from two people. Obviously it's not possible. So logically there must have been more than two humans in the begining otherwise we'd all be the same ethinicity.
Not necessarily.
Ethnicity evolved as they travelled the world.
That is what I believe anyway.
If life starts out with two people then it should be the same through out the lifeline. Two middle easterns can't produce to a black baby........
With God....anything is possible.
I'm just a simple man with simple thoughts.....and apparently a simple mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Well after years of research on the subject...or hour of perusing various websites, I can't remember which :lol , I'll render this for you to debunk.
PROBABILITY OF EVOLUTION
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
(My dad did write a book on the subject (unpublished) and gave me a copy of the transcript, which unfortunately I've never read. I'll have to look it over and submit his thoughts that may be of use in this thread).
Thats not about evolution, thats about the origin of life.
It renders the theory of evolution as totally implausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Totally implausibe means it didn't happen.
We'll chalk one up for Dr. James Coppedge and Emile Borel.
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
If it wasn't possible they would just say 0 chance, but they don't. It may not be likely but it isn't impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginofan
I would ask you to go back and read it again but it doesn't appear you can comprehend what he says even though it is said with great clearity.
1 out of 10 to the 50th power = "will not happen" = NO CHANCE
1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power = producing 1 human cell
1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power > 1 out of 10 to the 50th power.
Comprende? :) <---(added at edit to infer no snippiness intended)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod Ok. This is the exact kind of thing I've been waiting for from Joch. I can't sit there and toss bible verses and Psalms back and forth, but if he wants to have an honest debate on the theory of evolution, lets have at it You were saying there are holes?
Maybe you'll be able to come up with a more significant response to this;
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.
1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
There's no need to get snippy...but I suppose that's what I get for reading it over too quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginofan
Sorry if you felt I was gettin snippy, should've thrown him in after the comprende --> :)
I'll let you examine a hole presented by none other than Darwin himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Quote:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin-
Evolution is based on mutation of an existing organismQuote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare
Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral. Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake, which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage. In addition, mutations have been discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in functions to stabilize and resist change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they they do not bring out an advantage to any living thing. Evolutionists like to use examples of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria, or in mutation of the tomato for example, though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.
For evolutionists to state that many favorable, random mutations have occurred is completely unfounded. Mutations simply cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms. Again, many evolutionists simply state this fact is not true, when proof is everywhere. These evolutionists are simply in denial.
Quote:
"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis.
Improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."
Albert Szent-Gyorgi,
Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937)
Apparently lots of holes Manny.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
Quote:
"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome — nowhere near enough to account for human evolution.
This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."
-Walter James ReMine-
Science may soon prove you wrong. I once saw a fascinating documentary where descendants of a small, fairly isolated town in England had a high percentage of residents - something like 15% whereas 3% would have been normal- carried a certain gene mutation. Most of the 15% traced their ancestry back to survivors of the black plague, which had wiped out everyone else in that town. Their theory is that this gene mutation is what helped them survive and is the same gene mutation found in a rare group of people that appear to be immune to the HIV virus despite having been exposed to it repeatedly. Anyway, it's late and I'm too tired to elaborate any further (besides it's been a while since I saw this show), but here's a quick paragraph I dug up on google.Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
Recently, scientists were astonished to find that some individuals did not become infected with HIV, even after repeated exposure to the deadly virus.
For some reason, they were immune. A long and difficult scientific search, using blood samples from hundreds of HIV-resistant patients, finally teased out the genetic explanation. Resistant individuals had in their cells two copies of a mutation that disrupted the entryway through which HIV viruses entered white blood cells. People who inherited just one copy of the change could become infected, but their disease progressed more slowly.
With this being such a recent epidemic, where did peoples' immunity come from?
Another puzzle was the way this resistance is distributed throughout the world. In some Northern European populations it is relatively common. In Southern Europeans it is more rare, and it is almost entirely absent in Africans, Asians, and Native Americans. Logically, the mutation must have occurred in the past, acting as a defense against a different, previous epidemic caused -- like the AIDS epidemic -- by a pathogen that also targeted white blood cells.
