PDA

View Full Version : The Theory of Evolution


shon8121
11-07-2009, 02:07 AM
When it comes to polls, there are more Theistic-Evolutionists than there are Atheists (who usually accept Evolution) in America.

I am going to ask you all a question, and then I'm going to add some context...

Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Keep in mind that the Scientific Definition for a "Theory" is: An explanation for a collection of facts. What is a fact? A fact is a confirmed observation.
Next, Evolution only means the change a population of Organisms experience over time... it has nothing at all to do with Abiogenesis (which is the Origin of Life) or the Big Bang.

So again I ask. Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?

VCURamFan
11-07-2009, 02:47 AM
When it comes to polls, there are more Theistic-Evolutionists than there are Atheists (who usually accept Evolution) in America.

I am going to ask you all a question, and then I'm going to add some context...

Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Keep in mind that the Scientific Definition for a "Theory" is: An explanation for a collection of facts. What is a fact? A fact is a confirmed observation.
Next, Evolution only means the change a population of Organisms experience over time... it has nothing at all to do with Abiogenesis (which is the Origin of Life) or the Big Bang.

So again I ask. Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).

J.B.
11-07-2009, 02:53 AM
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).

Agreed :cool:

shon8121
11-07-2009, 02:54 AM
VCURamFan - That is a good point you brought up. I am glad you did so I can expand on this idea sooner rather than later.

Micro-Evolution is what most Creationists call "Adaptation". And sure, we can go along with that. It's clearly been observed.

Macro-Evolution has been defined as "species to species" transitions. But there are a great many misconceptions about Macro-Evolution.
Technically, no species gives birth to a new species. Macro, is just many instances of Micro over time.
Has this been observed?
Yes.
I recommend that people google "Ring Species" for observed Speciation in Nature.
Note that it is not the Speciation most desire to see... because that many changes cannot possibly occur in our lifetimes.

However, if you google "20 Year E. Coli Experiment" you'd quickly discover some huge changes Scientists have documented in Bacteria. E. Coli is defined as an oganism that cannot consume Citrate... as it's essentially poisoness. 3 separate and non-related mutations after some 20,000 generations were able to consume Citrate and thrive on it.

The moral of this story? We've not only observed Speciation, but we also have Fossils that show the Species to Species Transition we were unable to witness ourselves.

And soon I feel like I'm going to be discussing the DNA evidence which is truly the smoking gun for Macro-Evolution.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 04:36 AM
VCURamFan - That is a good point you brought up. I am glad you did so I can expand on this idea sooner rather than later.

Micro-Evolution is what most Creationists call "Adaptation". And sure, we can go along with that. It's clearly been observed.

Macro-Evolution has been defined as "species to species" transitions. But there are a great many misconceptions about Macro-Evolution.
Technically, no species gives birth to a new species. Macro, is just many instances of Micro over time.
Has this been observed?
Yes.
I recommend that people google "Ring Species" for observed Speciation in Nature.
Note that it is not the Speciation most desire to see... because that many changes cannot possibly occur in our lifetimes.

However, if you google "20 Year E. Coli Experiment" you'd quickly discover some huge changes Scientists have documented in Bacteria. E. Coli is defined as an oganism that cannot consume Citrate... as it's essentially poisoness. 3 separate and non-related mutations after some 20,000 generations were able to consume Citrate and thrive on it.

The moral of this story? We've not only observed Speciation, but we also have Fossils that show the Species to Species Transition we were unable to witness ourselves.

And soon I feel like I'm going to be discussing the DNA evidence which is truly the smoking gun for Macro-Evolution.

-----Hey friend names malcom. I too was like you, loved talking science (guess i still do). I had a thread on evolution about 8 months back or so. I myself am finishing my phD in biochemistry......what science field are you in?

If you need a hand for evidence for evolution at the level of the gene, Im your man. My speciality is NOT evolutionary biology, but i know a fair bit. But you have to keep in mind that I do beleive god made man.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 04:56 AM
mscomc - I am actually just extremely interested in Evolution. To tell you the truth, I really should be going to School for this because I'm sure I'd be very well prepared! Haha.

So when you say you believe god created man, do you mean you believe god directed the Evolution of man? Or do you simply mean he created Humans in their present form?

Speaking of "Genes". Have you heard about the (relatively) recent Mitochondrial DNA sequencing of Neanderthal bones? Scientists have concluded that they contributed no genes to the modern Human population. There was speculation that they and our direct ancestors the Cro-Magnons may have have had offspring, but we have no evidence of that as of yet. As it looks right now, they descended from Ardipithicus separately from us. Very intriguing.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 05:10 AM
mscomc - I am actually just extremely interested in Evolution. To tell you the truth, I really should be going to School for this because I'm sure I'd be very well prepared! Haha.

So when you say you believe god created man, do you mean you believe god directed the Evolution of man? Or do you simply mean he created Humans in their present form?
Speaking of "Genes". Have you heard about the (relatively) recent Mitochondrial DNA sequencing of Neanderthal bones? Scientists have concluded that they contributed no genes to the modern Human population. There was speculation that they and our direct ancestors the Cro-Magnons may have have had offspring, but we have no evidence of that as of yet. As it looks right now, they descended from Ardipithicus separately from us. Very intriguing.

:laugh: Gotta be careful man! if you wanna be a evo-biologist, you should know the human you are now is not the human you are 10 sec ago. Your cells and DNA are constantly mutating and turning over (cellular degredation and regeneration). I beleive that god made a human to start with yes. Do I beleive that human has changed genetically so much that its dna is not completely homologous to mine yes. But I beleive virtually all holy scripture mentions this.

you have to go back and look at many things:

1) true we now know how to study the level of the gene, but we dont know how: nucletiodes, the first genes, or how to read genes first came about. Right now, science has hypothesized that in early earth (like 60 billions years ago) quantum degeneration of an atom somehow fused to form a single cell.....which is already reallly realllllllly rare. Than we dont seem to know how we got to a functioning gene. Which is a pretty big gap.

2) Also have you seen the intricate details of a human cell? have you see how perfect it is? not just to look at, but thermodynamically and chemically, everything is so perfectly in sync. heres a link i posted for a good harvard medical school video of that -----
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/


3) Speaking of thermodynamics (men can go mad talking about this)....did you know the universe is soooooo thermo perfect, that if gravity at earth surface was even 0.1m/s (+ or -) what it is now....the universe couldnt exist? it wouldnt be stable?

-----There is alot more stuff. In the end, I dont beleive that chance was enough to make this all happen. I beleive there was a holy creator.

One more thing man. Not to change your mind on how you view religion. If you are atheist, that is cool with me man, so dont even sweat :) .....but i personaly have spent many years educating myself in the natural sciences. And some of my peers always mock me, why do i beleive in god? i cant see him, i cant hear him, or touch him...... I just tell them, i cant see an atom either, but i know its there.



Sorry for the long post. If you want more evolutionary evidence from the persepctive of: enzymes, bio-macromolecules, then i can help. If you are more into comparative anatomy (gorila skull vs human skull) sorry man, i aint that bright.


Take care, malcom

shon8121
11-07-2009, 05:39 AM
mscomc - Don't apologize. I enjoy long comments!
I'm aware that the body is constantly changing with cell mitosis, but I'm more interested in a population of organisms rather than just one individual. ;-)

Ok, you believe Humans were made in their present form. Have you heard of "inhibitors" governing genes? When these inhibitors shut off for whatever reason, the Junk DNA they were governing turns on and an old trait is expressed that was one fully expressed in our Ancestors. One such trait that appears is a tail.
Not just a fleshy stub... but a fully functional tail complete with bones, muscle and voluntary movement.
http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm
That website has a few pictures but I don't endourse it as a "safe for work" website for some Total Recall 3 boobed image much lower down.
The point is, why do we have the blueprints in our DNA for such a gene, if we did not descend from Ape-like creatures?
And what about Chromosome 2 in the Human Genome? It appears to be a fusion of two of the Great Ape's Chromosomes (since Humans have 46 Chromosomes [23 from each parent] and all other Apes have 48).
It would make more sense to me based off of evidence like this (there is much more) that if your god exists, he had a hand in Evolution rather than creating us in our current form.

Uh... Science doesn't depict the Earth as having even been a thought 60 Billion years ago in the Universe... since the Universe has been dated to 13.7 Billion years ago, and the Earth being dated to 4.5 Billion years ago. Abiogenesis is still somewhat in the air. They have had some success in organic chemistry coming together to form very simplistic... uh... what is the word... uh, lets go with "pre-cells"... Haha. It's not quite a cell, but it's on it's way. But I don't even know why we're talking about Abiogenesis, because I'm perfectly fine if your Creator caused the first simple self replicating cells to exist. *shrug* It's the Evolution afterwards that I'm interested in. Forgive me for assuming if this isn't what you meant in your first point, but thats how I interpreted it.


Onto your second point, ah yes. Surprised you didn't use the term "Irreducible Complexity"! Haha. Uh, of course the Cell is very complex. The evidence that Science has so far is that single celled organisms might have started showing up soon after the Earth was formed and they propogated for 2 or 3 Billion years before finally becoming multi-cellular. In a few Billion years, I can see this sort of complexity arising.


Regarding point 3, Thermodynamics is often used to try and discredit Evolution... but it's not properly understood in these terms. We get an almost unlimited amount of energy from the sun so it's not a closed system on Earth. Therefor, this Law is not an issue at all.


I don't know if I like the word "chance" because there are over 100 Billion Galaxies in the Universe. Is it "chance" that at least one of the Stars in all of those galaxies has a planet nearby that has the right conditions for life? I hope there is more life out there... otherwise its an awful waste of space in my opinion.

I'm not specifically Atheist. I mean, we're all Atheist to all of the gods that Humans have come up with throughout History... I just go one further. I'm not convinced by any specific Religion... but I'm personally Agnostic. I do not know if there is a god... and I do not truly think I could possibly know. And thats my position.

NateR
11-07-2009, 07:38 AM
When it comes to polls, there are more Theistic-Evolutionists than there are Atheists (who usually accept Evolution) in America.

I am going to ask you all a question, and then I'm going to add some context...

Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Keep in mind that the Scientific Definition for a "Theory" is: An explanation for a collection of facts. What is a fact? A fact is a confirmed observation.
Next, Evolution only means the change a population of Organisms experience over time... it has nothing at all to do with Abiogenesis (which is the Origin of Life) or the Big Bang.

So again I ask. Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?

Evolution as the method that life uses to adapt to its environment? Yes.

Evolution as a theory that all life on Earth is derived from one common ancestor? No.

Micro-Evolution can be observed. However, Macro-Evolution has never been observed, it can only be implied. Thus it is not a fact.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 07:43 AM
:laugh: Gotta be careful man! if you wanna be a evo-biologist, you should know the human you are now is not the human you are 10 sec ago. Your cells and DNA are constantly mutating and turning over (cellular degredation and regeneration). I beleive that god made a human to start with yes. Do I beleive that human has changed genetically so much that its dna is not completely homologous to mine yes. But I beleive virtually all holy scripture mentions this.

you have to go back and look at many things:

1) true we now know how to study the level of the gene, but we dont know how: nucletiodes, the first genes, or how to read genes first came about. Right now, science has hypothesized that in early earth (like 60 billions years ago) quantum degeneration of an atom somehow fused to form a single cell.....which is already reallly realllllllly rare. Than we dont seem to know how we got to a functioning gene. Which is a pretty big gap.

2) Also have you seen the intricate details of a human cell? have you see how perfect it is? not just to look at, but thermodynamically and chemically, everything is so perfectly in sync. heres a link i posted for a good harvard medical school video of that -----
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/


3) Speaking of thermodynamics (men can go mad talking about this)....did you know the universe is soooooo thermo perfect, that if gravity at earth surface was even 0.1m/s (+ or -) what it is now....the universe couldnt exist? it wouldnt be stable?

-----There is alot more stuff. In the end, I dont beleive that chance was enough to make this all happen. I beleive there was a holy creator.

One more thing man. Not to change your mind on how you view religion. If you are atheist, that is cool with me man, so dont even sweat :) .....but i personaly have spent many years educating myself in the natural sciences. And some of my peers always mock me, why do i beleive in god? i cant see him, i cant hear him, or touch him...... I just tell them, i cant see an atom either, but i know its there.



Sorry for the long post. If you want more evolutionary evidence from the persepctive of: enzymes, bio-macromolecules, then i can help. If you are more into comparative anatomy (gorila skull vs human skull) sorry man, i aint that bright.


Take care, malcom

mscom, Malcolm, did you say somewhere that you study membranes? Are you familiar with Alister McGrath? He is an Oxford Professor of Theology. Prior to studying theology, he did biochemistry research. His area was "developing innovative physical methods for studying the behavior of biological membranes, including the use of fluorescent probes and positron decay to investigate temperature-dependent transitions in biological systems and their models." (I hope you know what that means, I don't). Anyway, he gave up his atheism during his research time and got his PhD in theology and became an Anglican priest and a professor. He is a very prolific writer. He has a three volume work developing a scientific theology (Theory, Reality, Nature). Recently, he is best known for taking on Dawkins about atheism. He must have dozens of books in print. You should check him out.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 07:53 AM
mscom, Malcolm, did you say somewhere that you study membranes? Are you familiar with Alister McGrath? He is an Oxford Professor of Theology. Prior to studying theology, he did biochemistry research. His area was "developing innovative physical methods for studying the behavior of biological membranes, including the use of fluorescent probes and positron decay to investigate temperature-dependent transitions in biological systems and their models." (I hope you know what that means, I don't). Anyway, he gave up his atheism during his research time and got his PhD in theology and became an Anglican priest and a professor. He is a very prolific writer. He has a three volume work developing a scientific theology (Theory, Reality, Nature). Recently, he is best known for taking on Dawkins about atheism. He must have dozens of books in print. You should check him out.

:laugh: yeah I do know those techniques. My area of research is kind of linked to membranes. Dr, McGrath was more into membrane strucutre and things of that nature. Im more into memrane receptor. Ie: Insulin attaches to insulin receptor, the receptor triggers a cascade response in cell, cell take up glucose yadda yadda yadaa. Im not very familiar with McGrath actually. I didnt know he was also a preist. He kinda sounds like the preist from the first exorcist who was an M.D and a preist...lol.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 08:02 AM
:laugh: yeah I do know those techniques. My area of research is kind of linked to membranes. Dr, McGrath was more into membrane strucutre and things of that nature. Im more into memrane receptor. Ie: Insulin attaches to insulin receptor, the receptor triggers a cascade response in cell, cell take up glucose yadda yadda yadaa. Im not very familiar with McGrath actually. I didnt know he was also a preist. He kinda sounds like the preist from the first exorcist who was an M.D and a preist...lol.

I don't think he has a congregation. I think he just lectures and writes on theology and science.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 03:11 PM
Evolution as the method that life uses to adapt to its environment? Yes.

Evolution as a theory that all life on Earth is derived from one common ancestor? No.

Micro-Evolution can be observed. However, Macro-Evolution has never been observed, it can only be implied. Thus it is not a fact.

Hi NateR! Your reputation precedes you, so I'm excited that you've joined the discussion.

But I'm afraid you must have skipped over some of my other posts... I already addressed your concerns.

The Theory of Evolution actually does state that all life has a Common Ancestor or group of Ancestors (usually depicted as a Single-Celled Organism).

If you accept Micro-Evolution, then by definition you must accept "Macro" because it's just many instances of "Micro". We've observed Speciation in Nature. Google "Ring Species" for more information... unless you desire that I explain it to you... if thats the case I would love to do so.

And when it comes to Fossils evidence... its like coming across a Crime Scene. We have a gun on a table, missing a bullet... we have a bullet in a man lying dead on the floor and blood on the wall behind him. We can take the fingerprints off of the gun and find out who they belong too, and we can ask the neighbors if there has been any activity or arguments that the victim has been in lately. What if we find out that his wife and he had fights all the time? What if we find out that only her fingerprints are on the gun? What if we then catch her trying to flee the country?
What would you conclude has happened? Murder? Yeah, all we need now is a confession out of her, but even thats not really necessary because the evidence is pretty damning.

So... when it comes to the Fossil Record, it's often similar to this. We have a Dead body, we have the Sedimentary Rock Layers it's in, so we know a lot more about it than you would readily assume.

And we certainly have our DNA evidences.
Endogenous Retroviruses
Transposons
Functionally Redundant Pseudogenes
Functionally Redundant Proteins
Functionally Redundant DNA

Each of these things separately STRONGLY suggest Common Ancestry... but together they prove it.

If you're not willing to "google" these terms as well... I guess I can go into further detail to help people understand what they are and what they mean.

que
11-07-2009, 04:46 PM
did we come from monkeys? i don't know

but we sure do act like em, sometimes.

TexasRN
11-07-2009, 04:48 PM
did we come from monkeys? i don't know

but we sure do act like em, sometimes.

Leave Forrest out of this. :angry:

:laugh:


~Amy

shon8121
11-07-2009, 04:54 PM
did we come from monkeys? i don't know

but we sure do act like em, sometimes.

Haha. Well, to be accurate, we most recently descended from Ape-like Creatures. But those Ape-like Creatures descended from Monkey-like Creatures.

What a lot of people misunderstand (I'm not accusing you of this) is that Evolution is not Linear. I often hear "If we came from Monkeys, why don't we ever hear about Monkeys giving birth to humans?"
That assumes there is this specific order to Evolution and thats not how it works at all.
At best we are related to the other Great Apes... we're like Cousins having descended from the same Ancestor some 4-ish million years ago... but we didn't descend from a modern Ape or Monkey. Haha.

Speaking of acting like Monkeys... Check this funny clip out! These Monkeys are stealing people's Alcohol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk

Chuck
11-07-2009, 10:13 PM
Haha. Well, to be accurate, we most recently descended from Ape-like Creatures. But those Ape-like Creatures descended from Monkey-like Creatures.

What a lot of people misunderstand (I'm not accusing you of this) is that Evolution is not Linear. I often hear "If we came from Monkeys, why don't we ever hear about Monkeys giving birth to humans?"
That assumes there is this specific order to Evolution and thats not how it works at all.
At best we are related to the other Great Apes... we're like Cousins having descended from the same Ancestor some 4-ish million years ago... but we didn't descend from a modern Ape or Monkey. Haha.

Speaking of acting like Monkeys... Check this funny clip out! These Monkeys are stealing people's Alcohol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk

Rubbish.....

shon8121
11-07-2009, 10:15 PM
Rubbish.....

???
I'm confused. What is rubbish? I thought the whole Monkeys stealing Alcohol was quite amusing. :wink:

Chuck
11-07-2009, 10:51 PM
???
I'm confused. What is rubbish? I thought the whole Monkeys stealing Alcohol was quite amusing. :wink:

All of your post except that part :D

shon8121
11-07-2009, 10:54 PM
All of your post except that part :D

Why is it "rubbish"? :sad:

I'm only presenting the Scientific Facts. I'm sure if I listed all of the components in your Computer, you wouldn't reasonably be able to call that rubish because all of those components are the results of the same Scientific Method that derived our knowledge about Evolution.
:tongue0011:

logrus
11-08-2009, 01:31 AM
Evolution for me is nothing more then a species evolving for the sake of survival.

Chuck
11-08-2009, 01:53 AM
Why is it "rubbish"? :sad:

I'm only presenting the Scientific Facts. I'm sure if I listed all of the components in your Computer, you wouldn't reasonably be able to call that rubish because all of those components are the results of the same Scientific Method that derived our knowledge about Evolution.
:tongue0011:

They are not facts... it's called the theory of evolution for a reason. It's a theory. The only thing that makes it even remotely possible is to assign some ridiculous time frame to the "facts" like millions of years...

Rubbish :wink:

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:24 AM
They are not facts... it's called the theory of evolution for a reason. It's a theory. The only thing that makes it even remotely possible is to assign some ridiculous time frame to the "facts" like millions of years...

Rubbish :wink:

Ah... Chuck c'mon. Have you skipped some of my precious posts? A Scientific Theory as defined by it's original meaning is: An Explanation for a collection of facts.
So uh... a Theory isn't a mere educated guess as is a "Hypothesis" as many assume.

Ridiculous time frame? So uh... lets take Dinosaurs for example. How do you explain how they show up in the Fossil record? Why are they so far below the life that we find as living today? And why before them do we find precambrian life which is much more simple than the Cretacious and Jurrasic Period?
If you need help understanding the Science here, I would love to assist you sir.

We have a better understanding of Evolution than we do for Gravity... which is also a "Theory" by the way... and so is the whole "Earth revolving around the Sun" thing.

Think about it.

NateR
11-08-2009, 03:32 AM
Ah... Chuck c'mon. Have you skipped some of my precious posts? A Scientific Theory as defined by it's original meaning is: An Explanation for a collection of facts.
So uh... a Theory isn't a mere educated guess as is a "Hypothesis" as many assume.

Ridiculous time frame? So uh... lets take Dinosaurs for example. How do you explain how they show up in the Fossil record? Why are they so far below the life that we find as living today? And why before them do we find precambrian life which is much more simple than the Cretacious and Jurrasic Period?
If you need help understanding the Science here, I would love to assist you sir.

We have a better understanding of Evolution than we do for Gravity... which is also a "Theory" by the way... and so is the whole "Earth revolving around the Sun" thing.

Think about it.

Wow, do you really believe any of this nonsense that you are typing?

Mark
11-08-2009, 03:34 AM
Gravity a theory?

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:36 AM
Gravity a theory?

Is this "Mark" as in the brother of Matt? If so, thats awesome. It's great to uh... type to you. Haha.

But yes, Gravity is both a Law, accompanied by a Theory to explain it. :-)

Mark
11-08-2009, 03:39 AM
Is this "Mark" as in the brother of Matt? If so, thats awesome. It's great to uh... type to you. Haha.

But yes, Gravity is both a Law, accompanied by a Theory to explain it. :-)

So the theory you are taking about with the dinasours is speculation?

