Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:43 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
the chicken
but how...?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:47 PM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisco View Post
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.

Last edited by mscomc; 11-09-2009 at 11:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-09-2009, 11:34 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-10-2009, 12:18 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-10-2009, 12:42 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-10-2009, 12:56 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-10-2009, 01:06 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-10-2009, 02:08 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 11-10-2009, 04:53 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man View Post
[SIZE="4"]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.[/SIZE]
Exactly! AND when has a mutation ever been observed as a good thing?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-10-2009, 04:55 PM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
Exactly! AND when has a mutation ever been observed as a good thing?
uhhh .. have you ever seen X-men?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.