Reading a chronological history, biologists traced the HIV-resistance gene mutation back about 700 years. That was the time at which the Black Death -- bubonic plague -- swept like a deadly scythe through Europe, killing one-third of the population. Then, as now, there were individuals who survived the lethal organism, perhaps because it could not enter their white blood cells. The areas that were hardest hit by the Black Plague match those where the gene for HIV resistance is the most common today.
At present, scientists are trying to infect such resistant cells with bubonic plague bacteria to test the hypothesis that the mutation in the CCR-5 receptor gene could have thwarted the plague in the Middle Ages, as it does HIV today. If it turns out that this mutation does protect against the plague, this coincidence will be yet another illustration of what scientists are finding over and over in the human genome: Nature's past successes often remain part of our genetic toolbox.
Okay, let me know when it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelly
Thanks
Anyone seen Manny? :lol
Quote:
Are you not entertained?
-Maximus-
I havent really been reading everything in this thread (just kinda skimming) and I dont feel like getting into a Evolution vs. Creation Debate, but I did see something that caught my eye. This quote:
Im not trying to bash anyone here who doesnt believe exactly what I do, but i wanna ask you. If you believe what ES said in that quote (the stuff about us being fancy monkeys on a tiny planet...), I ask you, what are you/we living for? Does life even matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Think about it.
Joch, do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old?Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeagol
Allow me to preface this answer by stating that along with the many irrefutable arguements that render evolution as the unproveable theory that it is evolutionist's know that they must maintain that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and if that premise is disproven then all logical discussion on the validity of evolution comes to an abrupt end.
And now I'll submit a few of the many arguements by Dr. Walter Brown that defies the most protected and essential working point for evolution's theory to even begin.
Dr. Walter Brown: Dr. Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence.
Helium
One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. Helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.
Lead and Helium Diffusion
Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found.a Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals.b Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old.
Excess Fluid Pressure
Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock. If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently.
River Sediments
More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport was much greater in the past as the looser topsoil was removed and as erosion smoothed out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. Consequently, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old.
Shallow Meteorites
Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have, expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface.a Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers.b If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.
Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.
Smeagol, help yourself to much of what Dr Brown has to say on the subject.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Again, do you believe the Earth was created 6000 yearth ago? How many years ago did the dinosaurs roam the Earth?
Until global warming destroyed them or was it man destroyed them, I cantQuote:
Originally Posted by smeagol
remember. Bye the way does anyone remember the ice age? That is until
they invented the automobile, no, they didn't have them then, did they? I
know, Darwin must have a theory for it, I mean after all he was God wasn't
he? One question tho: how come we still have Monkeys if evoloution
occured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeagol
Smeagol, no, I don't have a 100% firm belief on the earth being 6,000 years to the extent that it does not lend credence to the ridiculous theory of evolution, which is propagated by atheists. I haven't put much time into that particular study.
Genesis states that God created the earth in 6 days *.
*Days is Genesis is taken from the Hebrew word Yom which is generally interpreted as a 24 hour day.
"Most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young."
I think if joche takes his cues from a book...then I can take my cues from a book as well...Origin of Species.
Dude, Joch, the first post you made is about the origion of life. It has nothing to do with evolution.
Regardless of how life came about, evolution is the process life evoles through after it is intitially created. So, that isn't a hole in evolutionary theory.
I'm going to read your other posts now, and respond to each one. In the future, include links or a source.
Oh, and I do find it extremely paranoid and somewhat amusing that Joch believes everyone "propagates" ideas he does not believe in must be an atheist.
So, explain to me how that puts a bullet through evolutions heart?Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
http://www.fsteiger.com/thermo.htmlQuote:
Creationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to arise from disorder, and therefore the macro evolution of complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred. Regardless of whether or not evolution might have taken place, the mathematics of thermodynamics and observation of the world around us makes it very clear: order can spontaneously arise from disorder. Let me reiterate that the subject here is limited to thermodynamics only. The issue to be resolved is simply this: does thermodynamics permit or does it not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder? The laws of thermodynamics and observation of the world around us make it very clear: order can and does arise spontaneously from disorder.