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:39 AM
Wow, do you really believe any of this nonsense that you are typing?

NateR - I was under the impression that you were someone who would respond with something... more than what you have been so far.

Are you just intending to insult people? Or do you actually have something to offer to the conversation?

No, I do not "believe" what I am writing... I accept it. I am merely writing whats accepted as the Scientific Consensus by the Eminent Scientists of our time... so in essence I'm just repeating the Scientific Facts here.

Again, I do hope that you actually attempt to discuss here rather than just scoff and throw out unneccessary insults.

NateR
11-08-2009, 03:39 AM
Is this "Mark" as in the brother of Matt? If so, thats awesome. It's great to uh... type to you. Haha.

But yes, Gravity is both a Law, accompanied by a Theory to explain it. :-)

The difference is that it's a Law. There is no "Law of Evolution," because there is absolutely no evidence to support Macro-Evolution. Zero.

Exactly where is your information about Evolution coming from? You need to start citing your sources before I will even consider engaging in a discussion with you on this topic.

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:40 AM
So the theory you are taking about with the dinasours is speculation?

Huh? What "Theory" about Dinosaurs?

NateR
11-08-2009, 03:42 AM
NateR - I was under the impression that you were someone who would respond with something... more than what you have been so far.

Are you just intending to insult people? Or do you actually have something to offer to the conversation?

No, I do not "believe" what I am writing... I accept it. I am merely writing whats accepted as the Scientific Consensus by the Eminent Scientists of our time... so in essence I'm just repeating the Scientific Opinions and Speculation here.

Again, I do hope that you actually attempt to discuss here rather than just scoff and throw out unneccessary insults.

Fixed.

Adia
11-08-2009, 03:43 AM
They are not facts... it's called the theory of evolution for a reason. It's a theory. The only thing that makes it even remotely possible is to assign some ridiculous time frame to the "facts" like millions of years...

Rubbish :wink:

Indeed. My mother always said "if you weren't there, you don't know, now shut up and do the dishes"..ok maybe the last part spoke more to her parenting style....but just the same...:ashamed:

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:44 AM
The difference is that it's a Law. There is no "Law of Evolution," because there is absolutely no evidence to support Macro-Evolution. Zero.

Exactly where is your information about Evolution coming from? You need to start citing your sources before I will even consider engaging in a discussion with you on this topic.

Oh, so you do intend to have a "discussion"? Thats great news!

Uh... "law" of Evolution? Of course not. We humans are in fact not Evolving anymore because we have overcome (for the most part) Natural Selection... so most anybody who desires to (and some who don't, haha) procreate. If Natural Selection is not being applied to a population of organisms, then they are unable to adapt or change... so there can be no "law" of Evolution.
But there is technically a "law" of Mutations since they occur at a pretty consistent rate.
Even die hard Creationists accept that...

And uh... I don't get my information from any specific website because I have been acquiring my information from a variety of sources over several years... but there is a website that has a great index of what information I possess and can link to.
It's:
http://www.talkorigins.com
...if you want to take a peek.

TexasRN
11-08-2009, 03:45 AM
NateR - I was under the impression that you were someone who would respond with something... more than what you have been so far.

Are you just intending to insult people? Or do you actually have something to offer to the conversation?

No, I do not "believe" what I am writing... I accept it. I am merely writing whats accepted as the Scientific Consensus by the Eminent Scientists of our time... so in essence I'm just repeating the Scientific Facts here.

Again, I do hope that you actually attempt to discuss here rather than just scoff and throw out unneccessary insults.

But you see, we've had this discussion many times on this forum over the last several years. It's old. It's boring. So bring something new to the table or it's just not worth rehashing again and again.


~Amy

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:46 AM
Fixed.

Haha NateR, you make me giggle. :laugh:

NateR
11-08-2009, 03:46 AM
Indeed. My mother always said "if you weren't there, you don't know, now shut up and do the dishes"..ok maybe the last part spoke more to her parenting style....but just the same...:ashamed:

Exactly, there were no human beings alive to witness these "events" so they can NEVER be declared as fact. Claiming that these are facts does nothing but reveal a fundamental ignorance of the scope and limitations of true science.

Adia
11-08-2009, 03:46 AM
But you see, we've had this discussion many times on this forum over the last several years. It's old. It's boring. So bring something new to the table or it's just not worth rehashing again and again.


~Amy

Something tells me this and a few other threads are being "rehashed" with a particular motive in mind....n'est ce pas? ;)

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:46 AM
But you see, we've had this discussion many times on this forum over the last several years. It's old. It's boring. So bring something new to the table or it's just not worth rehashing again and again.


~Amy

I apologize... for I have not been there for those previous discussions so I know not what have already been covered...

:ashamed:

Adia
11-08-2009, 03:48 AM
Exactly, there were no human beings alive to witness these "events" so they can NEVER be declared as fact. Claiming that these are facts does nothing but reveal a fundamental ignorance of the scope and limitations of true science.

Ah but there will always be the "experts" who claim otherwise. I like to watch them theorize themselves in circles..it's like watching dogs chase their tails and who doesn't love that? :D

There are also people who like starting controversial threads just to doodie stir. Those are amusing too because they always end the same. The wheel cannot be reinvented lol

shon8121
11-08-2009, 03:48 AM
Exactly, there were no human beings alive to witness these "events" so they can NEVER be declared as fact. Claiming that these are facts does nothing but reveal a fundamental ignorance of the scope and limitations of true science.

NateR... was a Human there for your birth? How do you know?
Do you remember?
Do your parents remember? They say they do... but oddly enough their versions of the story will differ slightly.

Personal Testimony is becoming less and less used and trusted in court because it is not as good of evidence as... say... DNA evidence...


... which consequently Evolution has...
Shall I repeat the undeniable evidences for you?

NateR
11-08-2009, 03:54 AM
Shall I repeat the undeniable evidences for you?

There's no point because I'm just going to deny them. :laugh:

Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.

shon8121
11-08-2009, 04:00 AM
There's no point because I'm just going to deny them. :laugh:

Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.

Sir... how can I be ignorant of what Science truly is... when I offer only the consensus of what the Eminent Scientists offer? That makes no sense.

Um... most peeps count Macro-Evolution as "speciation"... do you not do that? Do you not count it as Speciation at all? Because if you do, it HAS been observed, and I have presented you with the information at least twice.

If you wish to DENY Scientific Fact, I will not stop you.

But I think you are too "hell bent" on assuming Evolution as being Atheistic... as you have no real reason to deny facts unless it contradicts a literal Interpretation of... you know what. :cool:

mscomc
11-08-2009, 04:06 AM
There's no point because I'm just going to deny them. :laugh:

Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.

Nate, i think I have the answer. As you recall, you and I discussed this topic some time ago. And although you and I both agree that evolution (on the macro) isn't true via science, i have recently come across some very, very enlightening, SCIENTIFIC footage that explains everything. Shon, watch closely. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY&feature=quicklist

NateR
11-08-2009, 04:08 AM
Sir... how can I be ignorant of what Science truly is... when I offer only the consensus of what the Eminent Scientists offer? That makes no sense.

Do I believe that the "consensus of Eminent Scientists" are wrong? Yes.

All you are providing here is an Argument of Authority. In other words, since these men have degrees given to them by other men, then they MUST be right? That's a logical fallacy. They are just as capable of being wrong about events they were not alive to witness as anyone else.

Um... most peeps count Macro-Evolution as "speciation"... do you not do that? Do you not count it as Speciation at all? Because if you do, it HAS been observed, and I have presented you with the information at least twice.

Oh really? Exactly which scientist has been alive for millions of years observing it? I'd like to meet that guy.

If you wish to DENY Scientific Fact, I will not stop you.

I don't deny facts, I just deny speculation, guesswork and opinions masquerading as facts. There is a difference and if you were truly a "critical thinker" then you would know that.

But I think you are too "hell bent" on assuming Evolution as being Atheistic... as you have no real reason to deny facts unless it contradicts a literal Interpretation of... you know what. :cool:

No, TexasRN had it right, it's just a discussion we've had so many other times before that I'm simply tired of drudging through the same nonsense over and over.

shon8121
11-08-2009, 04:10 AM
Nate, i think I have the answer. As you recall, you and I discussed this topic some time ago. And although you and I both agree that evolution (on the macro) isn't true via science, i have recently come across some very, very enlightening, SCIENTIFIC footage that explains everything. Shon, watch closely. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY&feature=quicklist

Hahahahaha. Thats awesome.

Besides the "squid" type creature evolving into the Fish... and the same "Homer" Organism evolving into several different creatures... I'd say that is a pretty accurate representation of Evolution. :)

NateR
11-08-2009, 04:11 AM
Nate, i think I have the answer. As you recall, you and I discussed this topic some time ago. And although you and I both agree that evolution (on the macro) isn't true via science, i have recently come across some very, very enlightening, SCIENTIFIC footage that explains everything. Shon, watch closely. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY&feature=quicklist

Nice. :laugh:

shon8121
11-08-2009, 04:16 AM
Do I believe that the "consensus of Eminent Scientists" are wrong? Yes.

All you are providing here is an Argument of Authority. In other words, since these men have degrees given to them by other men, then they MUST be right? That's a logical fallacy. They are just as capable of being wrong about events they were not alive to witness as anyone else.

Oh really? Exactly which scientist has been alive for millions of years observing it? I'd like to meet that guy.

I don't deny facts, I just deny speculation, guesswork and opinions masquerading as facts. There is a difference and if you were truly a "critical thinker" then you would know that.

No, TexasRN had it right, it's just a discussion we've had so many other times before that I'm simply tired of drudging through the same nonsense over and over.

Oh I like that. You disagree with the experts on the opinion. I'm glad I don't have to adhere to your opinion when it comes to sending someone into space or administering medicine to someone who's sick.
Oh! Awesome! You brought up the Logical Fallacy of an "Argument from Authority". That is completely correct not to just stand by for those arguments, however it is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

As I've said, when it comes to a crime scene that no one else was witness to... if we have the adequate epiracle evidence... then we can convict someone of murder if thats what the evidence suggests. Was someone witness to the Earth coming into existance? I mean, was a HUMAN witness to that?
No?
Then how do we know it happened? Haha. Come on dude.

I do know the difference... unfortunately... you appear to be blinded by bias because you only deny without offering some alternative explanation for the DNA evidences I have provided. The only explanation so far is Common Ancestry... so you have a lot of work to do. Good luck.

NateR
11-08-2009, 04:28 AM
Oh I like that. You disagree with the experts on the opinion. I'm glad I don't have to adhere to your opinion when it comes to sending someone into space or administering medicine to someone who's sick.
Oh! Awesome! You brought up the Logical Fallacy of an "Argument from Authority". That is completely correct not to just stand by for those arguments, however it is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

As I've said, when it comes to a crime scene that no one else was witness to... if we have the adequate epiracle evidence... then we can convict someone of murder if thats what the evidence suggests. Was someone witness to the Earth coming into existance? I mean, was a HUMAN witness to that?
No?
Then how do we know it happened? Haha. Come on dude.

I do know the difference... unfortunately... you appear to be blinded by bias because you only deny without offering some alternative explanation for the DNA evidences I have provided. The only explanation so far is Common Ancestry... so you have a lot of work to do. Good luck.

Your DNA evidence is not direct proof of anything. It's just as much an indication of a Common Designer as it is for a common ancestor.

Is the existence of "residual DNA" in our bodies a fact? Well, from our current understanding of genetics, yes. However, in order for that fact to be proof of anything it must be interpreted and that interpretation depends greatly upon the worldview of the interpreter.

So, claiming that it is proof of Evolution is simply an opinion since none of us were alive to witness these events. Also, comparing it to a crime scene just tells me that you've watched too many episodes of CSI. :wink:

rearnakedchoke
11-08-2009, 04:37 AM
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).

i think this is the best answer ... agree 100%

shon8121
11-08-2009, 04:38 AM
Your DNA evidence is not direct proof of anything. It's just as much an indication of a Common Designer as it is for a common ancestor.

Is the existence of "residual DNA" in our bodies a fact? Well, from our current understanding of genetics, yes. However, in order for that fact to be proof of anything it must be interpreted and that interpretation depends greatly upon the worldview of the interpreter.

So, claiming that it is proof of Evolution is simply an opinion since none of us were alive to witness these events. Also, comparing it to a crime scene just tells me that you've watched too many episodes of CSI. :wink:

As I've heard its an interesting show, I in fact do not watch CSI.

Common designer? Ok... I guess you didn't research the terms I gave you. But recall, this is NOT about Evolution verses the Literal Biblical Interpretation of Genesis. So lets stop acting like its Christianity verses Atheism.

Lets look at Endogenous Retroviruses first:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV-1) infect somatic cells, but some can also infect germline cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations during host DNA replication. There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago.

What does this mean? Endogenous Retroviruses insert randomly and are passed on from parent to child. For example, the Great Apes and Humans share a great many of these Endongeous Retroviruses that are inserted into random points in our DNA. They cannot insert randomly into the same line of DNA between all Species of Apes. Humans are included in that definition because we are indeed classified as Primates. I know you guys like talking about random chance and the astronomical number of possibilities and stuff... but this happening by chance would be beyond even your calculations.

Shall I move onto the next DNA evidence?

VCURamFan
11-08-2009, 04:39 AM
i think this is the best answer ... agree 100%
:happydancing::happydancing::happydancing:

NateR
11-08-2009, 05:00 AM
Lets look at Endogenous Retroviruses first:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV-1) infect somatic cells, but some can also infect germline cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations during host DNA replication. There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago.

Interesting read, but I've bolded where it crosses over into speculation. If you understood anything about dating methods, you would know that none of them are truly reliable.

NateR
11-08-2009, 05:04 AM
so you have a lot of work to do. Good luck.

BTW, last I checked this is your thread. You started this topic and you are the one trying to convince all of us. So the burden of proof is 100% on your shoulders.

Chuck
11-08-2009, 05:14 AM
Something tells me this and a few other threads are being "rehashed" with a particular motive in mind....n'est ce pas? ;)

BINGO!!!!

Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..

bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....

Hardly a thinker at all...............

Vizion
11-08-2009, 05:16 AM
Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..

bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....

Hardly a thinker at all............... :laugh:a Troll indeed.

mscomc
11-08-2009, 05:52 AM
As I've heard its an interesting show, I in fact do not watch CSI.

Common designer? Ok... I guess you didn't research the terms I gave you. But recall, this is NOT about Evolution verses the Literal Biblical Interpretation of Genesis. So lets stop acting like its Christianity verses Atheism.

Lets look at Endogenous Retroviruses first:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV-1) infect somatic cells, but some can also infect germline cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations during host DNA replication. There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago.

What does this mean? Endogenous Retroviruses insert randomly and are passed on from parent to child. For example, the Great Apes and Humans share a great many of these Endongeous Retroviruses that are inserted into random points in our DNA. They cannot insert randomly into the same line of DNA between all Species of Apes. Humans are included in that definition because we are indeed classified as Primates. I know you guys like talking about random chance and the astronomical number of possibilities and stuff... but this happening by chance would be beyond even your calculations.

Shall I move onto the next DNA evidence?

Here man, I'll see if I can throw some info your way, since some people are just calling you a troll, (not nice by the way guys)..... since you brought up endogenous retroviruses, and i know little about em :wink: To be more specific about what your wrote (no offence by the way)

Ok so as many of you may know, in the entire Human genome, only about 2-3% of the DNA is gene-coding, in other words, it makes a protein.

Now the rest of genome, is filled with what we call "junk" DNA. DONT GET THIS CONFUSED WITH, DNA THAT DOESNT DO ANYTHING...things like Introns, promoting regions (nessesscary for gene activation), repressors, enhancers, inhibitors etc etc... intergenic DNA.....and lastly Restrotransposable Elements (Shon, i beleive this is what you mean).. We call this stuff Junk DNA because we are still not to sure what MOST of it does exactly. We know that Introns are involved in things like splicing etc etc...but for the most part we are still in the dark. Now Retrotransposable Elements actually make up 45% of the human GENOME. And here is what they do....

The retrotransposon DNA is initially transcribed via RNA polymerase (the same enzyme for normal genes) and turns into an mRNA intermediate...That mRNA intermediate in itself is unqiue because withing the mRNA it also coded for a REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE. This enzyme will turn the mRNA back into DNA and then via an enzyme called TRANSPOSASE this new DNA is re-inserted back into the DNA in the Nucleus. So, if our genome had 1000 kilo base pairs to begin with, and the transposon was 100 kilo base pairs, now we have 1100 kilo base pairs. Barbara McClintock
won the Nobel prize in 1983 for discovering this.

Now, more importantly, is where does this insert, insert itself? It is right next to the gene from which it came, it is randomly inserted into another region of "junk" DNA or can it disrupt protein coding genes by causing a mutation? Can it mutate a current protein coding region and enhance that protein for the better or worse?

The answer? All of the above are possible. So lets the take the most interesting one, inserting into a protein coding sequence. If you disrupt the gene order, this is a mutation, but now it is a mutation due to increased Genome size, and NOT something like Ionizing radiation. And, lets not forget, the transposon itself can become mutated before it even re-inserts itself, causing a "double" mutation if you will.

Soooo what does all this mumbo jumbo mean? What are the potential effects on Human metabolism?

Well lets go in a list:

1) It is beleived that a transposable elements may have inserted itself in the place that coded for Cellulose metabolism. Therefore, now we cant use Cellulose as a source of Carbs, BUT.....in place, we can now form Fiber in the G.I tract to help us push out feces...... This is may be why the appendix and cecum have NO physiological function anymore. Some may consider this an evolution ( I would)

2) The UCP's , or Uncoupling proteins are a type of mitochondrial protein that regulate the proton gradient during Oxidative Phosphorylation, the final step in the converson of glucose to make ATP----celluar energy. Now UCP3 has typically been linked to obesity (slow metabolsim) or fitness (very fast metabolsim). Traditionally, a single base mutation, like the one we are born with, or the one you get from environemnt like: Ionizing radiation, toxic waste, solvents etc etc, has been linked to a much slower metabolism, and a hard time metabolizing fat.

BUT......for some reason (we still dont know yet), certain retrotransposons have been found near the gene that codes for UCP3. And people with this new insertion, have been found to metabolize fat very easily....Im talking you can eat 5 big macs a day and not gain a pound....im sure we all know people like that. This would imply that this time, the insertion is acting as a promoting or enhancing region in the DNA to combatt fat. Because if you study the intricate details of Fat Metabolism at the molecular level, you would see that as humans, we are not very efficient when it comes to dealing with fat

-----So bottom line, this kind of cellular process is evolving us, as the genome can get bigger and bigger as a result from these. But is the evolution good? is relatively un-noticeable? can this really explain for the hypothesized chain of human evolution?-------That i disagree with.....at best i say it is micro-evolution, which i dont think anyone on this site disagrees with.

Black Mamba
11-08-2009, 06:13 AM
Now the rest of genome, is filled with what we call "junk" DNA. DONT GET THIS CONFUSED WITH, DNA THAT DOESNT DO ANYTHING...things like Introns, promoting regions (nessesscary for gene activation), repressors, enhancers, inhibitors etc etc... intergenic DNA.....and lastly Restrotransposable Elements (Shon, i beleive this is what you mean).. We call this stuff Junk DNA because we are still not to sure what MOST of it does exactly. We know that Introns are involved in things like splicing etc etc...but for the most part we are still in the dark. Now Retrotransposable Elements actually make up 45% of the human GENOME. And here is what they do....

The retrotransposon DNA is initially transcribed via RNA polymerase (the same enzyme for normal genes) and turns into an mRNA intermediate...That mRNA intermediate in itself is unqiue because withing the mRNA it also coded for a REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE. This enzyme will turn the mRNA back into DNA and then via an enzyme called TRANSPOSASE this new DNA is re-inserted back into the DNA in the Nucleus. So, if our genome had 1000 kilo base pairs to begin with, and the transposon was 100 kilo base pairs, now we have 1100 kilo base pairs. Barbara McClintock
won the Nobel prize in 1983 for discovering this.



Yay! I'm able to follow what you just said (the stuff in bold). :cool: I had to know a large chunk of that last semester and it was mind blowing. :wacko: All the different RNAs, RNA polymerase, introns, exons, had to keep straight at ALL times the difference between transcription and transcribe....I kept all my notes from my intro cell/molecular bio course too.

Opps, I didn't mean to get the thread off topic either. So to get back on topic, I will say this: I'm taking an intro organismal bio course which approaches this topic from an evolutionary aspect. In some retrospects I agree with evolution and others I don't. I can't get into much detail because I have yet to take an actual genetic/evolution course but that's coming.

mscomc
11-08-2009, 06:15 AM
Yay! I'm able to follow what you just said (the stuff in bold). :cool: I had to know a large chunk of that last semester and it was mind blowing. :wacko: All the different RNAs, RNA polymerase, introns, exons, had to keep straight at ALL times the difference between transcription and transcribe....I kept all my notes from my intro cell/molecular bio course too.

Opps, I didn't mean to get the thread off topic either. So to get back on topic, I will say this: I'm taking an intro organismal bio course which approaches this topic from an evolutionary aspect. In some retrospects I agree with evolution and others I don't. I can't get into much detail because I have yet to take an actual genetic/evolution course but that's coming.

ooooo dont forget to TRANSLATE, and post-translate and god only knows how many others.....hahahaah:laugh:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
11-08-2009, 06:29 AM
Like most on here I can accept adaptation and selective breeding but not one species turning into another! This Darwin view can in no way be proved and has turned into a religion of its own! To me Darwinism is almost occult like!

Buzzard
11-08-2009, 07:10 AM
Wow, do you really believe any of this nonsense that you are typing?

Do you really believe the nonsense that you type?

But you see, we've had this discussion many times on this forum over the last several years. It's old. It's boring. So bring something new to the table or it's just not worth rehashing again and again.


~Amy

What I think is boorish and boring is the fact that instead of attacking the argument, NateR immediately went to the name calling and denial card. I think maybe some of the words used are too big for him to comprehend.:wink:

Exactly, there were no human beings alive to witness these "events" so they can NEVER be declared as fact. Claiming that these are facts does nothing but reveal a fundamental ignorance of the scope and limitations of true science.

How do you then resolve many of your religious views? Surely there are no facts behind them.

There's no point because I'm just going to deny them. :laugh:

Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

I think you are showing the ignorance here.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.

I think you are well out of your league here. So am I but at least I am here to listen and hopefully learn something here.

Do I believe that the "consensus of Eminent Scientists" are wrong? Yes.

What are your beliefs on this subject then, and how did you get them? Also, what are your beliefs regarding other scientific findings?

All you are providing here is an Argument of Authority. In other words, since these men have degrees given to them by other men, then they MUST be right? That's a logical fallacy. They are just as capable of being wrong about events they were not alive to witness as anyone else.

Do you also hold that to be true in your religious views? Itr seems that many things in the bible were written about "after the fact".



Oh really? Exactly which scientist has been alive for millions of years observing it? I'd like to meet that guy.




I don't deny facts, I just deny speculation, guesswork and opinions masquerading as facts. There is a difference and if you were truly a "critical thinker" then you would know that.

Why do you accept your religious views as facts if you do so? Not trying to be rude, just wanting to see if you are consistent in your views.


No, TexasRN had it right, it's just a discussion we've had so many other times before that I'm simply tired of drudging through the same nonsense over and over.

Is it possibly because you don't like being wrong or less informed than others and you unable to accept it?

Interesting read, but I've bolded where it crosses over into speculation. If you understood anything about dating methods, you would know that none of them are truly reliable.

I know one true dating method that is reliable. Get her drunk.

BINGO!!!!

Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..

bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....

Hardly a thinker at all...............

I think that you are quite wrong here Chuck. I don't see him as a troll at all. His opinions differ quite immensely from most of the members here, but it is a refreshing change, especially for me. If everyone had the same opinions on everything what a truly boring place this would be.

I guess I should wait for the next visit from my very own innernets stalker. Wait for it, wait for it.

shon8121
11-08-2009, 04:37 PM
If you understood anything about dating methods, you would know that none of them are truly reliable.

I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.



BTW, last I checked this is your thread. You started this topic and you are the one trying to convince all of us. So the burden of proof is 100% on your shoulders.


Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.



BINGO!!!!
Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..
bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....
Hardly a thinker at all...............


It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.


a Troll indeed.

Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.


Here man, I'll see if I can throw some info your way, since some people are just calling you a troll, (not nice by the way guys)..... since you brought up endogenous retroviruses, and i know little about em To be more specific about what your wrote (no offence by the way)


Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time! :)


Like most on here I can accept adaptation and selective breeding but not one species turning into another! This Darwin view can in no way be proved and has turned into a religion of its own! To me Darwinism is almost occult like!


One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.


I know one true dating method that is reliable. Get her drunk.


!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.

mscomc
11-08-2009, 09:36 PM
I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.




Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.




It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.


Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.



Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time! :)



One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.



!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.

OOOO good shot man. I forgot about that. You are right about the cytocrhome C information and the probability surrounding it......

Another thing i always found amaizing, is our homology even to E.Coli.

1) We have many of the same enzymes....
-----almost identical DNA polymerase
------ Glycolytic enzymes like phosphofructokinase 1 and many others
------ we both read DNA in the 5' ------3' direction
---------- we both read it only 3 nuceotides at a time
---------- the ribosomal sub-units we use to make protein are very homologous to one another
------ We both use A, G, C, T

But the big one for me is, WE both use ATP as our final molecule of energy currency.....

****there is like a million more examples. I have to say, that has always made me think. :wink:

Play The Man
11-08-2009, 10:27 PM
I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.




Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.




It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.


Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.



Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time! :)



One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.



!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.

Please list 5 pieces of evidence that you believe would suggest that evolution is false (I am not saying that this evidence exists, I am saying list 5 theoretical pieces of evidence that if presented to you would cause you to doubt or disbelieve Darwinian evolution as a cause for all living matter coming from one common ancestor)? I know that you believe that the theory is true. If it is not just a circular tautology, but a theory, then evidence should cause you to abandon it if faced with contrary evidence. What would that evidence be?

Chris F
11-08-2009, 11:12 PM
The world is but 6000 years old so the whole mirco over time logic is nothing more then a fallacy. When God created the earth he created everything fully mature. Adam was not created an infant. So sure the Grand Canyon may appear ancient but that was exactly how God intended it. The ancient people in that areas history even reflect this. Even Darwin knew his theory was crap but his buddy Huxley through great propaganda spread a lie as plausible truth. The only truth is Gods truth and it says he created it and it was not from primordial ooze either.

Chris F
11-08-2009, 11:22 PM
I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.




Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.




It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.


Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.



Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time! :)



One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.



!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.

Really what it boils down to is your faith is in man made science textbooks. Much of us's faith is in a God inspired book we believe to be the Word of God. The 2 are not compatible. If a science book contradict scripture it is the science that is wrong. There was a time science thought the world was flat. Once science taught there were only 1,100 stars, the bible said they were innumerable (Jer 33:22) Science once taught the earth sat upon an animal. The bible taught it was free floating in space (Job 26:7). SO science was wrong then even when scripture was true. A lot of what is discovered today was already proved in the bible centuries ago. So this theory is just as asinine as those of old. Science needs to stick to things that has verifiable and re creatable facts. Just because you read it in a textbook or your PhD told you it was true does nto make it so. If it were true then science would not have had to invent fossils to prove their theories or call pig skulls human.

Chuck
11-09-2009, 12:56 AM
Really what it boils down to is your faith is in man made science textbooks. Much of us's faith is in a God inspired book we believe to be the Word of God. The 2 are not compatible. If a science book contradict scripture it is the science that is wrong. There was a time science thought the world was flat. Once science taught there were only 1,100 stars, the bible said they were innumerable (Jer 33:22) Science once taught the earth sat upon an animal. The bible taught it was free floating in space (Job 26:7). SO science was wrong then even when scripture was true. A lot of what is discovered today was already proved in the bible centuries ago. So this theory is just as asinine as those of old. Science needs to stick to things that has verifiable and re creatable facts. Just because you read it in a textbook or your PhD told you it was true does nto make it so. If it were true then science would not have had to invent fossils to prove their theories or call pig skulls human.

+1

NateR
11-09-2009, 01:14 AM
The world is but 6000 years old so the whole mirco over time logic is nothing more then a fallacy. When God created the earth he created everything fully mature. Adam was not created an infant. So sure the Grand Canyon may appear ancient but that was exactly how God intended it. The ancient people in that areas history even reflect this. Even Darwin knew his theory was crap but his buddy Huxley through great propaganda spread a lie as plausible truth. The only truth is Gods truth and it says he created it and it was not from primordial ooze either.

Well, the word "evolution" simply means a slow change over time. It existed more than 2 centuries before Darwin's theory, so in it's pre-Darwin form I have no problem believing it because we can observe it.

For instance, GOD obviously didn't create all the different races of humankind separately, since we are all related by common parents: Adam and Eve. So the environmental adaptations that mark the different human races on Earth could be understood as Micro-Evolution (even though I think Adaptation is a better description).

However, evolution implies that the subject is moving from simple to complex. In that sense, I don't believe the word applies, since there is no indication whatsoever that new genetic information is added in successive generations. If anything, we are losing genetic information with each generation and our DNA is degrading as the centuries pass.

Despite what many people claim, dogs and cats are not good examples of any form of evolution, since most breeds of dogs are a result of human intervention and selective breeding.

shon8121
11-09-2009, 04:33 AM
OOOO good shot man. I forgot about that. You are right about the cytocrhome C information and the probability surrounding it......

Another thing i always found amaizing, is our homology even to E.Coli.

1) We have many of the same enzymes....
-----almost identical DNA polymerase
------ Glycolytic enzymes like phosphofructokinase 1 and many others
------ we both read DNA in the 5' ------3' direction
---------- we both read it only 3 nuceotides at a time
---------- the ribosomal sub-units we use to make protein are very homologous to one another
------ We both use A, G, C, T

But the big one for me is, WE both use ATP as our final molecule of energy currency.....

****there is like a million more examples. I have to say, that has always made me think. :wink:

And thats all that truly matters to me... is to get people to think just a little more. :)


Please list 5 pieces of evidence that you believe would suggest that evolution is false (I am not saying that this evidence exists, I am saying list 5 theoretical pieces of evidence that if presented to you would cause you to doubt or disbelieve Darwinian evolution as a cause for all living matter coming from one common ancestor)? I know that you believe that the theory is true. If it is not just a circular tautology, but a theory, then evidence should cause you to abandon it if faced with contrary evidence. What would that evidence be?


5? Hmmm. Lets see...
1.) If we were to find a Human skeleton in the same Sedimentary Rock Layers as... say... a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
2.) If some new Geological evidence overwhelmingly suggested the Earth to be younger than the 4.5 Billion years its been dated to. If significantly younger... the mechanics of Evolution would have to be much faster than Science understands them to be.
3.) If all life forms used different amino acids, instead of the same 20 ... or if there were a different mapping of DNA codons to amino acids ... they could not have evolved from a common ancestor.
4.) If all structures were perfectly designed specifically for their function, instead of common structures being *repurposed* for different functions. (E.g. if a bat's wing and bird's wing had the same structure, because they have the same function ... instead of finding, as we have, that the bat's wing is closer in structure to the human hand, or the digging front paws of a mole ... indicating a mammalian front-limb *repurposed* for flying.)
5.) Lack of any genetic pattern supporting common ancestry.

Uh, any of those could probably Falsify Evolution... or at least make a lot of Scientists confused as to figure out how something could have occured that way. Haha.
So what does this mean? Should I ask you for 5 things that would convince you that Evolution were true? Nah. There's enough in this thread already to convince someone who is intellectually honest.


The world is but 6000 years old so the whole mirco over time logic is nothing more then a fallacy. When God created the earth he created everything fully mature. Adam was not created an infant. So sure the Grand Canyon may appear ancient but that was exactly how God intended it. The ancient people in that areas history even reflect this. Even Darwin knew his theory was crap but his buddy Huxley through great propaganda spread a lie as plausible truth. The only truth is Gods truth and it says he created it and it was not from primordial ooze either.


How do you determine that the world is 6,000 years old? I've heard from many Christians that "gods day" is much much longer than a Human day... like on the scale of Millions of years. *shrug*
Uh, it's a myth that Darwin ever recanted his Theory. Didn't happen. But even if it had, that wouldn't make Evolution any less true.
Oh, and uh perhaps you didn't pay attention to the very first post I made. Abiogenesis is a completely different field than Evolution. Abiogenesis has to do with the Origin of life, and I already conceded that your god could have been responsible for it. Evolution is just the change populations of Organisms experience over time... which also could have been directed by your god. Is it not possible that your god desired to keep the story simple as to get to the whole point of Sin and Salvation in the Bible?


Really what it boils down to is your faith is in man made science textbooks. Much of us's faith is in a God inspired book we believe to be the Word of God. The 2 are not compatible. If a science book contradict scripture it is the science that is wrong. There was a time science thought the world was flat. Once science taught there were only 1,100 stars, the bible said they were innumerable (Jer 33:22) Science once taught the earth sat upon an animal. The bible taught it was free floating in space (Job 26:7). SO science was wrong then even when scripture was true. A lot of what is discovered today was already proved in the bible centuries ago. So this theory is just as asinine as those of old. Science needs to stick to things that has verifiable and re creatable facts. Just because you read it in a textbook or your PhD told you it was true does nto make it so. If it were true then science would not have had to invent fossils to prove their theories or call pig skulls human.


Uh... haha, I have no Faith in Science. I'm not any more skeptical about your Religious beliefs than I am about every new Scientific idea I hear about. The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
I do not have faith in Technology. I do not have Faith in Medicine. I trust (which is different than Faith) that these things are true because Science routinely comes through on it's promises. If you distrust Science and the Theories that contradict your literal interpretation of the Bible... then stop using your computer to bash the very same Scientific Method that was used to create it... because those methods also derived our knowledge of Evolution.
Maybe I would put more Faith in your Holy Text if it had claimed tiny unseeable creatures (Germ THEORY) as being responsible for illnesses... but instead, it claims that Demons are reponsible, and only exorcism can rid people of these Demons and thus the illness.
Pig Skull? What on Earth are you talking about? I suggest you get with the times and recognize that we have more than enough Transitional Fossils to document the Ancestry of Man from Ape-like Ancestors. You name one hoax that was put forth by Scientists as a genuine fossil. The hoaxes i nthe past were discovered by... you guessed it, fellow Scientists who continued to accept Evolution after the mistake was corrected.


For instance, GOD obviously didn't create all the different races of humankind separately, since we are all related by common parents: Adam and Eve. So the environmental adaptations that mark the different human races on Earth could be understood as Micro-Evolution (even though I think Adaptation is a better description).


Um... do you not see an issue with this? You are advocating more Evolution in a faster amount of time than even the Theory suggests. You are advocating "Super" Evolution. That would give each Race about a thousand or 2 years to give them their specific features and skin color.


However, evolution implies that the subject is moving from simple to complex. In that sense, I don't believe the word applies, since there is no indication whatsoever that new genetic information is added in successive generations. If anything, we are losing genetic information with each generation and our DNA is degrading as the centuries pass.


Forgive me as I pull a "copy and paste", but I don't have this information yet memorized...
By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
•increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
•increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
•novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
•novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
•Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
•RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
•Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

NateR
11-09-2009, 05:14 AM
Um... do you not see an issue with this? You are advocating more Evolution in a faster amount of time than even the Theory suggests. You are advocating "Super" Evolution. That would give each Race about a thousand or 2 years to give them their specific features and skin color.


Actually, it would be about 6000 years (or 5770 years if you go by the Jewish calendar) and, no, I have no issue with that at all since the differences between the races are pretty superficial and insignificant when you get right down to it.

Play The Man
11-09-2009, 05:39 AM
Shon8121, concerning your point of evidence number 2, why do you think current concepts of panspermia are being advanced? The fossil record doesn't give enough time for Darwinian evolution of cells based upon current understanding of mutation rates and the age of the earth vs. the time the cellular organisms appear in the fossil record. Some scientists are trying to come up with an explanation for this by saying that cellular organisms were transported to the earth on meteors from other planets. Some scientists (Crick from Watson and Crick) are really coming out of left field by saying that space aliens purposely colonized this planet with cells. The reason they are coming up with these off-the-wall theories is because of a discrepancy in the time of the appearance of "primitive" cellular organism in the fossil record as compared to the estimated age of the earth. Their appearance is "too soon" based upon Darwinian Evolution.

mscomc
11-09-2009, 05:44 AM
Shon8121, concerning your point of evidence number 2, why do you think current concepts of panspermia are being advanced? The fossil record doesn't give enough time for Darwinian evolution of cells based upon current understanding of mutation rates and the age of the earth vs. the time the cellular organisms appear in the fossil record. Some scientists are trying to come up with an explanation for this by saying that cellular organisms were transported to the earth on meteors from other planets. Some scientists (Crick from Watson and Crick) are really coming out of left field by saying that space aliens purposely colonized this planet with cells. The reason they are coming up with these off-the-wall theories is because of a discrepancy in the time of the appearance of "primitive" cellular organism in the fossil record as compared to the estimated age of the earth. Their appearance is "too soon" based upon Darwinian Evolution.


Well to be fair, most evolutionary biologist's (at least the one i know) arent darwaninsts per say. They may use certain concepts: like natural selection, genetric drift, mutation for gene progression, but the key difference is: Darwain couldnt study at the level of the gene. He couldnt map the genome, he couldnt do homology tests, or proteomics or any of that. So i dont think Shon is a big time darwinist (shon correct me if im wrong):)

atomdanger
11-09-2009, 05:46 AM
When it comes to polls, there are more Theistic-Evolutionists than there are Atheists (who usually accept Evolution) in America.

I am going to ask you all a question, and then I'm going to add some context...

Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Keep in mind that the Scientific Definition for a "Theory" is: An explanation for a collection of facts. What is a fact? A fact is a confirmed observation.
Next, Evolution only means the change a population of Organisms experience over time... it has nothing at all to do with Abiogenesis (which is the Origin of Life) or the Big Bang.

So again I ask. Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?

Well, science has observed evolution in nature,
it isn't really something you can debate, it exists, like it or not.

Now... did we come from monkeys? That you can debate.

NateR
11-09-2009, 05:47 AM
Well to be fair, most evolutionary biologist's (at least the one i know) arent darwaninsts per say. They may use certain concepts: like natural selection, genetric drift, mutation for gene progression, but the key difference is: Darwain couldnt study at the level of the gene. He couldnt map the genome, he couldnt do homology tests, or proteomics or any of that. So i dont think Shon is a big time darwinist (shon correct me if im wrong):)

Darwin didn't even know that DNA existed. I think his theory would have been seriously altered if he had any idea just how complex the microscopic world is.

Play The Man
11-09-2009, 06:00 AM
Well to be fair, most evolutionary biologist's (at least the one i know) arent darwaninsts per say. They may use certain concepts: like natural selection, genetric drift, mutation for gene progression, but the key difference is: Darwain couldnt study at the level of the gene. He couldnt map the genome, he couldnt do homology tests, or proteomics or any of that. So i dont think Shon is a big time darwinist (shon correct me if im wrong):)

When I posted my question (post #63) I specified "Darwinian Evolution". By "Darwinian Evolution" I am saying descent of life from a common ancestor via natural selection based upon random mutations.

mscomc
11-09-2009, 04:45 PM
When I posted my question (post #63) I specified "Darwinian Evolution". By "Darwinian Evolution" I am saying descent of life from a common ancestor via natural selection based upon random mutations.

Whooooops, I must have missed that...:unsure-1:


My bad:)

Chuck
11-09-2009, 07:16 PM
When I posted my question (post #63) I specified "Darwinian Evolution". By "Darwinian Evolution" I am saying descent of life from a common ancestor via natural selection based upon random mutations.

Took the words right out of my mouth.... :Whistle:

Chris F
11-09-2009, 09:46 PM
Well, the word "evolution" simply means a slow change over time. It existed more than 2 centuries before Darwin's theory, so in it's pre-Darwin form I have no problem believing it because we can observe it.

For instance, GOD obviously didn't create all the different races of humankind separately, since we are all related by common parents: Adam and Eve. So the environmental adaptations that mark the different human races on Earth could be understood as Micro-Evolution (even though I think Adaptation is a better description).

However, evolution implies that the subject is moving from simple to complex. In that sense, I don't believe the word applies, since there is no indication whatsoever that new genetic information is added in successive generations. If anything, we are losing genetic information with each generation and our DNA is degrading as the centuries pass.

Despite what many people claim, dogs and cats are not good examples of any form of evolution, since most breeds of dogs are a result of human intervention and selective breeding.

Someone already discussed macro vs micro. I have no issue with adaptations over time as long as it fits into the biblical evidence.

Chris F
11-09-2009, 09:56 PM
And thats all that truly matters to me... is to get people to think just a little more. :)


How do you determine that the world is 6,000 years old? I've heard from many Christians that "gods day" is much much longer than a Human day... like on the scale of Millions of years. *shrug*
Uh, it's a myth that Darwin ever recanted his Theory. Didn't happen. But even if it had, that wouldn't make Evolution any less true.
Oh, and uh perhaps you didn't pay attention to the very first post I made. Abiogenesis is a completely different field than Evolution. Abiogenesis has to do with the Origin of life, and I already conceded that your god could have been responsible for it. Evolution is just the change populations of Organisms experience over time... which also could have been directed by your god. Is it not possible that your god desired to keep the story simple as to get to the whole point of Sin and Salvation in the Bible?The day thing is refering to a passage where Peter says a day unto the Lord is like a thousand years. That is a moot point when dealing with Earth age. It is 6000 years old because of the genealogies. Sure it may be faith but Christianity is a faith that has proven true time and again. As for the thing about Darwin recanting I never said that. I am basing it on the book origins of the species where he does not put much into his own theory. One should refrain from assumptions.



Uh... haha, I have no Faith in Science. I'm not any more skeptical about your Religious beliefs than I am about every new Scientific idea I hear about. The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counter intuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
I do not have faith in Technology. I do not have Faith in Medicine. I trust (which is different than Faith) that these things are true because Science routinely comes through on it's promises. If you distrust Science and the Theories that contradict your literal interpretation of the Bible... then stop using your computer to bash the very same Scientific Method that was used to create it... because those methods also derived our knowledge of Evolution.
Maybe I would put more Faith in your Holy Text if it had claimed tiny unseeable creatures (Germ THEORY) as being responsible for illnesses... but instead, it claims that Demons are reponsible, and only exorcism can rid people of these Demons and thus the illness.
Pig Skull? What on Earth are you talking about? I suggest you get with the times and recognize that we have more than enough Transitional Fossils to document the Ancestry of Man from Ape-like Ancestors. You name one hoax that was put forth by Scientists as a genuine fossil. The hoaxes in the past were discovered by... you guessed it, fellow Scientists who continued to accept Evolution after the mistake was corrected.. Book chapter and verse where it says demons are responisible for illness. that is a load of horse poo sir. You obviously know nothing about scripture. Please cite the source so I can address it without assumption. Also the pig thing is speaking of the countless hoaxes out there like piltdown man, Lucy, etc. You live in a dream world if you think these have any creditabilty. As you said science has already called their bluff. Evoultion has no credible evidence. Just a bunch of fossils they have concieved in their own minds to be true. There is no missing link.

in red above

Crisco
11-09-2009, 10:13 PM
What came first... The chicken or the egg... seriously..

rearnakedchoke
11-09-2009, 10:41 PM
What came first... The chicken or the egg... seriously..

the chicken

Crisco
11-09-2009, 10:43 PM
the chicken

but how...?

mscomc
11-09-2009, 10:47 PM
What came first... The chicken or the egg... seriously..