Creationists have not been able to refute the fact that thermodynamics does, in fact, permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. However, instead of conceding defeat, they have attempted to change the laws of thermodynamics by stating that thermodynamics applies only to systems that are completely isolated from their surroundings. Creationist pseudo-thermodynamics, when applied to open systems, are based on the idea that second of law of thermodynamics would not ordinarily apply to open systems, and therefore there must be a "growth directing program" and/or "energy conversion mechanism" which would "supersede" the second law of thermodynamics. Since these postulated mechanisms are completely fictitious, the creationist position is tantamount to saying that the second law does not apply to open systems.
There is a method in this creationist madness: creationists hide the fact that it is only the over-all entropy of a collection of interacting systems that can not spontaneously decrease; the entropy of each of the interacting individual systems can either increase or decrease. However, creationists state flatly that entropy can never spontaneously decrease, and hence order can never spontaneously arise from disorder. Page 40 of Scientific Creationism, published by the Institute for Creation Research, states: "All real processes go with an increase in entropy." This statement is contradicted by the fact that the growth of living things represents order spontaneously arising from disorder. Creationism is forced to concoct a fictitious pseudo-thermodynamics which "supersedes" the Second Law to "explain" the obvious anomaly. On page 43 we read "Now, if one examines closely all such [open] systems to see what it is that enables them to supersede the Second Law locally and temporarily..." The text goes on to postulate "explanations" based on the fictional terms ("growth directing program," "energy conversion mechanism") mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Manny, dude, :lol the theory of evolution has to have a starting point and if it's premise for it's beginning is shown to be faulty then the whole theory goes out the window. Don't get mad at me because the evolutionist's premise doesn't wash after scientific study and experimentQuote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
If you want to say, "hey, I know the theory of evolution isn't really possible but lets look at it anyway", okay.
Unfounded personal attacks, I think that's called libel? Not surprising that in absence of intelligent rebuttal to the arguements put forth you would have to stoop to that again.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
There have been lots of disagreements to some of my posts in the forum, care to authenticate just a few of these instances? (not that it has anything to do with your thread)
Followup by MannyQuote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
Maybe you'll be able to come up with a more significant response to this;
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.
1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I highlighted (not that'll you'll get it with highlighting :lol ) the parts you should read a little closer to "help you' understand why it undermines evolution. It is broken down into layman's terms though and is quite easy to follow. I don't recall saying it "puts a bullet through evolutions heart"...? Although it's one of many gaping holes in the theory. Just a few which have so far been presented here.
Nice in depth response to years of scientific research and study Manny : "and how does this put a bullet through evolutions heart". I'll fax it to W.D.N.H.O.T.E.F.C. (we desperately need help with our theory of evolution fast center)." I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
I see by the content of your responses that you don't really have anything appoaching substantial rebuttals.
Weak Manny.
So we don't get energy from the sun?
Libel has to be false. I believe the above was an appropriate labeling to you saying that evolution is only propagted by atheists. If the shoe fits...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
Wow, you just blew away the arguements Duff, good stuff! :lol
Feel free to actually rebut the arguements, Manny needs all the help he can get. :lol
The theory of evoution doesn't have to have a starting point. You don't seem to be able to grasp that evolution is the explanation of how we got this many species and how they evolve, not how the origonated.Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
But its funny because when you take that last line, it describes your look at thermodynamics.
Feel free to stop your fluff posting and read the post above which completely kills your idea's on thermodynamics.Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
.Quote:
Originally posted by Manny : Joch believes everyone "propagates" ideas he does not believe in must be an atheist
Find a few of you infer are many such posts or you can talk to my attorney. :lol
off the beaten path again but that's where you're most comfortable in this thread. :lol