Hmmmm not that I am a proponent of Macro evolution as Nate and I had this conversation some time back. But if I recall correctly (evolutionary was a long time ago for me), science seems to point out that the chicken came first...how you ask?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, many of the genes in a chicken are very homologous to that of a reptile; particularily with: crocodiles, snakes etc etc. Also, scientists have been able to locate these very genes in the chicken and discovered that they were repressed (over what they believe to be millions of years ago). Thus, they were able to turn these genes on, an noticed the chickens were able to grow reptilian like teeth, which is HUGE since they dont have teeth to begin with. Also, their muscle structure also changed (heres one paper that was published)....

So in short, at some point a lizard creature gave birth to a chicken type creature.

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant
Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 371-377
M. Harris, S. Hasso, M. Ferguson, J. Fallon


Mr. Ferguson works in Wisconsin I beleive.

Hope that helped friend.:)

Buzzard
11-09-2009, 11:34 PM
The world is but 6000 years old so the whole mirco over time logic is nothing more then a fallacy. When God created the earth he created everything fully mature. Adam was not created an infant. So sure the Grand Canyon may appear ancient but that was exactly how God intended it. The ancient people in that areas history even reflect this. Even Darwin knew his theory was crap but his buddy Huxley through great propaganda spread a lie as plausible truth. The only truth is Gods truth and it says he created it and it was not from primordial ooze either.

I hate to say it Chris F, but your beliefs about the age of the Earth seem more like the crap you say about Darwin and his theories. Please don't be offended by the crap reference as I was just putting it into terms which you already established.

Seeing how you say you believe that the story of Adam and Eve to be literal, do you also believe that the tale of Noah's Ark to be true? Do you actually believe that Noah was really able to gather a male and female of every species of living creature and stow it aboard this Ark?

I'm sorry but many of the tales told in your good book are far more unbelievable and unproven than many scientific theories.

Really what it boils down to is your faith is in man made science textbooks. Much of us's faith is in a God inspired book we believe to be the Word of God. The 2 are not compatible.

And your faith is in man made religious texts, many written and interpreted not by first hand accounts. Yes you believe your books to be the word of God without one fact to support your belief, while science tests their theories with tests that can be duplicated. I'll leave the in-depth science talk to ones that have more knowledge than I.

If a science book contradict scripture it is the science that is wrong.

You're starting to sound a bit off with this type of non reasoned response.

There was a time science thought the world was flat. Once science taught there were only 1,100 stars, the bible said they were innumerable (Jer 33:22) Science once taught the earth sat upon an animal. The bible taught it was free floating in space (Job 26:7). SO science was wrong then even when scripture was true. A lot of what is discovered today was already proved in the bible centuries ago. So this theory is just as asinine as those of old. Science needs to stick to things that has verifiable and re creatable facts.

Unlike your religious beliefs which are unverifiable and have yet to be proven at all. Do you believe that the Shroud of Turin is real or fake? Just wondering that and how you came to your opinion on it.

Just because you read it in a textbook or your PhD told you it was true does nto make it so.

The same can be said about your good book and the preachers, ministers, and others who have made their claims. The thing is, the affairs of science which have been proven can be proven again and again unlike any of the tales which you can only believe through faith to be true.

If it were true then science would not have had to invent fossils to prove their theories or call pig skulls human.

And if your version of reality were true you would be able to show some form of proof to your claims. To get back to the proving religion, you wouldn't need a fake Shroud of Turin to back your claims, you could come up with actual evidence.


Well, the word "evolution" simply means a slow change over time. It existed more than 2 centuries before Darwin's theory, so in it's pre-Darwin form I have no problem believing it because we can observe it.

For instance, GOD obviously didn't create all the different races of humankind separately, since we are all related by common parents: Adam and Eve.

You really believe this too? If it were true, the gene pool would have been so shallow that birth defects would have run rampant. Again, I'll let those with more knowledge of science to address issues concerning this. How do you explain all of the different races? I can't recall exactly how your good book explains it, but I recall it being a bit far-fetched.

Despite what many people claim, dogs and cats are not good examples of any form of evolution, since most breeds of dogs are a result of human intervention and selective breeding.

It shows examples of change more quickly than if left to nature and the long amount of time it takes to occur in the wild.

Someone already discussed macro vs micro. I have no issue with adaptations over time as long as it fits into the biblical evidence.

So you are immediately setting boundaries on how things can fit? That doesn't seem open-minded at all. I often wonder why a lot of religious folks don't put their religious beliefs to the same level of scrutiny that they put into disputing science.

I'll be the first to admit that there are many who are more knowledgeable than I am in both religion and science. When I first started searching for answers, I found more that I could believe and be proven through science. I used to pray that I would also find religion as so many others have said they have found it. I prayed that I would be filled with the Holy Spirit and all of that but it never happened. I prayed for faith and to believe, but never did any of that come to fruition. Maybe I'm not meant to believe.

Chris F
11-10-2009, 12:18 AM
I hate to say it Chris F, but your beliefs about the age of the Earth seem more like the crap you say about Darwin and his theories. Please don't be offended by the crap reference as I was just putting it into terms which you already established.

Seeing how you say you believe that the story of Adam and Eve to be literal, do you also believe that the tale of Noah's Ark to be true? Do you actually believe that Noah was really able to gather a male and female of every species of living creature and stow it aboard this Ark?

I'm sorry but many of the tales told in your good book are far more unbelievable and unproven than many scientific theories.



And if your version of reality were true you would be able to show some form of proof to your claims. To get back to the proving religion, you wouldn't need a fake Shroud of Turin to back your claims, you could come up with actual evidence.




It shows examples of change more quickly than if left to nature and the long amount of time it takes to occur in the wild.



So you are immediately setting boundaries on how things can fit? That doesn't seem open-minded at all. I often wonder why a lot of religious folks don't put their religious beliefs to the same level of scrutiny that they put into disputing science.

I'll be the first to admit that there are many who are more knowledgeable than I am in both religion and science. When I first started searching for answers, I found more that I could believe and be proven through science. I used to pray that I would also find religion as so many others have said they have found it. I prayed that I would be filled with the Holy Spirit and all of that but it never happened. I prayed for faith and to believe, but never did any of that come to fruition. Maybe I'm not meant to believe.

Buzzard faith can never be explained to a blind heart. So I will no waste my time attempting to. If and when the time is right and God reveals himself to you then you will understand. Till then you only understand what the god of this world tells you. BTW I am not offended at all by use of terms I have already established so that would be horse poo not crap. :)

Like you I searched as well. I was studying to be a zoology before I went into bible college. I found science was confused and that the entire community could not explain the basics of life. God revealed it to me and then I understood it all. With science it is all about more questions. With God it is all about answers. Blessings.

shon8121
11-10-2009, 12:42 AM
Actually, it would be about 6000 years (or 5770 years if you go by the Jewish calendar) and, no, I have no issue with that at all since the differences between the races are pretty superficial and insignificant when you get right down to it.

Answers In Genesis dates Noah's Flood occuring in about 2304 BC.
Taking into account that only Noah and his family survived, I'll assume they were all the same Ethnicity... then spreading like crazy across the world so they hit nearly every continent and adapting and changing their skin color, that gives them only a couple thousand years at the most, so according to a literal interpretation that you seem to agree with, I was correct, and you believe in Super Evolution.



Shon8121, concerning your point of evidence number 2, why do you think current concepts of panspermia are being advanced? The fossil record doesn't give enough time for Darwinian evolution of cells based upon current understanding of mutation rates and the age of the earth vs. the time the cellular organisms appear in the fossil record. Some scientists are trying to come up with an explanation for this by saying that cellular organisms were transported to the earth on meteors from other planets. Some scientists (Crick from Watson and Crick) are really coming out of left field by saying that space aliens purposely colonized this planet with cells. The reason they are coming up with these off-the-wall theories is because of a discrepancy in the time of the appearance of "primitive" cellular organism in the fossil record as compared to the estimated age of the earth. Their appearance is "too soon" based upon Darwinian Evolution.


"Darwinian Evolution" isn't actually the "Theory of Evolution". Darwin didn't quite know all there is to know like Genetics and the complexity of the Cell. He was a genius and all, but the mechanics for Evolution are much more well known now than they were when he proposed it.

And uh, for the third time, I am perfectly fine with your god creating simple (or complex to a degree, depending on how you look at it) life on Earth, and then using Evolution to guide life. Uh... I'd be a bit skeptical of Extra Terrestrials intentionally seeding life on Earth, but it's entirely possible I guess, considering the age of the Universe verses the age of the Earth. Panspermia would be quite possible considering there are forms of Bacteria that can survive in Space by "shutting down" and then upon being returned to Earth, they continue to thrive. *shrug*
But uh, do you intend to answer my question to you from my previous post?



Well to be fair, most evolutionary biologist's (at least the one i know) arent darwaninsts per say. They may use certain concepts: like natural selection, genetric drift, mutation for gene progression, but the key difference is: Darwain couldnt study at the level of the gene. He couldnt map the genome, he couldnt do homology tests, or proteomics or any of that. So i dont think Shon is a big time darwinist (shon correct me if im wrong)


Dang it. I really should read all of the comments before I begin to respond! Haha. There you go, saving me time again but I wasted it! Haha. And you are correct, I am no Darwinist. If fact, I really dislike it when people call me an "Evolutionist", because of the implications. I am for Science. If Science ever overwhelmingly shows that Evolution is false, then I side with Science.



Well, science has observed evolution in nature,
it isn't really something you can debate, it exists, like it or not.

Now... did we come from monkeys? That you can debate.

I don't know if I like the language used here. We didn't "come from" monkeys. We recently "descended" from more Ape-like creatures who subsequently did "descend" from Monkey-like creatures... Did you read about the inhibitors governing (whats commonly referred to as) Junk DNA? We have the blueprints for fully functional tails with bones, muscle and voluntary movement... and when this particular inhibitor ceases functioning, it allows this previousy "shut off" trait to be expressed. So, my question to you would be, if Monkey-like creatures aren't our distant ancestors... why do we have the blurprints in our DNA for tails?



Darwin didn't even know that DNA existed. I think his theory would have been seriously altered if he had any idea just how complex the microscopic world is.

Well of course. It would have been more accurate like it is today. :)



When I posted my question (post #63) I specified "Darwinian Evolution". By "Darwinian Evolution" I am saying descent of life from a common ancestor via natural selection based upon random mutations.

I still hold to my previous answer.



The day thing is refering to a passage where Peter says a day unto the Lord is like a thousand years. That is a moot point when dealing with Earth age. It is 6000 years old because of the genealogies. Sure it may be faith but Christianity is a faith that has proven true time and again. As for the thing about Darwin recanting I never said that. I am basing it on the book origins of the species where he does not put much into his own theory. One should refrain from assumptions.


Can you give me the reference in which Darwin himself doesn't put much trust into his own Theory? And please... PLEASE do not give me the whole "the Evolution of the Eye by means of Natural selection, I readily admit, is absurd to the highest degree" quote mine, because he then continues on to explain very details how indeed the Eye evolved.
Uh oh. I'm assuming here! Watch out. Let me know if this is not the example you intended to give.
Oh and uh... not to get off Topic but... who said anything about Christianity being false in order for Evolution to be true? Because that is what you're insinuating.


Book chapter and verse where it says demons are responisible for illness. that is a load of horse poo sir. You obviously know nothing about scripture. Please cite the source so I can address it without assumption. Also the pig thing is speaking of the countless hoaxes out there like piltdown man, Lucy, etc. You live in a dream world if you think these have any creditabilty. As you said science has already called their bluff. Evoultion has no credible evidence. Just a bunch of fossils they have concieved in their own minds to be true. There is no missing link.


Luke 7:21 wrote about infirmities and plagues caused by evil spirits being cured by Jesus. See also Luke 8:2 & Acts 19:12-16.
Matthew 10:1 says that authority over demons allowed the disciples to heal all manners of diseases.
Matthew 4:24
News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them.
Matthew 8:16
When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.

Sir. I am not here to make false claims. It is generally not a load of "horse poo" when I make a statement... unless there is an "I think" in front of it, and then there's the possibility.

The pig skull has to do with Piltdown man and Lucy? Lucy is a legitimate Fossil. Piltdown man was created from a Human skull and a Ape's Jaw. It didn't fit what other Transitional Fossils were being found so the Scientists looked closer and walla, it was a fraud. The one you are talking about is actually "Nebraska Man" which was a pigs tooth. Journalists heard that Scientists were looking for Primate fossils and had so far discovered this tooth... so the Journalists decided to make an artists rendition of what they thought a Ape-Man person would look like, and they called it "Nebraska Man". Hardly enough to ignore the thousands of other legitimate Transitional Ape-like to Human Fossils we have.

There is no missing link? Really?
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Kenyanthropus
Paranthropus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis and Homo georgicus
Homo ergaster and Homo erectus
Homo cepranensis and Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Homo floresiensis

Take your pick sir.

mscomc
11-10-2009, 12:56 AM
Buzzard faith can never be explained to a blind heart. So I will no waste my time attempting to. If and when the time is right and God reveals himself to you then you will understand. Till then you only understand what the god of this world tells you. BTW I am not offended at all by use of terms I have already established so that would be horse poo not crap. :)

Like you I searched as well. I was studying to be a zoology before I went into bible college. I found science was confused and that the entire community could not explain the basics of life. God revealed it to me and then I understood it all. With science it is all about more questions. With God it is all about answers. Blessings.

Hey Chris, I'm malcom, I dont think we have every formally introduced ourselves to one another, so nice to meet you:) If you dont mind, I'd like to address the bolded region of your last post.

I have always had a hard time with people who say " i was going to go into science, but then i didnt because i found this".....in my experience, this has always been because most of those people could not do science (like basic chemistry) and they copped out and just said, well I have now conveniently found another calling.....so nuts to science.

I'm not saying this is the case for you. If theology is what you really love and are happy doing, thumbs up man:) How far were you into your Zoology degree? what drastically changed your mind? Was it possible to finish that before you went into bible college, that way you could have two degrees? are you against all major science? For example, if someone is very sick, are you someone (and i have met people like this) who says "you are sick, because god wants you to be sick, and you should't seek treatment"?

I don't mean to be offensive in asking these questions, so if I have articulated as such, please accept my humble apologies. I am just curious to hear someone elses outlook on life.

Tyburn
11-10-2009, 01:06 AM
When it comes to polls, there are more Theistic-Evolutionists than there are Atheists (who usually accept Evolution) in America.

I am going to ask you all a question, and then I'm going to add some context...

Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Keep in mind that the Scientific Definition for a "Theory" is: An explanation for a collection of facts. What is a fact? A fact is a confirmed observation.
Next, Evolution only means the change a population of Organisms experience over time... it has nothing at all to do with Abiogenesis (which is the Origin of Life) or the Big Bang.

So again I ask. Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Thats because it was writen by a diest at the very least. Darwin held a kinda Enlightenment view...which at that time still had GOD in it...albiet a false picture...but hey.

The Enlightenment Believe GOD created the Universe, but then sat back and let Creation unfold for itself through the laws of Nature.

So Intelligent Design is close to the original Darwinian thought.

Darwin also never confused Evolution with progress. Evolution has nothing to do with "better" its simply that the best adapted survive. if the climate shifts back to an earlier time...it will favour the earlier forms of life....and that happened in several extinction level events in Earth History...the best survivors were the Bacteria...everything else couldnt survive...thats called Evolution also.

So Eugenics is a perversion of Evolution even under The Enlightenment Philosophy.

My Version of Reconciliation between Evolution, and the History of Earth, and Creationalism...is so...deep...noone on here understands it. They all completely ignore it when I try and explain.

shon8121
11-10-2009, 02:08 AM
Thats because it was writen by a diest at the very least. Darwin held a kinda Enlightenment view...which at that time still had GOD in it...albiet a false picture...but hey.
The Enlightenment Believe GOD created the Universe, but then sat back and let Creation unfold for itself through the laws of Nature.
So Intelligent Design is close to the original Darwinian thought.
Darwin also never confused Evolution with progress. Evolution has nothing to do with "better" its simply that the best adapted survive. if the climate shifts back to an earlier time...it will favour the earlier forms of life....and that happened in several extinction level events in Earth History...the best survivors were the Bacteria...everything else couldnt survive...thats called Evolution also.
So Eugenics is a perversion of Evolution even under The Enlightenment Philosophy.
My Version of Reconciliation between Evolution, and the History of Earth, and Creationalism...is so...deep...noone on here understands it. They all completely ignore it when I try and explain.

So uh... you do accept Evolution? ...er... god directed Evolution?

CAVEMAN
11-10-2009, 04:53 PM
When I posted my question (post #63) I specified "Darwinian Evolution". By "Darwinian Evolution" I am saying descent of life from a common ancestor via natural selection based upon random mutations.

Exactly! AND when has a mutation ever been observed as a good thing?

rearnakedchoke
11-10-2009, 04:55 PM
Exactly! AND when has a mutation ever been observed as a good thing?

uhhh .. have you ever seen X-men?

Vizion
11-10-2009, 04:57 PM
uhhh .. have you ever seen X-men? yea, and uhh...that's was a good thing? :blink: :tongue0011:

rearnakedchoke
11-10-2009, 04:58 PM
yea, and uhh...that's was a good thing? :blink: :tongue0011:

i wouldn't mind having those powers and being an outcast ... LOL

Vizion
11-10-2009, 05:06 PM
i wouldn't mind having those powers and being an outcast ... LOL Which X-power would you want? If you could choose one?

CAVEMAN
11-10-2009, 05:08 PM
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

rearnakedchoke
11-10-2009, 05:10 PM
Which X-power would you want? If you could choose one?

thats a tough one ... wolverine's self-healing is good, but jean gray and prof's mind controling is good too ... tough choice ... LOL .. and you?

Vizion
11-10-2009, 05:21 PM
thats a tough one ... wolverine's self-healing is good, but jean gray and prof's mind controling is good too ... tough choice ... LOL .. and you?There is an x-man named Kitty Pryde. She could phase through objects...that would be sweet. You could take shortcuts through walls, buildings, people haha. I agree about Jean Gray....telekinenisis and telepathy would be the bomb.

mscomc
11-10-2009, 05:47 PM
Exactly! AND when has a mutation ever been observed as a good thing?

Umm, I don't think this is your fault, as the word mutation in the media has gotten the rap of of ALWAYS being bad, and thats not true. I think we always equate it with: ionzing radiation thats gonna de-form us and our babies will be born without noses and stuff. But there are some benfical mutations.

1) Many people in northern europe have a mutated version of the CCR5 receptor on their cell surface. The CCR5 receptor is what the HIV virus uses to infect cells. The people in europe, have ones that are deformed. As such, they are completely immune to HIV. You can expose them to it as much as you want, and they wont get it. At the same time, there hasnt really been any observable difference with their rest of their metabolism


2) people with really fast metabolisms throughout life have had some mutations in a protein called the UCP3, called Un-coupling proteins. People who have a faulty funcitoning UCP3 (from a mutation) have been shown to metabolize fats and carbs very well, as such: diabetes is almost elimnated, high cholesterol, athersclerosis is reduced etc etc etc

3) It is beleived that a transposable elements may have inserted itself in the place that coded for Cellulose metabolism. Therefore, now we cant use Cellulose as a source of Carbs, BUT.....in place, we can now use Fiber in the G.I tract to help us push out feces...... This is may be why the appendix and cecum have NO physiological function anymore. At the same time, the fecal bulk that gets formed in G.I tract can help stimulate immunity. So having good stools, is good all the way around :)

----those are a few examples, there a more. You have to know though, having a good mutation come along is SLOOWWWWWWW. Just like in X-MEN:laugh: Proffessor Xavier said its a slow process, but every few hundred millenia (or was it million?) something happens!!!!

Tyburn
11-10-2009, 09:43 PM
So uh... you do accept Evolution? ...er... god directed Evolution?

This is what I believe.

The Creational Event occured about 4004BC More then Likely, and it was indeed a sudden appearence of perfectly formed creation that took place over the 6 days.

Now. I also believe that this event was one of three events whose repuccusions send a ripple, not only forward in time, but backwards in time aswell. For example...how does a person Credited with Righteousness, become Saved if he dies thousands of years before Christ? Because the power of the Ressurection goes BACKWARDS as well as Forwards.

In the same way that a human creates a story board, so GOD created the World. But as soon as the story board is complete, the Writer then has to go back and "fill in" the History of characters and the likes. This Creational Event primarily occured in the spiritual Realm, and like a Cone, it stretches both upwards to the Left, and Upwards to the Right, into the Temporal Realm.

Draw an upside down triangle The point represents the Spiritual Realm and moment of Creation. The Top Left is the Big Bang, the Top Right is Judgement Day the line between them represents temporal time. Draw a line up from the point of the triangle upwards, it will bisect the Temporal Realm AFTER the Big Bang. Half way through Chronology. THAT is your Genesis Event....please note, half the Triangle Falls BEFORE that point...and yet both Big Bang and Judgement Day extend outward from the Point of the Triangle.


Anyway, so the time before the Chronological point of Creation I call backdated time. Its real, Because the Point of Creation in the Temporal Realm, is NOT the begining of the World. Its a Chronological blip...just like GOD didnt start Saving at the Ressurection...GOD Saved before Cross, The World Existed before the moment of Creation. Exactly the same process. EXACTLY the same.

So you ask, what then Governed that backdated time. Simply put, the laws of Nature. Created by GOD, they lead up TO Creation, and then they Extend FROM Creation.

I believe that Darwinism, when viewed as EITHER A purist Survival of the best Adapted, or Intelligent Design is Fine. There is just one thing I would say. I do not know whether Humans are as Uniquely created as Single Cells (ergo, not derived from other life) or whether we are decended from other Animals...and for me, it doesnt matter. Who cares how GOD did that. It makes no difference.

So why doesnt GOD say all this in Genesis? Because it doesnt matter how he did it. The point is that He Did.

shon8121
11-10-2009, 10:08 PM
Exactly! AND when has a mutation ever been observed as a good thing?

Google "20 year E. Coli experiement"
3 separate and unrelated Mutations allowed for a Bacteria essentially classified as being unable to consume Citrate... to be able to thrive on it successfully. Thats one... er... 3. Savy?



So why doesnt GOD say all this in Genesis? Because it doesnt matter how he did it. The point is that He Did.


There were a lot of things I found a little confusing in your post, but overall the only major issue I would have is the timeline... at least the way I undertsood it. You claimed the more literal interpretation of the Bible having the Earth show up roughly 6,000 years ago which wouldn't give enough time for things to Evolve from a single celled organism to the variety we see today.
But yeah, otherwise, I like peeps like you who don't really care how god did it... just that he did do it.
*shrug*
Ok dokay.


----those are a few examples, there a more. You have to know though, having a good mutation come along is SLOOWWWWWWW. Just like in X-MEN Proffessor Xavier said its a slow process, but every few hundred millenia (or was it million?) something happens!!!!


Mutations occur at a pretty consistent rate, the majority of which are neutral... but the leaps in Evolution occur depending on what Environmental and other Selective pressures are pushed on the populations of organisms. The X-Men version of Evolution doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unfortunately, because no Selective pressures are forcing the X-Men to acquire their new abilities or powers or whatever.
... Unless they were all bitten by a Radioactive Spider and its brethren of Insects and/or Animals. Haha.

P.S. Thanks for listing some beneficial mutations as well. Every time I turn around you are beating me at my own game and giving certain evidences before I get the chance to! Haha. :)

Chris F
11-10-2009, 11:48 PM
Hey Chris, I'm malcom, I dont think we have every formally introduced ourselves to one another, so nice to meet you:) If you dont mind, I'd like to address the bolded region of your last post.

I have always had a hard time with people who say " i was going to go into science, but then i didnt because i found this".....in my experience, this has always been because most of those people could not do science (like basic chemistry) and they copped out and just said, well I have now conveniently found another calling.....so nuts to science.

I'm not saying this is the case for you. If theology is what you really love and are happy doing, thumbs up man:) How far were you into your Zoology degree? what drastically changed your mind? Was it possible to finish that before you went into bible college, that way you could have two degrees? are you against all major science? For example, if someone is very sick, are you someone (and i have met people like this) who says "you are sick, because god wants you to be sick, and you should't seek treatment"?

I don't mean to be offensive in asking these questions, so if I have articulated as such, please accept my humble apologies. I am just curious to hear someone elses outlook on life.

It was 14 years later before I returned to school and I was an honor student in my undergard work that I did beofre I quit. My faith and what they were teaching could not be reconciled so I will choose my faith every time over mans wisdom. Hope that answered your question. The only part of scinece I hated was the stuff that had math. :). Other then that I enjoyed it because God's creation is a greta thing to study.

Chris F
11-10-2009, 11:57 PM
Luke 7:21 wrote about infirmities and plagues caused by evil spirits being cured by Jesus. See also Luke 8:2 & Acts 19:12-16.
Matthew 10:1 says that authority over demons allowed the disciples to heal all manners of diseases.
Matthew 4:24
News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them.
Matthew 8:16
When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.

Sir. I am not here to make false claims. It is generally not a load of "horse poo" when I make a statement... unless there is an "I think" in front of it, and then there's the possibility.

The pig skull has to do with Piltdown man and Lucy? Lucy is a legitimate Fossil. Piltdown man was created from a Human skull and a Ape's Jaw. It didn't fit what other Transitional Fossils were being found so the Scientists looked closer and walla, it was a fraud. The one you are talking about is actually "Nebraska Man" which was a pigs tooth. Journalists heard that Scientists were looking for Primate fossils and had so far discovered this tooth... so the Journalists decided to make an artists rendition of what they thought a Ape-Man person would look like, and they called it "Nebraska Man". Hardly enough to ignore the thousands of other legitimate Transitional Ape-like to Human Fossils we have.

There is no missing link? Really?
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Kenyanthropus
Paranthropus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis and Homo georgicus
Homo ergaster and Homo erectus
Homo cepranensis and Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Homo floresiensis

Take your pick sir.

First the fossils none of those have been proven nor are they complete. They are built upon pure assumption and faith in man's theory. There are no fossils that show primordial ooze becoming a full think man. Your junk science is science fiction and a fairy tale sorry to tell you.

Now to discuss you biblical ignorance.

Luke 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.


KJV Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

I stopped after the first two because I can tell you lack understanding on basic grammar especially for the Greek. The word AND is called a definite article and must be separate from other articles. So the list must be separated at each definite article. Be careful to get your facts straight before you make yourself look so foolish again. If you cannot grasp scripture then do not try to cote it without understanding. I would never cite germ theory to you because i have no clue, just as you lack the understanding of Scripture.

bradwright
11-11-2009, 12:25 AM
First the fossils none of those have been proven nor are they complete. They are built upon pure assumption and faith in man's theory. There are no fossils that show primordial ooze becoming a full think man. Your junk science is science fiction and a fairy tale sorry to tell you.

Now to discuss you biblical ignorance.

Luke 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.


KJV Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

I stopped after the first two because I can tell you lack understanding on basic grammar especially for the Greek. The word AND is called a definite article and must be separate from other articles. So the list must be separated at each definite article. Be careful to get your facts straight before you make yourself look so foolish again. If you cannot grasp scripture then do not try to cote it without understanding. I would never cite germ theory to you because i have no clue, just as you lack the understanding of Scripture.

tell me something Chris....why do you have to be so arrogant and mean to people ? i know from personal experience its sometimes hard to be polite but i'm trying very hard to consider other peoples feelings when i post and you should give it a try as well.....just a thought.

shon8121
11-11-2009, 12:37 AM
First the fossils none of those have been proven nor are they complete. They are built upon pure assumption and faith in man's theory. There are no fossils that show primordial ooze becoming a full think man. Your junk science is science fiction and a fairy tale sorry to tell you.


Um... you misspelled "Science". The Science I reference doesn't have a "Junk" before it, or a "Fiction" after it. Haha.
But no really, there are plenty of complete fossils in this list... And really, as I said before it's the DNA evidence that is the smoking gun for Common Ancestry. We don't even need Transitional Fossils.
And "primordial ooze"? You mean "soup"? Not that Abiogenesis has anything to do with the Field of Evolution, but there are far better idea's of how that occured than the Primordial Soup one. You're right to consider that a fantasy.


Now to discuss you biblical ignorance.

Luke 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
KJV Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

I stopped after the first two because I can tell you lack understanding on basic grammar especially for the Greek. The word AND is called a definite article and must be separate from other articles. So the list must be separated at each definite article. Be careful to get your facts straight before you make yourself look so foolish again. If you cannot grasp scripture then do not try to cote it without understanding. I would never cite germ theory to you because i have no clue, just as you lack the understanding of Scripture.

Um... I'd really like to keep on topic, but these verses clearly state that Demons cause Illnesses and Jesus can cast them out, thus curing the Illness.
If you want to discuss this further, you can PM me, as I truly do wish to stay on topic as much as possible.



tell me something Chris....why do you have to be so arrogant and mean to people ? i know from personal experience its sometimes hard to be polite but i'm trying very hard to consider other peoples feelings when i post and you should give it a try as well.....just a thought.


No worries Brad. I'm not at all "hurt" or anything by his posts. He's free to say whatever he wants, no matter how incorrect or rude he may be.

Chris F
11-11-2009, 12:52 AM
tell me something Chris....why do you have to be so arrogant and mean to people ? i know from personal experience its sometimes hard to be polite but i'm trying very hard to consider other peoples feelings when i post and you should give it a try as well.....just a thought.

Sorry you feel that way Brad. As I have said many times that is never my intentions. I cannot control how you percieve my post but I am telling you I do not think myself anymore important then anyone else. I am sure he know a ton more then I do on germs and mutations. I am very ignornant on that sorta of stuff. But when he tries to make my faith look backwoods by misquoting scripture I am not going to beat around the bush. I am not trying to be mean just making a point and I know I can always use more tact. :)

Chris F
11-11-2009, 01:00 AM
Um... you misspelled "Science". The Science I reference doesn't have a "Junk" before it, or a "Fiction" after it. Haha.
But no really, there are plenty of complete fossils in this list... And really, as I said before it's the DNA evidence that is the smoking gun for Common Ancestry. We don't even need Transitional Fossils.
And "primordial ooze"? You mean "soup"? Not that Abiogenesis has anything to do with the Field of Evolution, but there are far better idea's of how that occured than the Primordial Soup one. You're right to consider that a fantasy.Please do not lower yourself to complaining about spelling or such, that is a weak logic and you know it. This is a forum not a thesis. I have seen the studies on the fossils oyu listed which one do you claim to be complete and that is true evidence of a transitional to hominid?



Um... I'd really like to keep on topic, but these verses clearly state that Demons cause Illnesses and Jesus can cast them out, thus curing the Illness.
If you want to discuss this further, you can PM me, as I truly do wish to stay on topic as much as possible.How do they claim that other then your opinion. This is on topic. Defend your heresy in public sir and do not runaway and hide via PM. You made the claim now defend it.




No worries Brad. I'm not at all "hurt" or anything by his posts. He's free to say whatever he wants, no matter how incorrect or rude he may be.Prove it sure. I find that the most arrogant thing on here since you have yet to show any proof. Citing talking points are not proof. Even the field of science demands citations and verifiable evidence. Can you show with fossils the transition and can you show us how we are evolving into a new specie even now? Not adaptations but the evoultion of the specie itself. When you do that then you can claim I am wrong until then spare us the smoke screen logic and prove it.

In red above, stop skirting the issues and prove it already.

shon8121
11-11-2009, 01:19 AM
Please do not lower yourself to complaining about spelling or such, that is a weak logic and you know it. This is a forum not a thesis. I have seen the studies on the fossils oyu listed which one do you claim to be complete and that is true evidence of a transitional to hominid?

How do they claim that other then your opinion. This is on topic. Defend your heresy in public sir and do not runaway and hide via PM. You made the claim now defend it.

Prove it sure. I find that the most arrogant thing on here since you have yet to show any proof. Citing talking points are not proof. Even the field of science demands citations and verifiable evidence. Can you show with fossils the transition and can you show us how we are evolving into a new specie even now? Not adaptations but the evoultion of the specie itself. When you do that then you can claim I am wrong until then spare us the smoke screen logic and prove it.

In red above, stop skirting the issues and prove it already.

Sir, I joked about the misspelling. The joke was that you spelled "Science" as "junk Science" or "Science Fiction"... but I guess jokes are lost on you.
Well, do I only have to give you one fossil that is complete? How about Ardipithicus? :)

Heresy? Ok dokay. I listed the verses. I think it's pretty plain for everyone to see.

Um... you want weblinks to Transitional Fossils? I always tell people to "google" stuff... and a lot of what I mention can be found on http://www.talkorigins.org or http://pandasthumb.org/
Do I have to do all the research for you? I mean, I did indeed make a lot of claims here... but I also recommend that you don't take my word for it. By all means, do some research on your own.

Chris F
11-11-2009, 01:30 AM
Sir, I joked about the misspelling. The joke was that you spelled "Science" as "junk Science" or "Science Fiction"... but I guess jokes are lost on you.Use the emoticons if you plan on not being taken seriously
Well, do I only have to give you one fossil that is complete? How about Ardipithicus? :)Yeah Time 2001 cover boy. Not proof at all and not complete either. Try again. They theorize this is a human ancestor but that logic is faulty because one must presume the theory of evoutlion is true and that is not true science. You cannot enter an experiment with rose colored glasses. You must stay objective and you cannot manipulate the experiment to answer your hyposthesis.

Heresy? Ok dokay. I listed the verses. I think it's pretty plain for everyone to see.Yeah and I clearly showed you were wrong with basic grammatical structure. It does nto say demons caused the illness you are lying and making things up.

Um... you want weblinks to Transitional Fossils? I always tell people to "google" stuff... and a lot of what I mention can be found on http://www.talkorigins.org or http://pandasthumb.org/
Do I have to do all the research for you? I mean, I did indeed make a lot of claims here... but I also recommend that you don't take my word for it. By all means, do some research on your own.Would you write an article and tell your reader to google it and expect to be taken seriously? You made the claim you have the burden of proof to provide evidence that we can accept or refute. I thought you were a sceintitist.

In red above

Neezar
11-11-2009, 02:33 AM
What did gravity evolve from?

mscomc
11-11-2009, 02:34 AM
What did gravity evolve from?

OOOOOOO DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON GRAVITY :laugh::laugh::laugh:

mscomc
11-11-2009, 02:37 AM
What did gravity evolve from?

lol, ok more specifically:

Gravity was proposed by Einstein (and some beleive by Newton as well) to be a fundamental force. Meaning, it did not evolve, it has always been around in the current universe (Please dont ask me to get into multiple universes...i suck at astrophysics)

So gravity, along with: weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetism are the fundamental forces that have been hypothesized. Recent experimentation at the CERN institute appears to be confirming this.....if i recall correctly. :wink:

Plus, maybe i misread your question.....but gravity is not an organism, its a force, a physical quantity of mater interacting with other matter at an atomic level. Evolution isnt applied to it. Did you mean where did it come from?

shon8121
11-11-2009, 02:59 AM
Use the emoticons if you plan on not being taken seriously
Yeah Time 2001 cover boy. Not proof at all and not complete either. Try again. They theorize this is a human ancestor but that logic is faulty because one must presume the theory of evoutlion is true and that is not true science. You cannot enter an experiment with rose colored glasses. You must stay objective and you cannot manipulate the experiment to answer your hyposthesis.

Yeah and I clearly showed you were wrong with basic grammatical structure. It does nto say demons caused the illness you are lying and making things up.
Would you write an article and tell your reader to google it and expect to be taken seriously? You made the claim you have the burden of proof to provide evidence that we can accept or refute. I thought you were a sceintitist.

In red above

Interestingly enough, I am not a Scientist, but thanks for assuming!
Last time I checked... Evolution has been a Theory in Falsifiability "mode" for... about 150 years now. If you weren't sure, that means its accepted by the consensus of the eminent Scientists so it's as much a fact as... Gravity. Oh wait. It's more so a fact because we know more about the mechanics behind Evolution than we do for Gravity (which is also accompanied by a Theory if you decided to skip some prior posts).
So, a Hypothesis is certainly not what we are dealing with when it comes to Evolution, but nice try. If you are going to use Scientific Terms, lets use them according to what the Scientists dictate, shall we?
Oh wait a minute. I need an Emoticon to be taken seriously. :happydancing:
There we go!

Weird how you proved me wrong on the verses thing. I mean, before Germ Theory and modern medicine, it was commonly accepted that Demons caused Illnesses... how on Earth could I and the Church leaders of the past get it SO wrong? Dang it.
Look. I didn't write your Bible. And in fact, there have been more recent Translations because the Kings James Version wasn't exactly spot on. So what if something crept into it that shouldn't have been there? Like the verses about Unicorns and Cockatrices? In the New Standard Revised Edition, maybe it takes care of the whole Demons causing illness thing like when it got rid of faulty translations involving those mythical creatures.
Now please, can I "run" away into a personal message with you? I don't want to become guilty of the very thing I just assured TexasRN I wasn't going to do... even though I'm not bashing the Religion, just making note of a verse.
If thats not your interpretation of those verses, thats fine, but thats why we have so many sects of Christianity, because no one can seem to agree on a lot of it.

Last but not least, Ardipithicus is fully intact. Why don't you do a more recent check than 8 years ago? You know what else happened recently? They discovered thanks to sequencing Mitochondrial DNA that Neanderthals have not contributed to the Gene pool of the modern Human population. Can you guess what that means?! It's a whole other "Human" race complete with it's own awesome features, like increased bone density, more muscle mass, and larger brains that modern Humans have! What do you know?! Evolution caused two "Human" types of Species to Evolve somewhat separately... but our Ancestors the Cro-Magnons outcompeted the Neanderthals for Territory and food because they were more social and better adapted to the warming climate.

Oh, and uh... I provided the websites, now you go research. Try it for once. It's pretty fun.

shon8121
11-11-2009, 03:07 AM
What did gravity evolve from?

Oh, forgot about you... sorry.
"mscomc" pretty much covered this already, but I have some additional things to address.

The Theory of Evolution only has to do with the change a population of Organisms experience over time. It's strickly Biological.

When it comes to the origin of the fundamental forces of our Universe, that has to do with the Big Bang Theory which is a completely different subject entirely. It's also accepted by the Concensus of Scientists as a fact especially with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the fact that Astronomers have physically observed (over time) our Universe expanding at an increasing rate. So in essense, something is causing our Universe to expand more and more rapidly as time goes on.

The Big Bang was first put forth by George Lamaitre who on top of being a Scientist was, by the way, a Bible believing Catholic. He was searching for an Origin to the Universe. So I think that the Big Bang, along with Evolution is compatible with Christianity. :)

Chris F
11-11-2009, 03:43 PM
Interestingly enough, I am not a Scientist, but thanks for assuming!
Last time I checked... Evolution has been a Theory in Falsifiability "mode" for... about 150 years now. If you weren't sure, that means its accepted by the consensus of the eminent Scientists so it's as much a fact as... Gravity. Oh wait. It's more so a fact because we know more about the mechanics behind Evolution than we do for Gravity (which is also accompanied by a Theory if you decided to skip some prior posts).
So, a Hypothesis is certainly not what we are dealing with when it comes to Evolution, but nice try. If you are going to use Scientific Terms, lets use them according to what the Scientists dictate, shall we?
Oh wait a minute. I need an Emoticon to be taken seriously. :happydancing:
There we go!

Weird how you proved me wrong on the verses thing. I mean, before Germ Theory and modern medicine, it was commonly accepted that Demons caused Illnesses... how on Earth could I and the Church leaders of the past get it SO wrong? Dang it.That was Catholic dogma not scripture so if you are going to use biblical terms then you must do so as the bible dictates :happydancing:
Look. I didn't write your Bible. And in fact, there have been more recent Translations because the Kings James Version wasn't exactly spot on. So what if something crept into it that shouldn't have been there? Like the verses about Unicorns and Cockatrices? In the New Standard Revised Edition, maybe it takes care of the whole Demons causing illness thing like when it got rid of faulty translations involving those mythical creatures.
Now please, can I "run" away into a personal message with you? I don't want to become guilty of the very thing I just assured TexasRN I wasn't going to do... even though I'm not bashing the Religion, just making note of a verse.I can care what the English translations say I can read the Greek manuscripts. You cannot make a doctrine based on the English version and the point is you said the bible claimed illness was caused by demons. That is not true. Illness was caused by sin entering into the world and from that point on mankind began to die in the flesh. You posted scripture and were refuted soundly and no you make excuses. Just admit you are wrong and have no clue because your faith is in the scientific method and not the creator.
If thats not your interpretation of those verses, thats fine, but thats why we have so many sects of Christianity, because no one can seem to agree on a lot of it.It is not my interpretation it is called rules of grammar. Spend so more time in English class and less in science class. The rules are same in English as well. :wink:

Last but not least, Ardipithicus is fully intact. Why don't you do a more recent check than 8 years ago? You know what else happened recently? They discovered thanks to sequencing Mitochondrial DNA that Neanderthals have not contributed to the Gene pool of the modern Human population. Can you guess what that means?! It's a whole other "Human" race complete with it's own awesome features, like increased bone density, more muscle mass, and larger brains that modern Humans have! What do you know?! Evolution caused two "Human" types of Species to Evolve somewhat separately... but our Ancestors the Cro-Magnons outcompeted the Neanderthals for Territory and food because they were more social and better adapted to the warming climate.My gosh how much propaganda kool aid do you drink everyday. Also adaption is not what were are talking about, stop trying to skirt the issue

Oh, and uh... I provided the websites, now you go research. Try it for once. It's pretty fun.

You provided general websites but not direct quotes also they need to be from peer reviewed publication and not a random website or a popular magazine because those have low to no standards of integrity.. So until you can do that you are full of it. My other responses are in red above.

Tyburn
11-11-2009, 06:26 PM
There were a lot of things I found a little confusing in your post, but overall the only major issue I would have is the timeline... at least the way I undertsood it. You claimed the more literal interpretation of the Bible having the Earth show up roughly 6,000 years ago which wouldn't give enough time for things to Evolve from a single celled organism to the variety we see today.
But yeah, otherwise, I like peeps like you who don't really care how god did it... just that he did do it.
*shrug*


:blink: No I said that Genesis takes place in 4004BC, I said that backdated time goes back to the Big Bang before that. The Creation Event happened in the middle of Creation, NOT at its start.

Did you even bother drawring the Triangle...coz if you had you would understand perfectly...so much for actually wanting serious topics of debate. You're a dissapointing Fraud :sad:

shon8121
11-12-2009, 02:10 AM
:blink: No I said that Genesis takes place in 4004BC, I said that backdated time goes back to the Big Bang before that. The Creation Event happened in the middle of Creation, NOT at its start.

Did you even bother drawring the Triangle...coz if you had you would understand perfectly...so much for actually wanting serious topics of debate. You're a dissapointing Fraud :sad:

Fraud? Did I not say I was confused by what you said?
And no, I didn't draw the Triangle. My bad. I have no paper or pens nearby. :ashamed:



That was Catholic dogma not scripture so if you are going to use biblical terms then you must do so as the bible dictates.
I can care what the English translations say I can read the Greek manuscripts. You cannot make a doctrine based on the English version and the point is you said the bible claimed illness was caused by demons. That is not true. Illness was caused by sin entering into the world and from that point on mankind began to die in the flesh. You posted scripture and were refuted soundly and no you make excuses. Just admit you are wrong and have no clue because your faith is in the scientific method and not the creator.
It is not my interpretation it is called rules of grammar. Spend so more time in English class and less in science class. The rules are same in English as well.
My gosh how much propaganda kool aid do you drink everyday. Also adaption is not what were are talking about, stop trying to skirt the issue


*sigh*
1.) With contradictory verses on such important things like who Jesus was, what better source am I to get information from than Church Leaders themselves from the various Sects of Christianity?
2.) Uh... Haha, there are still Christians today that believe Demons cause Illnesses... especially Mental Illnesses. You take up your problem with them. :cool:
Oh and uh... it's not Faith in the Scientific Method, it's "Trust". Big difference, you English Major you.
3.) Lets talk about skirting the issue, you addressed NOT ONE of my Evolutionary points. And if you had actually read what I wrote, you'd understand that our Ancestors the Cro-Magnons evolved to be adapted to a warmer climate in Africa and when the Ice Age receeded in Europe, they migrated. Since the Recession of the Ice Age happened relatively quickly, Neanderthals technically either had to "adapt" or die out... and they ended up dying out because the Cro-Magnons were more well adapted to that type of environment already and outcompeted the Neanderthals for food and territory.
I very specifically talked about Evolution. I mentioned the Neanderthals having clearly evolved from a common Ancestor with Humans but had Evolved separately in Europe to the cold harsh climate there and they didn't contribute any genes to the modern Human population... possibly because they couldn't interbreed with our Ancestors.
Care to tackle the Evolution subject in the "Theory of Evolution" Thread now big guy?

Neezar
11-12-2009, 04:48 AM
Oh, forgot about you... sorry.



Nice!

However, we both know that you didn't forget about me for a second. :laugh:

Chris F
11-12-2009, 05:07 PM
Fraud? Did I not say I was confused by what you said?
And no, I didn't draw the Triangle. My bad. I have no paper or pens nearby. :ashamed:




*sigh*
1.) With contradictory verses on such important things like who Jesus was, what better source am I to get information from than Church Leaders themselves from the various Sects of Christianity?
2.) Uh... Haha, there are still Christians today that believe Demons cause Illnesses... especially Mental Illnesses. You take up your problem with them. :cool:
Oh and uh... it's not Faith in the Scientific Method, it's "Trust". Big difference, you English Major you.
3.) Lets talk about skirting the issue, you addressed NOT ONE of my Evolutionary points. And if you had actually read what I wrote, you'd understand that our Ancestors the Cro-Magnons evolved to be adapted to a warmer climate in Africa and when the Ice Age receeded in Europe, they migrated. Since the Recession of the Ice Age happened relatively quickly, Neanderthals technically either had to "adapt" or die out... and they ended up dying out because the Cro-Magnons were more well adapted to that type of environment already and outcompeted the Neanderthals for food and territory.
I very specifically talked about Evolution. I mentioned the Neanderthals having clearly evolved from a common Ancestor with Humans but had Evolved separately in Europe to the cold harsh climate there and they didn't contribute any genes to the modern Human population... possibly because they couldn't interbreed with our Ancestors.
Care to tackle the Evolution subject in the "Theory of Evolution" Thread now big guy?

You see you want us to think like you and when we do not you whine. There is nothing to talk about the theory of evoultion because it is science fiction and a waste of thread space. So if someone else prefer to swallow your propaganda then they can waste their time with you but since you refuse to provide any citations at all I cannot take you as a serious academic. Good day! :)

mscomc
11-12-2009, 10:01 PM
You see you want us to think like you and when we do not you whine. There is nothing to talk about the theory of evoultion because it is science fiction and a waste of thread space. So if someone else prefer to swallow your propaganda then they can waste their time with you but since you refuse to provide any citations at all I cannot take you as a serious academic. Good day! :)

I gave a citation for how chickens may have come from lizards.....

I also gave some examples of benefical mutations, that may have contributed to our evolution (but maybe not on a macro scale, but defninetly micro)

What is your opinion on those? Just curious is all :wink:

Buzzard
11-12-2009, 10:10 PM
You see you want us to think like you and when we do not you whine. There is nothing to talk about the theory of evoultion because it is science fiction and a waste of thread space. So if someone else prefer to swallow your propaganda then they can waste their time with you but since you refuse to provide any citations at all I cannot take you as a serious academic. Good day! :)

Can you provide any scientific citations to disprove the theory of evolution and/or to prove your belief of the earth being only 6000 years old? Can you provide scientific citations to back any of your beliefs?

You call the theory of evolution science fiction yet you believe in things that can't be proven, haven't been proven and are far more out there as far as beliefs go. You seem to always fall back on "faith" as being the answer. That isn't the answer for any of it yet you cling to it so very tightly. How many drinks of water did it take for you to swallow your propaganda pill?

If points were being scored on who brought what to the table, you would clearly be losing. Yeah, just my take though I am looking at what was presented and trying to be unbiased in my opinion. Even when I was a believer I couldn't believe some of the things that were put out in front of me no matter how hard I tried.

It's too bad shon8121 isn't able to defend his position here. I have been enjoying reading the threads and responses given by both sides.

CAVEMAN
11-12-2009, 10:40 PM
Did anyone look at the link I posted on page 10 of this debate!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

Just curious as to what you all think?

Buzzard
11-12-2009, 10:50 PM
Did anyone look at the link I posted on page 10 of this debate!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

Just curious as to what you all think?

I looked at it and found that it was debunked years ago. It was interesting though and caused me to do a little more research into it.

CAVEMAN
11-12-2009, 10:51 PM
I looked at it and found that it was debunked years ago. It was interesting though and caused me to do a little more research into it.

Care to share a resource that debunked this? I would be interested to read it.

mscomc
11-12-2009, 10:56 PM
Did anyone look at the link I posted on page 10 of this debate!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

Just curious as to what you all think?

I did look at them. Fascination stuff man, good links.

I do recall vaguely seeing stuff similar to this back in 1st year undergrad science studies. I believe the explanation was that these large "humanoid" skeletons are likely some kind of an anscestor the modern day gorillas and stuff. As you may know, the muso-skeletal system of a gorilla or ape is quite homologous to a human. This is was supported by the belief of scientists (both creationists and evolutionary biologists) that humans are getting larger and taller in this day an age, and were probably alot smaller thousands of years ago.

Ie: the example of david and golliath..... was david really a normal sized man and golliath a huge giant? many beleive that daivd was a normal sized man, but back than a normal sized man was just really small by todays standards. Where as golliath may have been ahead of the curve and just been relatively large guy by todays standards (thus making him seem giant like)

anyway, just my take. Ill see if i can find some peer reviewed science articles on the large human fossils i saw back in the day, because i could have sworn i read some....ill get back to you.

Later man :wink:

mscomc
11-12-2009, 11:02 PM
I did look at them. Fascination stuff man, good links.

I do recall vaguely seeing stuff similar to this back in 1st year undergrad science studies. I believe the explanation was that these large "humanoid" skeletons are likely some kind of an anscestor the modern day gorillas and stuff. As you may know, the muso-skeletal system of a gorilla or ape is quite homologous to a human. This is was supported by the belief of scientists (both creationists and evolutionary biologists) that humans are getting larger and taller in this day an age, and were probably alot smaller thousands of years ago.

Ie: the example of david and golliath..... was david really a normal sized man and golliath a huge giant? many beleive that daivd was a normal sized man, but back than a normal sized man was just really small by todays standards. Where as golliath may have been ahead of the curve and just been relatively large guy by todays standards (thus making him seem giant like)

anyway, just my take. Ill see if i can find some peer reviewed science articles on the large human fossils i saw back in the day, because i could have sworn i read some....ill get back to you.

Later man :wink:

Okay, from a quick search....i think these are couple of them:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19805257?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2 (published in US national academy of science)

Here was another one, that specifically looked at such finds that you mentioned that were in Africa....but they also admit that more study needs to be done.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028792?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed


Hope that helped friend...:)

Buzzard
11-13-2009, 02:49 AM
Care to share a resource that debunked this? I would be interested to read it.

I just googled some of the names and places of where the evidence was found and found many different sites with the information. I don't have any of them here right yet to link you to, but that is where I started on my search.

If you haven't found any of the info by the time I next check in, I'll see what I can dig up.(pun intended)

Chris F
11-13-2009, 04:32 PM
I gave a citation for how chickens may have come from lizards.....

I also gave some examples of benefical mutations, that may have contributed to our evolution (but maybe not on a macro scale, but defninetly micro)

What is your opinion on those? Just curious is all :wink:

I certain believe in micro changes. Many thing must adapt in order to survive and/or become viable. I apologize but I did not see your link about the lizzard -chicken thing. Can you re post that link please.

Chris F
11-13-2009, 04:37 PM
Can you provide any scientific citations to disprove the theory of evolution and/or to prove your belief of the earth being only 6000 years old? Can you provide scientific citations to back any of your beliefs?

You call the theory of evolution science fiction yet you believe in things that can't be proven, haven't been proven and are far more out there as far as beliefs go. You seem to always fall back on "faith" as being the answer. That isn't the answer for any of it yet you cling to it so very tightly. How many drinks of water did it take for you to swallow your propaganda pill?

If points were being scored on who brought what to the table, you would clearly be losing. Yeah, just my take though I am looking at what was presented and trying to be unbiased in my opinion. Even when I was a believer I couldn't believe some of the things that were put out in front of me no matter how hard I tried.

It's too bad shon8121 isn't able to defend his position here. I have been enjoying reading the threads and responses given by both sides.

Well Buzzard then you certainly are just being bias. I admitted mine was faith and was not trying to win any argument. He started the thread and the burden of proof is on him not on me. That is argumentation 101. In court the prosecution has the burden all a defense attorney need to do is cast doubt. SO no Buzzard I would not loose because he has not made his case and there is plenty of doubt. When he provides real scientific evidence i will address it, but since that does not exist I will just sit and observe.

mscomc
11-13-2009, 06:58 PM
I certain believe in micro changes. Many thing must adapt in order to survive and/or become viable. I apologize but I did not see your link about the lizzard -chicken thing. Can you re post that link please.

Sure....

The question (from crisco) aroused of what came first, the chicken or the egg? I used this time to give an example of macro evolution, and some of the evidence behind it....i showed why biologists gave beleive the chicken game first..

i wrote the following, followed by a research paper publication...

"Hmmmm not that I am a proponent of Macro evolution as Nate and I had this conversation some time back. But if I recall correctly (evolutionary was a long time ago for me), science seems to point out that the chicken came first...how you ask?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, many of the genes in a chicken are very homologous to that of a reptile; particularily with: crocodiles, snakes etc etc. Also, scientists have been able to locate these very genes in the chicken and discovered that they were repressed (over what they believe to be millions of years ago). Thus, they were able to turn these genes on, an noticed the chickens were able to grow reptilian like teeth, which is HUGE since they dont have teeth to begin with. Also, their muscle structure also changed (heres one paper that was published)"....

So in short, at some point a lizard creature gave birth to a chicken type creature.

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant
Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 371-377
M. Harris, S. Hasso, M. Ferguson, J. Fallon


There are dozens and dozens maybe even hundreds of papers doing similiar experiments on different animals.
Mr. Ferguson works in Wisconsin I beleive.

rockdawg21
11-13-2009, 07:13 PM
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).
Exactly what I agree as well. To tell me I evolved from a fish, whatever...

Mr. Garrison said it perfectly about how stupid that concept is:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155351/?searchterm=evolution

"You're the retarted offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish frog, congratulations." :laugh:

Buzzard
11-13-2009, 07:21 PM
Well Buzzard then you certainly are just being bias. I admitted mine was faith and was not trying to win any argument. He started the thread and the burden of proof is on him not on me. That is argumentation 101. In court the prosecution has the burden all a defense attorney need to do is cast doubt. SO no Buzzard I would not loose because he has not made his case and there is plenty of doubt. When he provides real scientific evidence i will address it, but since that does not exist I will just sit and observe.

Seems he can't provide anything now because so many complained about him and wanted him banned, so he has been temporarily banned.

When you provide some scientific evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old +/- a few hundred years, we can talk about that then. Much of what you rely on faith as evidence can be dis-proven through science. No need for anyone to provide the evidence as it is out there for anyone to access, and if provided you would probably ignore it anyway because you have already stated that any science that contradicts what the Bible says is wrong, or words to that effect.

In case you didn't notice, we are talking in a forum, not in court. Big difference.

He has provided evidence of other things yet you won't or haven't bothered addressing those, so why should I think you would address other evidence, as again you said you don't believe anything that contradicts the Bible.

Psst, I think the word you wanted was lose. Just a pet peeve. So many people mix those up and I can't understand why. Another one is using mute instead of moot, as in a moot point.

Have a great day and please note that I am not speaking out of spite, anger or anything, just having a discussion like I would have with my friends. Just because we disagree on things doesn't mean I don't like you or that I hate you. We just disagree on certain things.

Chris F
11-13-2009, 11:37 PM
Seems he can't provide anything now because so many complained about him and wanted him banned, so he has been temporarily banned.

When you provide some scientific evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old +/- a few hundred years, we can talk about that then. Much of what you rely on faith as evidence can be dis-proven through science. No need for anyone to provide the evidence as it is out there for anyone to access, and if provided you would probably ignore it anyway because you have already stated that any science that contradicts what the Bible says is wrong, or words to that effect.

In case you didn't notice, we are talking in a forum, not in court. Big difference.

He has provided evidence of other things yet you won't or haven't bothered addressing those, so why should I think you would address other evidence, as again you said you don't believe anything that contradicts the Bible.

Psst, I think the word you wanted was lose. Just a pet peeve. So many people mix those up and I can't understand why. Another one is using mute instead of moot, as in a moot point.

Have a great day and please note that I am not speaking out of spite, anger or anything, just having a discussion like I would have with my friends. Just because we disagree on things doesn't mean I don't like you or that I hate you. We just disagree on certain things.

Then by all means provide that proof you claim. Science has not nor will it ever be able to prove the origin of the universe. They can only guess so a guess is hardly evidence. And their dating method was invented by a man to achieve a desired result so it cannot be taken for more then that. If I invent a machine that tell me what i want I cannot say I am right and the rest is wrong. SO wheres the proof that the world is not what my faith claims?

shon8121
11-25-2009, 03:19 AM
Then by all means provide that proof you claim. Science has not nor will it ever be able to prove the origin of the universe. They can only guess so a guess is hardly evidence. And their dating method was invented by a man to achieve a desired result so it cannot be taken for more then that. If I invent a machine that tell me what i want I cannot say I am right and the rest is wrong. SO wheres the proof that the world is not what my faith claims?

Which proof do you desire first? If you need links to these Evolutionary facts, I can provide whatever it is you require. Make a list.
Lets get something perfectly clear, I DO NOT BELIEVE in Evolution. I accept it. There's a big difference. No faith required.
Hey, just so you know, Computers, Automobiles, Planes, Television, Rockets ETC ETC ETC were invented by men, so don't trust them! They cannot possible work because men are fallible! Haha.

Chris F
11-25-2009, 03:48 AM
Which proof do you desire first? If you need links to these Evolutionary facts, I can provide whatever it is you require. Make a list.
Lets get something perfectly clear, I DO NOT BELIEVE in Evolution. I accept it. There's a big difference. No faith required.
Hey, just so you know, Computers, Automobiles, Planes, Television, Rockets ETC ETC ETC were invented by men, so don't trust them! They cannot possible work because men are fallible! Haha.

The evidence I need is actual proof of a evoultion from primordial ooze to a complex human being with cited peer reviewed sources.

shon8121
11-25-2009, 04:07 AM
The evidence I need is actual proof of a evoultion from primordial ooze to a complex human being with cited peer reviewed sources.

I already stated that Abiogenesis is a completely different field than Evolution. And the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis is no where near as good as current hypothesis are on the subject of Abiogenesis. It's not like simple chemicals suddenly form a complex bacterium. In reality, it goes in a much different sequence: simple chemicals > polymers > replicating polymers > hypercycle > photobiont > bacteria, and they're making way on that currently in labs.

But I can certianly provide evidences of Common Ancestry/Evolution... oh wait. Haha. I have. But if you require links, this ought to do it. :laugh:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
All of the peer reviewed sources are contained within that you would ever want. Have fun.

Chris F
11-25-2009, 04:12 AM
I already stated that Abiogenesis is a completely different field than Evolution. And the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis is no where near as good as current hypothesis are on the subject of Abiogenesis. It's not like simple chemicals suddenly form a complex bacterium. In reality, it goes in a much different sequence: simple chemicals > polymers > replicating polymers > hypercycle > photobiont > bacteria, and they're making way on that currently in labs.

But I can certianly provide evidences of Common Ancestry/Evolution... oh wait. Haha. I have. But if you require links, this ought to do it. :laugh:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
All of the peer reviewed sources are contained within that you would ever want. Have fun.

I am familiar with that article and no none of those are peer reviewed they are all secondary sources that are nothing more then more theories and interpretations of theories. That article has been shown a very weak example of macro evoultion. Surprised you would use such a flippant example.

shon8121
11-25-2009, 04:26 AM
I am familiar with that article and no none of those are peer reviewed they are all secondary sources that are nothing more then more theories and interpretations of theories. That article has been shown a very weak example of macro evoultion. Surprised you would use such a flippant example.

!!!
Haha. If you say so boss.

But uh, lets remember what a Theory is as defined by Science (not coloqially, like the word "gay" has been altered over time with misuse): An explanation for a collection of facts. And yes that website directs you to "peer reviewed sources" just like you requested. So quit moving the goalpost please. Thats a logical fallacy.

If a Theory is so bad... why don't you stop using Gravity then?

Chris F
11-25-2009, 04:29 AM
!!!
Haha. If you say so boss.

But uh, lets remember what a Theory is as defined by Science (not coloqially, like the word "gay" has been altered over time with misuse): An explanation for a collection of facts. And yes that website directs you to "peer reviewed sources" just like you requested. So quit moving the goalpost please. Thats a logical fallacy.

If a Theory is so bad... why don't you stop using Gravity then?

Post the links for the peer reviewed and will talk. Till then it is you living in a fallacy.

shon8121
11-25-2009, 05:05 AM
Post the links for the peer reviewed and will talk. Till then it is you living in a fallacy.

I posted them you silly goose. Deny them all you want, I don't care.
Denying fact is what you seem to like to do.
Did you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Just... you know, FYI. :laugh:

J.B.
11-25-2009, 05:08 AM
oh geez....I thought this disease was dead?

shon8121
11-25-2009, 05:09 AM
oh geez....I thought this disease was dead?

Disease?

J.B.
11-25-2009, 05:14 AM
Disease?

LOL....

yeah, the one that infects message boards looking for an argument...

clearly, we need a stronger anti-biotic....

shon8121
11-25-2009, 05:17 AM
LOL....

yeah, the one that infects message boards looking for an argument...

clearly, we need a stronger anti-biotic....

Fine. I'll leave on my own.

J.B.
11-25-2009, 05:17 AM
Fine. I'll leave on my own.

:happydancing:

Neezar
11-25-2009, 11:44 AM
!!!
Haha. If you say so boss.

But uh, lets remember what a Theory is as defined by Science (not coloqially, like the word "gay" has been altered over time with misuse): An explanation for a collection of facts. And yes that website directs you to "peer reviewed sources" just like you requested. So quit moving the goalpost please. Thats a logical fallacy.

If a Theory is so bad... why don't you stop using Gravity then?


Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.

So, not really an explanation for a collection of facts. I think it would be more acturate to say it is:

A possible explanation for something not yet understood.

:laugh:

Neezar
11-25-2009, 12:18 PM
Umm, I don't think this is your fault, as the word mutation in the media has gotten the rap of of ALWAYS being bad, and thats not true. I think we always equate it with: ionzing radiation thats gonna de-form us and our babies will be born without noses and stuff. But there are some benfical mutations.

1) Many people in northern europe have a mutated version of the CCR5 receptor on their cell surface. The CCR5 receptor is what the HIV virus uses to infect cells. The people in europe, have ones that are deformed. As such, they are completely immune to HIV. You can expose them to it as much as you want, and they wont get it. At the same time, there hasnt really been any observable difference with their rest of their metabolism


2) people with really fast metabolisms throughout life have had some mutations in a protein called the UCP3, called Un-coupling proteins. People who have a faulty funcitoning UCP3 (from a mutation) have been shown to metabolize fats and carbs very well, as such: diabetes is almost elimnated, high cholesterol, athersclerosis is reduced etc etc etc

3) It is beleived that a transposable elements may have inserted itself in the place that coded for Cellulose metabolism. Therefore, now we cant use Cellulose as a source of Carbs, BUT.....in place, we can now use Fiber in the G.I tract to help us push out feces...... This is may be why the appendix and cecum have NO physiological function anymore. At the same time, the fecal bulk that gets formed in G.I tract can help stimulate immunity. So having good stools, is good all the way around :)

----those are a few examples, there a more. You have to know though, having a good mutation come along is SLOOWWWWWWW. Just like in X-MEN:laugh: Proffessor Xavier said its a slow process, but every few hundred millenia (or was it million?) something happens!!!!

I think this whole post is misleading as examples of benefical mutations. I shall come back to it later though when I have more time. :laugh:

But one question will be 'many' people have this mutation of the receptor. Last I heard there was 5, 5 people. And not 5 people right now, only 5 people EVER known to have it. :unsure-1: Unless..... you got something new on that?

mscomc
11-26-2009, 03:59 AM
I think this whole post is misleading as examples of benefical mutations. I shall come back to it later though when I have more time. :laugh:

But one question will be 'many' people have this mutation of the receptor. Last I heard there was 5, 5 people. And not 5 people right now, only 5 people EVER known to have it. :unsure-1: Unless..... you got something new on that?


Galvani AP, M Slatkin. Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective pressures for the CCR5-delta 32 HIV-resistance allele. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(25):15276-15279.

Galvani AP, J Novembre. The evolutionary history of the CCR5-Delta32 HIV-resistance mutation. Microbes Infect. 2005;7(2):302-9.

Sabeti PC, E Walsh, SF Schaffner, P Varilly, B Fry, HB Hutcheson, M Cullen, TS Mikkelsen, J Roy, N Patterson, R Cooper, D Reich, D Altshuler, S O'Brien, ES Lander. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(11):e378.



----------------- These are just some of the research papers that i have read. They beleive that about 10% of All (not just northern, my bad) europeans have this chemokine delta 32 deletion. True, there is debate over where exactly this mutation came from, and why it ISNT found in africa, or india, or other 3rd world nations where HIV is high.

here is even a study from the US department of health and human services...

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2006/niaid-17.htm

----in this study alone, they estimate that "1% of north american whites, have this receptor mutation"...........Where did you hear 5 from? :blink:

shon8121
11-26-2009, 04:02 AM
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.

So, not really an explanation for a collection of facts. I think it would be more acturate to say it is:

A possible explanation for something not yet understood.

:laugh:

The dictionary dot com definition may seem a little different than the actual Scientific definition is just like the word "gay" has been altered over time thanks to coloqial misuse. But what I said about the word "Theory" stands.


I think this whole post is misleading as examples of benefical mutations. I shall come back to it later though when I have more time.

But one question will be 'many' people have this mutation of the receptor. Last I heard there was 5, 5 people. And not 5 people right now, only 5 people EVER known to have it. Unless..... you got something new on that?


Um... I'm not at all trying to make it appear that there are no negative mutations or something. The majority of mutations are neutral... but negative mutations are sort of "weeded out" by Natural Selection as they show up.
But what are you talking about when you mention a mutation of a receptor? Can you be more specific?

mscomc
11-26-2009, 04:04 AM
The dictionary dot com definition may seem a little different than the actual Scientific definition is just like the word "gay" has been altered over time thanks to coloqial misuse. But what I said about the word "Theory" stands.



Um... I'm not at all trying to make it appear that there are no negative mutations or something. The majority of mutations are neutral... but negative mutations are sort of "weeded out" by Natural Selection as they show up.
But what are you talking about when you mention a mutation of a receptor? Can you be more specific?

Technically the receptor has deletions in it...its lacks certain Amino acids that used to be in it. As such, HIV cant bind to the cell (via the receptor).

shon8121
11-26-2009, 04:05 AM
Technically the receptor has deletions in it...its lacks certain Amino acids that used to be in it. As such, HIV cant bind to the cell (via the receptor).

Uh... the receptor that you mentioned?
I just wasn't sure what he meant exactly. There are many receptors... haha, so I wanted to be sure what I was debating against.

*EDIT*

Forgive me, but I somehow seemed to skim over the post you made about HIV and the peeps in Europe that have seemed to have a sort of "immunity" to it. My mistake. I was too excited and ambitious to answer comments and I missed your point. :-(

mscomc
11-26-2009, 04:12 AM
meh, i forgive you....but JUST THIS ONCE!!!!:laugh:

shon8121
11-26-2009, 04:15 AM
meh, i forgive you....but JUST THIS ONCE!!!!:laugh:
I truly don't know how I messed this up... but it's a chance to point out that I'm human and I make mistakes like everybody else! Haha.

I'm glad you are so forgiving! :laugh:

Chris F
11-26-2009, 06:50 PM
I posted them you silly goose. Deny them all you want, I don't care.
Denying fact is what you seem to like to do.
Did you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Just... you know, FYI. :laugh:

Yeah the bible tells us that even when science said the earth was flat and the sun went around us. Geesh you are are clueless. And still waiting for those links.

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 06:56 PM
Yeah the bible tells us that even when science said the earth was flat and the sun went around us. Geesh you are are clueless. And still waiting for those links.

The Roman Catholic Church dissagreed when Science Clarified that point Chris...not the best example to have unearthed to support Christianity...their denial of scientific prinicples like that is what got Rome shot in the foot.

Chris F
11-26-2009, 07:52 PM
The Roman Catholic Church dissagreed when Science Clarified that point Chris...not the best example to have unearthed to support Christianity...their denial of scientific prinicples like that is what got Rome shot in the foot.

Yeah Dave the RC's made a lot of mistakes but I do not accept the claim they were the only sect of Christianity. By that time reformation was already taking place and one of its tenants were this very thing. So since I am protestant I am really not all concerned what blunders Catholic made back then. But oyu are completely correct.

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 09:18 PM
I am really not all concerned what blunders Catholic made back then. .

Well you should be, because although the Protestant Wing was developing, the world, was looking to Rome as the mouthpiece for Christianity. Protestantism has never dominated, and never had much influence in speaking to the secular world...it wasnt powerful enough.

When Rome fell...noone flocked to Anglicanism, The Philosophical Englightenment didnt in essence, acknowledge Christendom outside of "the Church" and the current thinking at the time was that "Rome" was "the Church"

So what the protestants believed has always been of absolutely no relevence to the Secular world, the Enlightenment, Modernity, The Scientific Community, or Post Modernity. Thats the point im making. Unfortunately, Rome spoke on behalf of us all to the people who mattered. It was rulled that Christianity rejected Science...and IT DOES reject FAR to much even now.

The Protestant Church is also varied in its opinions Chris. With Rome came a Definate Answer....who to go to when asking about what the Protestants believed? Go to an Anglican, and you'll get a remarkably different response then if you go to a Southern Baptist.

You think they cared enough about denominational differences to ask every single branch of the protestant church? No. They went to the Main bulk, the loudest voice, the most powerful symbol, and got a response they dissagreed with.

Chris F
11-26-2009, 10:54 PM
Well you should be, because although the Protestant Wing was developing, the world, was looking to Rome as the mouthpiece for Christianity. Protestantism has never dominated, and never had much influence in speaking to the secular world...it wasnt powerful enough.

When Rome fell...noone flocked to Anglicanism, The Philosophical Englightenment didnt in essence, acknowledge Christendom outside of "the Church" and the current thinking at the time was that "Rome" was "the Church"

So what the protestants believed has always been of absolutely no relevence to the Secular world, the Enlightenment, Modernity, The Scientific Community, or Post Modernity. Thats the point im making. Unfortunately, Rome spoke on behalf of us all to the people who mattered. It was rulled that Christianity rejected Science...and IT DOES reject FAR to much even now.

The Protestant Church is also varied in its opinions Chris. With Rome came a Definate Answer....who to go to when asking about what the Protestants believed? Go to an Anglican, and you'll get a remarkably different response then if you go to a Southern Baptist.

You think they cared enough about denominational differences to ask every single branch of the protestant church? No. They went to the Main bulk, the loudest voice, the most powerful symbol, and got a response they dissagreed with.

Exactly, The true church wil always be the miority. When faith is popular someone screwed up.

Buzzard
11-26-2009, 11:26 PM
Yeah the bible tells us that even when science said the earth was flat and the sun went around us. Geesh you are are clueless. And still waiting for those links.

Here is an interesting page that contradicts what you say.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

I'm interested in hearing your rebuttals of this.

Enjoy the rest of your holiday. Peace to all.

Chris F
11-27-2009, 12:14 AM
Here is an interesting page that contradicts what you say.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

I'm interested in hearing your rebuttals of this.

Enjoy the rest of your holiday. Peace to all.

Isaiah 40:22 says is is a sphere. The verse that were quotes in the article were not in context and nor were they handled with proper hermeneutics. Sure there were MANY so-called Christians that thought the world was flat. But that was mostly because that is what Rome taught and since they were the only ones allowed to read the bible it is no wonder there was so much ignorance.

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 01:18 AM
Exactly, The true church wil always be the miority. When faith is popular someone screwed up.

be that as it may, it matters not. The Enlightenment listened and reacted to the Roman Catholic Church. That was the last day that One Unifed Church of Christondom stood, west of Russia.

The protestant church are two busy bickering to have a unified set of beliefs...even on some of the serious doctrines, let alone a fringe set of dogmas that respond to Science these days.

Now we just have a set of opinions...and you know what they say about Opions? :unsure::laugh:

shon8121
11-27-2009, 01:44 AM
Isaiah 40:22 says is is a sphere. The verse that were quotes in the article were not in context and nor were they handled with proper hermeneutics. Sure there were MANY so-called Christians that thought the world was flat. But that was mostly because that is what Rome taught and since they were the only ones allowed to read the bible it is no wonder there was so much ignorance.

Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

A circle, by definition is round but flat. A sphere, which was not included in the verse, is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space. Nice way to change the words according to your argument.
And I'd love to see a verse for your claim that says the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the Earth being stationary, if you can find one. :)


But thats not the point of the Topic here. I gave you your links, contained within a nice page. I'll supply it again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Links to peer reviewed studies are contained on that web site for each specific Evolutionary evidence. Have fun ignoring the evidence again.

Chris F
11-27-2009, 03:06 AM
Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

A circle, by definition is round but flat. A sphere, which was not included in the verse, is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space. Nice way to change the words according to your argument.
And I'd love to see a verse for your claim that says the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the Earth being stationary, if you can find one. :)


But thats not the point of the Topic here. I gave you your links, contained within a nice page. I'll supply it again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Links to peer reviewed studies are contained on that web site for each specific Evolutionary evidence. Have fun ignoring the evidence again.

Not English stop pretending you have any understanding of scripture.

Also you already posted that link and as I said before those are not peer reviewed. Try again

mscomc
11-27-2009, 04:02 AM
Not English stop pretending you have any understanding of scripture.

Also you already posted that link and as I said before those are not peer reviewed. Try again


----Just a little off topic. But twice I gave you actually published science articles supporting macro evolution (well whether or not it is support can be debated)...but is was in reference to how they believe chickens/birds came from lizards....you told me you were going to look into it, so i posted the link a third time.

I'll do it now a fourth time....what is your oppinion on this matter. I dont beleive in maco evolution, but i find it hard to turn my head away from such as experiments (seen below)

---it started from a question from crisco about what came first, chicken or egg?

I used this time to give an example of macro evolution, and some of the evidence behind it....i showed why biologists gave beleive the chicken game first..

i wrote the following, followed by a research paper publication...

"Hmmmm not that I am a proponent of Macro evolution as Nate and I had this conversation some time back. But if I recall correctly (evolutionary was a long time ago for me), science seems to point out that the chicken came first...how you ask?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, many of the genes in a chicken are very homologous to that of a reptile; particularily with: crocodiles, snakes etc etc. Also, scientists have been able to locate these very genes in the chicken and discovered that they were repressed (over what they believe to be millions of years ago). Thus, they were able to turn these genes on, an noticed the chickens were able to grow reptilian like teeth, which is HUGE since they dont have teeth to begin with. Also, their muscle structure also changed (heres one paper that was published)"....

So in short, at some point a lizard creature gave birth to a chicken type creature.

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant
Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 371-377
M. Harris, S. Hasso, M. Ferguson, J. Fallon


There are dozens and dozens maybe even hundreds of papers doing similiar experiments on different animals.
Mr. Ferguson works in Wisconsin I beleive.

shon8121
11-27-2009, 05:19 AM
Not English stop pretending you have any understanding of scripture.

Also you already posted that link and as I said before those are not peer reviewed. Try again

Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.

Hahahaha. And you simply claiming these peer reviewed studies aren't good enough doesn't make it so. You yourself claimed that you are not very Scientifically inclined or knowledgable. If that is the case, who are you to interpret Science related matters and information? Its the equivalent of me trying to understand Scripture as a non-believer, right? Haha.

Mscomc is correct on the subject of Chickens having evolved from smaller Dinosaurs. In their DNA are the blueprints for such things as "reptillian" teeth, which has been well observed and documented to occur when "inhibitors" governing what is commonly referred to as Junk DNA, ceases functioning properly allowing an older trait from a distant ancestor to be expressed.

A similar thing occurs (and has been well documented also and previously linked to in this very thread) in Humans allowing fully functional tails complete with bone, muscle and voluntary movement to be expressed.

The Theory of Relativity is not in the Bible... but that doesn't stop Relativity from being true, nor does it infringe on the Bible's teachings. It's the same thing with Evolution. If your god exists, he clearly used Evolution to "create" the variation of life on this Planet. To deny Evolution because you accept a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible means you must also believe that the world is flat and rests upon 4 pillars. If thats what you choose to believe in, I won't stop you, but you shouldn't act like you know Science or Science related topics when you don't.

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 01:06 PM
Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.


Your reading the word in the wrong Language :)

NateR
11-27-2009, 03:43 PM
Thats the point im making. Unfortunately, Rome spoke on behalf of us all to the people who mattered.

All the people who mattered to other people, not all the people who mattered to GOD. As Christians we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with worldly popularity. Jesus already warned us that the world was going to hate us because of Him, so why bother seeking acceptance from the secular establishment of this dying world?

It was rulled that Christianity rejected Science...and IT DOES reject FAR to much even now.

I'd like to see that declaration from the Catholic Church in writing. It just sounds to me like you are spouting more revisionist history or your personal opinion.

NateR
11-27-2009, 03:45 PM
Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.

Like Dave said, you are studying the passage in the wrong language. If you are not even going to make an attempt to study the historical context of the verse, in it's original language, and simply try to refute it based on a superficial reading of an English translation; then it's pointless to even attempt an intelligent discussion with you, since you have no intelligence to share with us.

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 05:53 PM
1) All the people who mattered to other people, not all the people who mattered to GOD. As Christians we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with worldly popularity. Jesus already warned us that the world was going to hate us because of Him, so why bother seeking acceptance from the secular establishment of this dying world?



I'd like to see that declaration from the Catholic Church in writing. It just sounds to me like you are spouting more revisionist history or your personal opinion.


1) As Christians, we SHOULD be concerned about the Truth. The truth is the facts presented by the Enlightenment Philosophers WAS TRUE, and Rome claimed they were false. As far as Evangelism goes...the fall of Rome has led to the increase in "christians" but DECLINE in Christianity...now every tom dick and harry call themselves Christians in England...and they wouldnt know a Bible if they saw one...let alone whats inside.

Doesnt THAT concern everyone?

2) Begin with Emmanuel Kant. He's the guy who turned GOD into a Clockmaker. Or you might try The Catholic response to Copernicus, or better still, what the Roman Catholics thought of Issac Newton :laugh:

The Enlightenment, or Modern Era was really a shrugging off of Religious Absolutes, and a replacement with science, reason, and logic. In EXACTLY the same way as figured in the minds of those who signed the American Declairation of Independance, The Enlightenment was about philosophical freedom from the Tyranny of a view controlled by the Church. It was a rebellion against Authority...and it had wide reaching implications...for example...it had been thought that Monarchs were rullers placed in that position BY GOD...therefore, Gaining Independance from Great Britian, was one of many middle fingers that were upped at the prominent ideas of Christianity...because by default, you were saying GODs ambassidor was a Tyrant. Also, the split of Church and State...Church had always been run by State because the Monarchs were seen as both the political AND Religious placecards of GODs choosing. So revolutions to get rid of Monarchies, like the English Civil War, or the French Revolution...again, products of the Enlightenment. then there were the philosophers who challenged and asked epistemonlogical questions about how the church could be sure of what it was saying, there were the biologists like Charles Darwin, the Astronomers, the mathematicians, the physacists.

All of that is completely appart from the Protestant Reformation within about 300 years the Catholic Church went from Absolute power and control, to a placebo for the people.
This is basic European History Nathan....also, the Roman Church has changed its mind since the Enlightenment. They now have even adopted an Enlightenment approach with Science labs and the likes in the Cities (although they never do anything risque (like examin bones of relics or something :laugh: )

NateR
11-27-2009, 08:05 PM
1) As Christians, we SHOULD be concerned about the Truth. The truth is the facts presented by the Enlightenment Philosophers WAS TRUE, and Rome claimed they were false. As far as Evangelism goes...the fall of Rome has led to the increase in "christians" but DECLINE in Christianity...now every tom dick and harry call themselves Christians in England...and they wouldnt know a Bible if they saw one...let alone whats inside.

Doesnt THAT concern everyone?

2) Begin with Emmanuel Kant. He's the guy who turned GOD into a Clockmaker. Or you might try The Catholic response to Copernicus, or better still, what the Roman Catholics thought of Issac Newton :laugh:

The Enlightenment, or Modern Era was really a shrugging off of Religious Absolutes, and a replacement with science, reason, and logic. In EXACTLY the same way as figured in the minds of those who signed the American Declairation of Independance, The Enlightenment was about philosophical freedom from the Tyranny of a view controlled by the Church. It was a rebellion against Authority...and it had wide reaching implications...for example...it had been thought that Monarchs were rullers placed in that position BY GOD...therefore, Gaining Independance from Great Britian, was one of many middle fingers that were upped at the prominent ideas of Christianity...because by default, you were saying GODs ambassidor was a Tyrant. Also, the split of Church and State...Church had always been run by State because the Monarchs were seen as both the political AND Religious placecards of GODs choosing. So revolutions to get rid of Monarchies, like the English Civil War, or the French Revolution...again, products of the Enlightenment. then there were the philosophers who challenged and asked epistemonlogical questions about how the church could be sure of what it was saying, there were the biologists like Charles Darwin, the Astronomers, the mathematicians, the physacists.

All of that is completely appart from the Protestant Reformation within about 300 years the Catholic Church went from Absolute power and control, to a placebo for the people.
This is basic European History Nathan....also, the Roman Church has changed its mind since the Enlightenment. They now have even adopted an Enlightenment approach with Science labs and the likes in the Cities (although they never do anything risque (like examin bones of relics or something :laugh: )

Again, provide me with some historical documents that support your claims. I don't want to hear your personal interpretation of the events.

Just claiming that this is "basic European History" is not good enough. I need some real evidence because I think you are completely wrong.

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 08:19 PM
I think you are completely wrong.

:huh:

Why would you think that. You know the world view of the Roman Catholic Church dont you? You understand the Aristotilian idea of Earth?? does that sound ANYTHING like the Enlightenments view????

If your such of a knowledgable buff on European History or The Roman Catholic Church...or the Enlightenment...of infact on the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion...and the Classical understanding of the world...please...do enlighten us all Mr Rosario.

Where exactly have I gone "completely wrong" :huh:

Chris F
11-28-2009, 02:35 AM
----Just a little off topic. But twice I gave you actually published science articles supporting macro evolution (well whether or not it is support can be debated)...but is was in reference to how they believe chickens/birds came from lizards....you told me you were going to look into it, so i posted the link a third time.

I'll do it now a fourth time....what is your oppinion on this matter. I dont beleive in maco evolution, but i find it hard to turn my head away from such as experiments (seen below)

---it started from a question from crisco about what came first, chicken or egg?

I used this time to give an example of macro evolution, and some of the evidence behind it....i showed why biologists gave beleive the chicken game first..

i wrote the following, followed by a research paper publication...

"Hmmmm not that I am a proponent of Macro evolution as Nate and I had this conversation some time back. But if I recall correctly (evolutionary was a long time ago for me), science seems to point out that the chicken came first...how you ask?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, many of the genes in a chicken are very homologous to that of a reptile; particularily with: crocodiles, snakes etc etc. Also, scientists have been able to locate these very genes in the chicken and discovered that they were repressed (over what they believe to be millions of years ago). Thus, they were able to turn these genes on, an noticed the chickens were able to grow reptilian like teeth, which is HUGE since they dont have teeth to begin with. Also, their muscle structure also changed (heres one paper that was published)"....

So in short, at some point a lizard creature gave birth to a chicken type creature.

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant
Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 371-377
M. Harris, S. Hasso, M. Ferguson, J. Fallon


There are dozens and dozens maybe even hundreds of papers doing similiar experiments on different animals.
Mr. Ferguson works in Wisconsin I beleive.

This is mutation not evidence of human specie change.

Chris F
11-28-2009, 02:38 AM
Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.

Hahahaha. And you simply claiming these peer reviewed studies aren't good enough doesn't make it so. You yourself claimed that you are not very Scientifically inclined or knowledgable. If that is the case, who are you to interpret Science related matters and information? Its the equivalent of me trying to understand Scripture as a non-believer, right? Haha.

Mscomc is correct on the subject of Chickens having evolved from smaller Dinosaurs. In their DNA are the blueprints for such things as "reptillian" teeth, which has been well observed and documented to occur when "inhibitors" governing what is commonly referred to as Junk DNA, ceases functioning properly allowing an older trait from a distant ancestor to be expressed.

A similar thing occurs (and has been well documented also and previously linked to in this very thread) in Humans allowing fully functional tails complete with bone, muscle and voluntary movement to be expressed.

The Theory of Relativity is not in the Bible... but that doesn't stop Relativity from being true, nor does it infringe on the Bible's teachings. It's the same thing with Evolution. If your god exists, he clearly used Evolution to "create" the variation of life on this Planet. To deny Evolution because you accept a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible means you must also believe that the world is flat and rests upon 4 pillars. If thats what you choose to believe in, I won't stop you, but you shouldn't act like you know Science or Science related topics when you don't.
They are not peer reviewed you obviously do not know what that means. If you turned in work like thin in one of my history classes I taught you'd fail that assignment. The article that site listed were from popular journals and independent research. So try again and provide the sources or admit your mistake like a rationale person.

And book chapter and verse that says the world is flat and set upon pillars.

Chris F
11-28-2009, 02:41 AM
Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.

Also As I said and everyone else did as well it is not English so get a clue.

mscomc
11-28-2009, 04:11 AM
This is mutation not evidence of human specie change.

:blink: ummm....I know its not human specie change, i said in the post that it was between lizards and chickens/other avians. Secondly, there is only only one human specie, that is sapiens...so i dont know what you are commenting on.

You told me you studied zoology....

This particular study is taking normal chickens and promoting DNA regions normally repressed...and it turned out those repressed genes carried lizard like qualities. Hence, suggesting some kind of lizard to chicken evolution....HENCE a type of macro evolution....so it opens the door for human macro evolution and is it possible. I still dont agree with it, but i was hoping to get the oppinon of someone who studied at a bible college and had had zoology knowledge...instead i barely got a sentence reply....

Thanks, and never mind. have a good night.

que
11-28-2009, 04:48 AM
do i believe that humans have evolved from some other species, yes. i believe all creatures have evolved from something else at some point in history

do i believe in God, YES

just because i believe in God does not mean i can't believe in evolution BTW.

Neezar
11-28-2009, 05:39 AM
do i believe that humans have evolved from some other species, yes. i believe all creatures have evolved from something else at some point in history

do i believe in God, YES

just because i believe in God does not mean i can't believe in evolution BTW.

So you just think the bible lies?

Buzzard
11-28-2009, 10:17 AM
So you just think the bible lies?

Since an inanimate object can't lie, no. Could the people who wrote the Bible have been mistaken in what they believed and wrote about, yes. After all, there are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible.

Tyburn
11-28-2009, 12:30 PM
Since an inanimate object can't lie, no. Could the people who wrote the Bible have been mistaken in what they believed and wrote about, yes. After all, there are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible.

No the AUTHOR (singular) cant possibly have been "mistaken" about Creation...since he is the Creator.

That doesnt mean that Evolution doesnt exist as a principle in backdated time of course (time before the creational chronological event)

KENTUCKYREDBONE
11-28-2009, 01:34 PM
Which came first the Chicken or the Egg? Well it's real simple! God created the Chicken then sometime in it's life the Chicken laid an egg! So you see its simple really As for the Circle thing somebody really has to be nit picking and grasping at straws to use that as evidence of the Bible supposedly not being accurate!

Mark
11-29-2009, 03:31 AM
Since an inanimate object can't lie, no. Could the people who wrote the Bible have been mistaken in what they believed and wrote about, yes. After all, there are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible.

My opinion you are wrong. Have you evan read the Bible?

Mark
11-29-2009, 03:33 AM
do i believe that humans have evolved from some other species, yes. i believe all creatures have evolved from something else at some point in history

do i believe in God, YES

just because i believe in God does not mean i can't believe in evolution BTW.

You believe in God but you dont believe the Bible?

Mark
11-29-2009, 03:35 AM
Also As I said and everyone else did as well it is not English so get a clue.

I told you he wasnt smart enough.

NateR
11-29-2009, 03:54 AM
After all, there are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible.

I'm assuming you can provide us with a comprehensive list of exactly what those inaccuracies and inconsistencies are? You can't make a claim like that without providing some evidence.

NateR
11-29-2009, 03:57 AM
:huh:

Why would you think that. You know the world view of the Roman Catholic Church dont you? You understand the Aristotilian idea of Earth?? does that sound ANYTHING like the Enlightenments view????

If your such of a knowledgable buff on European History or The Roman Catholic Church...or the Enlightenment...of infact on the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion...and the Classical understanding of the world...please...do enlighten us all Mr Rosario.

Where exactly have I gone "completely wrong" :huh:

I don't care what the accepted version of history is at this moment, I want to see some documents, written by the Catholic Church, from that time period that essentially declare war on the scientific community, as you claim.

Llamafighter
11-29-2009, 03:58 AM
I'm assuming you can provide us with a comprehensive list of exactly what those inaccuracies and inconsistencies are? You can't make a claim like that without providing some evidence.

I think he logged off to go find them...:wink:
He'll be back when he finds them all...

I'll miss him

NateR
11-29-2009, 04:00 AM
I think he logged off to go find them...:wink:
He'll be back when he finds them all...

I'll miss him

What's funny is that everyone who has made an HONEST attempt to discredit the Bible has ended up becoming a Christian. :)

Llamafighter
11-29-2009, 06:56 AM
What's funny is that everyone who has made an HONEST attempt to discredit the Bible has ended up becoming a Christian. :)

:)

Tyburn
11-29-2009, 10:36 AM
I don't care what the accepted version of history is at this moment, I want to see some documents, written by the Catholic Church, from that time period that essentially declare war on the scientific community, as you claim.

They Ex-Communicated a lot of Enlightenment people, like copernicus. That is a declairation of war. I cant show you the document, because it doesnt exist any more for two reasons...first one would have traveled by horseback from the Vatican to be given to the man himself...and the second, probably stored in the Vatican wont exist any more.

I told you, they have since changed their minds...and a later Pope reversed the Excommunication :laugh:

Do you want me to find the names of the two Popes...or will you just accept that the Church and Enlightenment didnt get along, and the Church was wrong :huh:

The Roman Catholics use a law called Latae sententiae for whats known as automatic ex-communications for naughty people whose actions are obviously heretical, as the Enlightenment was at the time. Judging on this...I suppose you want me to proove that the Church didnt hold the Enlightenment view in the first place...otherwise you cant hold the enlightenment in Latae Sententiae can you.

Well Pope Saint Pius Tenth wrote a book called Encyclical Pascendi in which the Aristotilian model adopted by Scholasticism under Saint Thomas Aquinus was held to be THE truth. I've never had to research the obvious before...and it doesnt help that every time there is a new pope, Rome changes its mind AND rome was busy with two conflicting thoughts "humanism V Scholasticism" and also of two issues with the Pope, those who thought he was above the council of Bishops, and those who thought he was subservient to the council of Bishops" and finally, they were still recovering from The Orthodox Split....so its not easy to proove what the church actually thought about anything with much claritiy, and even with clarity, that changed everytime something happened in the Vatican.

So the excommunications are about the only proof, plus the view that the Church masses generally believed in the Aristotilian Model, which is what was replaced by the Enlightenment is about all your going to get. Reading the Enlightenment Philosophers though its obvious they didnt agree with the Roman Church at all. Look at "GOD in Emmanuel Kant" and tell me whether even a Protestant Church would aggree with his ideal of GOD...the answer is no...Kants god is impersonal...it bars the whole possibility of having a personal relationship with Christ...it pretty much bars Christ...and it makes GOD completely irrelevent from the moment that Creation was completed.

Face it, the Enlightenment was the end of all churches :(

Buzzard
11-29-2009, 11:48 AM
My opinion you are wrong. Have you evan read the Bible?

I'm ok with your opinion, but I disagree with that. Yes I have read the bible. It's been a while since I have read it and I will acknowledge that I haven't thoroughly studied it. I have also read tales of mythology (which is the literary category I would place the Bible in) but haven't studied those either since my high-school days. I don't mean to sound rude and I realize that my beliefs are unpopular with the members of this forum, but I don't consider the Bible to be be anything other than a work of fiction with some historical accounts mixed in as well. I'm not saying it isn't an important book with literary value, but I consider it to be a book written by mankind and not the inspired word of God. Having read it showed me that there are many things wrong with it.

Before I realized I was agnostic, I saw many things that didn't seem quite right with it. After I realized that the Bible wasn't an infallible document, I looked at it differently. There are many great words of wisdom in there and many great lessons to be learned, so I think that it is a very important book. I just don't believe it to be the word of God.

I'm assuming you can provide us with a comprehensive list of exactly what those inaccuracies and inconsistencies are? You can't make a claim like that without providing some evidence.

Yes I could and I am, though since others have already done the legwork on this, I am sure that you are quite able to use google and keywords to find the information yourself. I'm not out to win a prize or get a grade for this so it is of little importance to me; and frankly I don't feel like spending the few minutes of time to do it so I can read your insulting comments in regard to the links I would provide. If you wish to provide information to counter my beliefs, feel free to post it and I will gladly take a look at it. So far I haven't read anything that has been able to change my mind or beliefs, but I'm still open to that possibility.

I think he logged off to go find them...:wink:
He'll be back when he finds them all...

I'll miss him

It would take very little of my time, but that short amount of time that it would take isn't worth it to me when the information is there for all to find with just a few good keywords and any search engine.

I wish you well in your walk and am by no means trying to belittle your beliefs. I hope you will offer me the same in return.

What's funny is that everyone who has made an HONEST attempt to discredit the Bible has ended up becoming a Christian. :)

That's a mighty big statement you have made there. Can you provide anything to back that up?

I'm always open to new ideas, and if there is evidence to counter my beliefs then I will surely give it a fair chance. I can't say I believe in something when I actually don't. That would be lying to myself. That is why I am agnostic in my beliefs. There are so many differing viewpoints and beliefs about Christianity, and those who call themselves Christians can't even agree on a shared belief. It boggles my mind. How does one know if they have the correct beliefs?

Tyburn
11-29-2009, 11:57 AM
I'm ok with your opinion, but I disagree with that. Yes I have read the bible. It's been a while since I have read it and I will acknowledge that I haven't thoroughly studied it. I have also read tales of mythology (which is the literary category I would place the Bible in)


whats mythological about Macabees :blink::huh:

Buzzard
11-29-2009, 01:00 PM
whats mythological about Macabees :blink::huh:

... I don't consider the Bible to be be anything other than a work of fiction with some historical accounts mixed in as well.

See the bold text above.

Mark
11-29-2009, 02:10 PM
Yes I could and I am, though since others have already done the legwork on this, I am sure that you are quite able to use google and keywords to find the information yourself.

Before you use ur google just tell me some things that you think are inaccuracies and inconsistencies. I want to know what you think.

Tyburn
11-29-2009, 02:18 PM
See the bold text above.

so....the book of Proverbs by your taxonomy is a work of Mythology??

Tell me...is a Dictionary a work of Mythology??

Lets not go into how the Bible is a compilation of works...not actually a book, but a library of books, which covers everything from poetry, to law.

btw...you dont know much about the Bible if you include Macabees as part of it :wink:

Neezar
11-29-2009, 02:28 PM
I wish you well in your walk and am by no means trying to belittle your beliefs. I hope you will offer me the same in return.



Offer you the same? This isn't just about where we happen to be, Buzzard?

Do you honestly believe that there is even a remote possibility that you would find one of us on an athiest based forum asking for tolerance? :huh:


Seriously? :huh:

Vizion
11-29-2009, 03:22 PM
I'm ok with your opinion, but I disagree with that. Yes I have read the bible. It's been a while since I have read it and I will acknowledge that I haven't thoroughly studied it. I have also read tales of mythology (which is the literary category I would place the Bible in) but haven't studied those either since my high-school days. I don't mean to sound rude and I realize that my beliefs are unpopular with the members of this forum, but I don't consider the Bible to be be anything other than a work of fiction with some historical accounts mixed in as well. I'm not saying it isn't an important book with literary value, but I consider it to be a book written by mankind and not the inspired word of God. Having read it showed me that there are many things wrong with it. Did you read the parable of the seeds? What did you think of that?

Before I realized I was agnostic, I saw many things that didn't seem quite right with it. After I realized that the Bible wasn't an infallible document, I looked at it differently. There are many great words of wisdom in there and many great lessons to be learned, so I think that it is a very important book. I just don't believe it to be the word of God. What specific passages are you referring to?

Yes I could and I am, though since others have already done the legwork on this, I am sure that you are quite able to use google and keywords to find the information yourself. I'm not out to win a prize or get a grade for this so it is of little importance to me; and frankly I don't feel like spending the few minutes of time to do it so I can read your insulting comments in regard to the links I would provide. If you wish to provide information to counter my beliefs, feel free to post it and I will gladly take a look at it. So far I haven't read anything that has been able to change my mind or beliefs, but I'm still open to that possibility. I don't think we can change your mind Buzzard, but God will stir in your heart if that is even in His will :) ....and you coming here...mayhaps it just is.

I'm always open to new ideas, and if there is evidence to counter my beliefs then I will surely give it a fair chance. I can't say I believe in something when I actually don't. That would be lying to myself. That is why I am agnostic in my beliefs. There are so many differing viewpoints and beliefs about Christianity, and those who call themselves Christians can't even agree on a shared belief. It boggles my mind. How does one know if they have the correct beliefs? Buzz, there are many professed "Christians" who are destined to burn in hell, you are seeing the consequences of man's pride and arrogance in some of those differing viewpoints. The Bible is a huge book, written in a different language, there is bound to be some misinterpretations etc. What MATTERS is the message of the Gospel and whether you believe in THAT, and whether you believe ON the Lord Jesus Christ :)

Tyburn
11-29-2009, 03:42 PM
Did you read the parable of the seeds? What did you think of that?

What specific passages are you referring to?

I don't think we can change your mind Buzzard, but God will stir in your heart if that is even in His will :) ....and you coming here...mayhaps it just is.

Buzz, there are many professed "Christians" who are destined to burn in hell, you are seeing the consequences of man's pride and arrogance in some of those differing viewpoints. The Bible is a huge book, written in a different language, there is bound to be some misinterpretations etc. What MATTERS is the message of the Gospel and whether you believe in THAT, and whether you believe ON the Lord Jesus Christ :)


I like you :)

Chris F
11-29-2009, 05:23 PM
:blink: ummm....I know its not human specie change, i said in the post that it was between lizards and chickens/other avians. Secondly, there is only only one human specie, that is sapiens...so i dont know what you are commenting on.

You told me you studied zoology....

This particular study is taking normal chickens and promoting DNA regions normally repressed...and it turned out those repressed genes carried lizard like qualities. Hence, suggesting some kind of lizard to chicken evolution....HENCE a type of macro evolution....so it opens the door for human macro evolution and is it possible. I still dont agree with it, but i was hoping to get the oppinon of someone who studied at a bible college and had had zoology knowledge...instead i barely got a sentence reply....

Thanks, and never mind. have a good night.
See this is what happens when you answer a question for someone else. At least you could have stayed on topic.

Chris F
11-29-2009, 05:25 PM
do i believe that humans have evolved from some other species, yes. i believe all creatures have evolved from something else at some point in history

do i believe in God, YES

just because i believe in God does not mean i can't believe in evolution BTW.

Actually in the eyes of God it would. The bible tells us how we were made. You can serve two masters. So you plan to have eternal life you need to dump the science fiction and embrace HIs infallible Word.

Chris F
11-29-2009, 05:29 PM
Since an inanimate object can't lie, no. Could the people who wrote the Bible have been mistaken in what they believed and wrote about, yes. After all, there are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible.

Bible was wrote down by men but dictated by God. SO they were not mistaken (the autographs that is) Has men though out time screwed it up with their opinions? Yes at times but the story has never been changed it is a story of redemption in Jesus Christ. As for our origins that section has not varied our oldest scripts read just as clean as the modern. Not even Homers Iliad is that clean through out time.

Chris F
11-29-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm assuming you can provide us with a comprehensive list of exactly what those inaccuracies and inconsistencies are? You can't make a claim like that without providing some evidence.

Yeah they usually post some difference in stories but fail to see the context that it was from a different writers POV. Not an inconsistency but a different POV. Not a single Agnostic or Atheist has ever proved anything in this debate.

Tyburn
11-29-2009, 05:35 PM
Actually in the eyes of God it would. The bible tells us how we were made. You can serve two masters. So you plan to have eternal life you need to dump the science fiction and embrace HIs infallible Word.

Careful Chris. The Bible points out a Creational Event, there are ways to unify the two without jepodizing either...got a lot to do with what people assume about Genesis...but that Genesis never actually says

Also...In your opinion....is the Bible an "inanimate object" :huh:

Chris F
11-29-2009, 05:36 PM
[QUOTE=Buzzard;83745]I'm ok with your opinion, but I disagree with that. Yes I have read the bible. It's been a while since I have read it and I will acknowledge that I haven't thoroughly studied it. I have also read tales of mythology (which is the literary category I would place the Bible in) but haven't studied those either since my high-school days. I don't mean to sound rude and I realize that my beliefs are unpopular with the members of this forum, but I don't consider the Bible to be be anything other than a work of fiction with some historical accounts mixed in as well. I'm not saying it isn't an important book with literary value, but I consider it to be a book written by mankind and not the inspired word of God. Having read it showed me that there are many things wrong with it.

Before I realized I was agnostic, I saw many things that didn't seem quite right with it. After I realized that the Bible wasn't an infallible document, I looked at it differently. There are many great words of wisdom in there and many great lessons to be learned, so I think that it is a very important book. I just don't believe it to be the word of God.



Yes I could and I am, though since others have already done the legwork on this, I am sure that you are quite able to use google and keywords to find the information yourself. I'm not out to win a prize or get a grade for this so it is of little importance to me; and frankly I don't feel like spending the few minutes of time to do it so I can read your insulting comments in regard to the links I would provide. If you wish to provide information to counter my beliefs, feel free to post it and I will gladly take a look at it. So far I haven't read anything that has been able to change my mind or beliefs, but I'm still open to that possibility.
QUOTE]

Buzzard They have done the leg work and it was wrong. They simple cite different POV's not an inconsistency. If you and I see the same wreck we will not tell the cops they same thing. Your arguments are weak as they are illogical. I would be happy to counter any argument you have but you have not posted one yet.

Chris F
11-29-2009, 05:42 PM
Careful Chris. The Bible points out a Creational Event, there are ways to unify the two without jepodizing either...got a lot to do with what people assume about Genesis...but that Genesis never actually says

Also...In your opinion....is the Bible an "inanimate object" :huh:

Dave I believe the Bible is the living Word of God not an object.

I know there are a lot of opinions on the genisis account but what is not open for interpretation is that man was created by God. He was not created a primordial ooze then some how evolve into a complex being. Evolution is a farce.

Tyburn
11-29-2009, 06:02 PM
Dave I believe the Bible is the living Word of God not an object.

I know there are a lot of opinions on the genisis account but what is not open for interpretation is that man was created by God. He was not created a primordial ooze then some how evolve into a complex being. Evolution is a farce.

thats not really spoken about in Genesis All we know really is the GOD made the World, and that Humans are the completion so to speak.

It depends how heavy you want to get, there are many, many interpretations that can blend adequetly science and creationalism, mine is wayyyy on the cusp of unification. Although I kinda developed it through what someone on here once said in one of these debates and I ran with it :)

I dont believe the Bible is just an inanimate object either. :)

Chris F
11-30-2009, 03:59 AM
thats not really spoken about in Genesis All we know really is the GOD made the World, and that Humans are the completion so to speak.

It depends how heavy you want to get, there are many, many interpretations that can blend adequetly science and creationalism, mine is wayyyy on the cusp of unification. Although I kinda developed it through what someone on here once said in one of these debates and I ran with it :)

I dont believe the Bible is just an inanimate object either. :)

The debates on creation are fun to study, but I believe in a literal 6 day creation where God created everything fully mature and this is why they have the appearance of age and this is also why I accept the young earth belief. Since it is so open for interpretation I will nto break fellowship with someone just because they differ as long as they believe God did the create and man did not evolve over time form a different specie.

Tyburn
11-30-2009, 11:56 AM
The debates on creation are fun to study, but I believe in a literal 6 day creation where God created everything fully mature and this is why they have the appearance of age and this is also why I accept the young earth belief. Since it is so open for interpretation I will nto break fellowship with someone just because they differ as long as they believe God did the create and man did not evolve over time form a different specie.

The point is GOD neither confirms nor denies Evolution...in fact, I do not believe he is even speaking about Creation in terms of a long and drawn out event. He appears to be talking about a significant singular event

For me, its like saying, well Christ died on a cross in a very specific year, but there were those Jews who got to heaven before Christ had died...how is that possible. Very simply, Christs ressurectional power goest backwards as well as forwards from the event.

How do you know this isnt the same with Creation, a singular event 4004BC that goes BACKWARDS as well as forwards?

Personally, I believe that Macro Evoultion didnt effect Humans...I believe that Humans were pretty much completely created, probably not unlike a bacteria. I admit they have undergone changes (you know Neanderthals, and dispite what they say there are a few of them left) are simply a different type of Human, not necc a proof of Macro Evoultion. I shall wait for this "missing link" to proove that...though in reality it wouldnt change my theology at all.

How GOD actually creates is not a concern to me. The fact he alone did, Is :)

Buzzard
12-01-2009, 06:18 AM
Before you use ur google just tell me some things that you think are inaccuracies and inconsistencies. I want to know what you think.

To be honest with you Mark, I couldn't tell you any them without some sort of aid as I haven't read it in awhile. Shoot, I probably couldn't even tell you any characters names from the last book I read, nor the one I am reading now.

so....the book of Proverbs by your taxonomy is a work of Mythology??

If you would have read the following which I said in my post There are many great words of wisdom in there and many great lessons to be learned, so I think that it is a very important book. you would have your answer.


Tell me...is a Dictionary a work of Mythology??

If the dictionary contained stories as other mythological works did, yes. Since it doesn't, no. Really, what kind of a question was that?


Lets not go into how the Bible is a compilation of works...not actually a book, but a library of books, which covers everything from poetry, to law.

I wasn't and didn't.


btw...you dont know much about the Bible if you include Macabees as part of it :wink:

I was only responding to your post which inferred that it was in the Bible. I wouldn't have been able to say much about it anyway. It was only after googling it that I recalled what it was. You must not know much about it if you can't spell it correctly.:wink:

Also, I've never stated that I knew much about the Bible anyway, only that I have read it and that that was a long time ago. I am certainly not a scholar on it.

Offer you the same? This isn't just about where we happen to be, Buzzard?

Do you honestly believe that there is even a remote possibility that you would find one of us on an athiest based forum asking for tolerance? :huh:


I was under the impression that this was a mixed martial arts website which included a forum section with many categories, and only one of them pertaining to Christianity. Do you find it odd that one should ask for civility in a forum? Seriously? I see that certain members of this forum are given a free pass at things like inferring that I am a pedo, but I'm the one questioned for my conduct?:crazy:

I found this forum when searching out things related to MMA and the UFC which included a fighter whom I liked, that being Matt Hughes.

I have for the most part stayed out of your Christianity section and only posted in there when it was ok'd. Since this topic is in the woodshed section, I thought I was able to freely express my opinions. It that against the rules now?

Vizion and ChrisF, I will respond to your posts in a day or two when I have more time. Thanks for taking the time to respond to mine.

Neezar
10-31-2013, 08:21 PM
Wonder what ever happened to Buzzard?

Tyburn
10-31-2013, 09:47 PM
Wonder what ever happened to Buzzard?

He turned into Pumba.

Dont you remember Pumba...and Pumba eventually got bored and went away :laugh: