NationStates Jolt Archive

Have a look at this site and try to answer some of its points

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/index2.asp

Those who support evolution...


Are reasonable, throughtful people.


Those who dont arent taken seriously by civilized people anywhere in the world.

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.

That site is so bad ... you know if I really cared I would go through and pick it apart (I love their ... radio carbon dating is wrong ... we found this stuff red blood cells shurly it could not have lasted more then a few thousand years)

Lol carbon dating bassed off of proven half and quarterlifes or some guess at what "cant be" lol so silly

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.


Dont they have schools in israel?


Seriously?

You shame your whole country by saying something so blatantly ignorant and patently stupid as "evolution says people came from monkeys or gorillas or apes or whatever."

As far as I can tell, this website answers most or all of those points.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

(If all you give me as an argument is a link to a website, I feel justified in giving you as a response a link to a website. :rolleyes: :p :D ;) )

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.
Why ... cause you dont like that answer?

Dont they have schools in israel?


Seriously?

You shame your whole country by saying something so blatantly ignorant and patently stupid as "evolution says people came from monkeys or gorillas or apes or whatever."
New Granada for the win.

Have a look at this site and try to answer some of its points

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/index2.asp

On the very first page - the little spinning "claims." At least four are not even claims of evolution in the first place.

Creationist theories are a crutch for those who can't be bothered to study but would rather be preached to.

Why ... cause you dont like that answer?


cause it doesn't make sense...

Dont they have schools in israel?


Seriously?

You shame your whole country by saying something so blatantly ignorant and patently stupid as "evolution says people came from monkeys or gorillas or apes or whatever."

I AM CANADIAN AND I AM LIVING IN CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And just because i don't believe in Evolution, does not make me uncivilized. I could call you uncivilized, for thinking that notion as well.

I'll field the first. I'd like to do more, but I need to sleep. :p

"No transitional Fossils"

Consider the vast number of species that exist today. Consider that fossils discovered today cover millions of years of history- and we would only know a bare fraction of the species from this time-span. We may know many "transitional" lifeforms, but we have not as yet discovered their next direct link- there would be millions upon millions of creatures to catalogue and compare links. Most fossils discovered are also incomplete skeletons, and it's very difficult to tell- two of the same species of which the fossils are 2 million years apart in age and evidently have the same skeleton may have been slightly different in other areas (the later specimen may have a different skin colour to help it merge with its environment, for example, but that is impossible for us to know)

Here's how it works:

1. Person does not understand evolution

2. Person invents altered, simplified version of evolution in their head

3. Person realises this altered version is nonsense

4. Person mistakenly declares the real theory must be wrong too.

Wow. That web site has a lot of solid research behind it. Do you have any pamphlets or references that outline these findings, because I'd like to see more. After just a little surfing around the Matrix, I feel like I'm Neo and I just took the blue pill (or the red one, or whichever is the one that makes you wake up to reality). But it's funny cause you're Neo!

If you don't have any pamphlets, maybe you could just talk about this stuff a little more, cause it's fascinating.

Wow. That web site has a lot of solid research behind it. Do you have any pamphlets or references that outline these findings, because I'd like to see more. After just a little surfing around the Matrix, I feel like I'm Neo and I just took the blue pill (or the red one, or whichever is the one that makes you wake up to reality). But it's funny cause you're Neo!

If you don't have any pamphlets, maybe you could just talk about this stuff a little more, cause it's fascinating.
The sarcasm hurts from here :p

cause it doesn't make sense...



I AM CANADIAN AND I AM LIVING IN CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And just because i don't believe in Evolution, does not make me uncivilized. I could call you uncivilized, for thinking that notion as well.


Then get out of canada, its a wonderful country and you are a disgrace to it.

I *know* the canadians have schools.

But did you go to some sort of jewish madrassa or something? or are you like 14 years old or what?

How can somone from such a good country be so woefully ignorant about biology?

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.

Guess what?! You are a primate! Oh no!!!!!!!

And no one who understands the theory ever says that we evolved from today's apes or gorillas. The theory is that we share a common ancestor with all of today's primate species - each of which has evolved in that time as well.

Creationist theories are a crutch for those who can't be bothered to study but would rather be preached to.


I give up.... Debating with a Humanist..or Atheist, or whatever you consider yourself is like talking to a 2 year old, whenever you don;t get what you want, you just go on a Tamper Tantrum.

Did anyone watch the intro? I thought it was talking about the church - "The fallacious voices of our past" is soo the catholic church. :D

Some of those things were quite funny - C14 gives the maximum age, for example. C14 doesn't give any age, it's just that everything has a C14:C12 ratio and using the ratio in the material compared to the ratio naturally (combined with the half-life of C14) can give an age range within one half-life of C14. This is not millions of years. It's about 6000. So it's accurate to within 6000 years, surely?

Dude, theistic evolution is very reasonable.

I'm not sure any scientist believes that Neandertal is the missing link, but provides has a common ancestory with us.

As for the "numreous" missing links thing, they only address the issue of human missing links. And given that humans have only been around for the blink of an eye in terms of history, it's much less likely that we're going to find them. Abscence of evidence IS NOT evidence of abscence.

As for "most" people thinking that 150 years ago that the earth was much younger is totally uninformed. In ancient Greece it was commonly held that the earth was millions if not billions of years old. Only when Darwin came around and popularized this view did creationism start getting taught in schools.

The dinosaur "argument" fails to cite ANY sources and points to anecdotal evidence which isn't of ANY worth. THe fact is, there were no words to describe dinosaurs until the 1800s. Why else was it held that mammoths were cyclopses?

Totally retarted web page.

*is on his way to being an ordained minister and believes in evolution*

cause it doesn't make sense...


Why ? how could it make sense ... you have not even bothered to learn the basics



I AM CANADIAN AND I AM LIVING IN CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]


And just because i don't believe in Evolution, does not make me uncivilized. I could call you uncivilized, for thinking that notion as well.
I don’t believe in religion ... I am still learned in it.

Why ... cause you dont like that answer?

Or maybe the Bible says something different...

How it is possible to question theory that is backed by physical evidence and confirmed predictions just by using good old fashioned propaganda techniques.

Herein (http://www.thematrix.co.uk/index2.asp) you will find

Appeal to the common man
Glittering Phrases
loaded vocabulary
Exclusion of the possibility of doubt

and probably more as well, but I could not tolerate being insulted any longer.

There is nothing to answer, as there is nothing here that constitutes any real challenge to the current scientific paradigms.

Or maybe the Bible says something different...

Or maybe the koran, or Chief Wooba-won-won Bahookoo of the island of Mish-mashombo in the south pacific.


What a religion says isnt really imporant to how civilized people think about things, whether the religion comes from an old book or a fat islander with a fancy hat and a stick.

Guess what?! You are a primate! Oh no!!!!!!!

And no one who understands the theory ever says that we evolved from today's apes or gorillas. The theory is that we share a common ancestor with all of today's primate species - each of which has evolved in that time as well.


So how come there aren't more credible bridges currently living?

I give up.... Debating with a Humanist..or Atheist, or whatever you consider yourself is like talking to a 2 year old, whenever you don;t get what you want, you just go on a Tamper Tantrum.
I'm a Canadian NDP voter. :D

I'm also none of what you listed - I'm a Secular Spiritualist. I just believe that creationism is a whole lot of bullshit. Especially once you bring 'God' into the argument. It really blows what little credibility you're giving for why creationism is really the truth and evolutionism is for the dogs.

By the way, if talking to one of us is like talking to a two year old, talking to a Christian is like trying to talk to a bring wall...

Or maybe the koran, or Chief Wooba-won-won Bahookoo of the island of Mish-mashombo in the south pacific.


What a religion says isnt really imporant to how civilized people think about things, whether the religion comes from an old book or a fat islander with a fancy hat and a stick.
wow... that TOTALLY wasn't racist.

Or maybe the koran, or Chief Wooba-won-won Bahookoo of the island of Mish-mashombo in the south pacific.


What a religion says isnt really imporant to how civilized people think about things, whether the religion comes from an old book or a fat islander with a fancy hat and a stick.

Last time I checked, civilized people didn't go around insulting others and are willing to entertain and explore ideas different from their own, in which case, many from both sides here present are quite less than civilized.

Did anyone watch the intro? I thought it was talking about the church - "The fallacious voices of our past" is soo the catholic church. :D

Some of those things were quite funny - C14 gives the maximum age, for example. C14 doesn't give any age, it's just that everything has a C14:C12 ratio and using the ratio in the material compared to the ratio naturally (combined with the half-life of C14) can give an age range within one half-life of C14. This is not millions of years. It's about 6000. So it's accurate to within 6000 years, surely?
C14 is roughly accurate 50k -75k (btw I know you were not arguing for the 6 k date just introducing some info)

The REASON (and his claim of accuracy) the HALF LIFE of c14 is 5700 years … that is NOT the accuracy

For basics … half of the material is gone at 5700 years … that is not its detectible threshold it is still detectable to much smaller trace amounts then 50 %

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.

Anyone who says that really does not understand evolution. We and the other homonids (apes, monkeys etc) all evolved from a common ancestor. This is what evolutionary theory says. If you doubt this, which you are entitled to, you have the problem of explaining the similarities. The evolutonist only has to explain the differences, which are far fewer.

wow... that TOTALLY wasn't racist.


Looney superstion is looney superstition.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with islanders, just that what they believe about the world is looney superstition and not necessarily how things really are.

Or maybe the Bible says something different...

That is considering an "alternate" "source" that you believe holds more relevance … you can still UNDERSTAND evolution with out believing in it

He does not UNDERSTAND

Last time I checked, civilized people didn't go around insulting others and are willing to entertain and explore ideas different from their own, in which case, many from both sides here present are quite less than civilized.


Pray tell, who was it that I insulted?

And whose ideas did I prove unwilling to entertain or explore?

The sarcasm hurts from here :p

No, I mean it! It's fascinating! I would love to hear Neo Cannen talk more about the Matrix web site. Particularly about this segment, http://www.thematrix.co.uk/topic.asp?id=21, which goes into detail as to why Neptune and Venus can't (and don't) exist.

It's fascinating in the same way the Pew Center study on perceived media bias is fascinating: Because it demonstrates the flabbergasting lengths people will go to restructure truth or misconstrue evidence when it conflicts with their core beliefs.

Christ, Neo Cannen is a thesis waiting to be written. A one-man (or woman) version of Hoffman's True Believer, revised for 2005.

By the way, if talking to one of us is like talking to a two year old, talking to a Christian is like trying to talk to a bring wall...

Don't stoop to trading insults. The problem is that you are all talking to, not conversing with.

C14 is roughly accurate 50k -75k (btw I know you were not arguing for the 6 k date just introducing some info)

The REASON (and his claim of accuracy) the HALF LIFE of c14 is 5700 years … that is NOT the accuracy

For basics … half of the material is gone at 5700 years … that is not its detectible threshold it is still detectable to much smaller trace amounts then 50 %

But this assumes relative constants of temperature and pressure, which may not have been the case.

Looney superstion is looney superstition.


And quantum field mechanics is quite seriously out there as well, but we accept it as possibly true.

Looney superstion is looney superstition.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with islanders, just that what they believe about the world is looney superstition and not necessarily how things really are.
no, but you put forth a stereotype which is unwarranted and offensive.

But this assumes relative constants of temperature and pressure, which may not have been the case.

The half life of a radioisotpe is completely unaffected by things like temperature or pressure....


Thats *basic* science.

Last time I checked, civilized people didn't go around insulting others and are willing to entertain and explore ideas different from their own.

Don't lump me in there. I've entertained the idea that Venus doesn't exist. But then some nights I can see it with my naked eye. So I'm done entertaining.

no, but you put forth a stereotype which is unwarranted and offensive.


A stereotype of whom? People who lived on islands in the pacific 500 years ago?

The half life of a radioisotpe is completely unaffected by things like temperature or pressure....


Thats *basic* science.

Very basic. It's understanding the difference between chemistry and physics.

Don't lump me in there. I've entertained the idea that Venus doesn't exist. But then some nights I can see it with my naked eye. So I'm done entertaining.
you sure that isn't just a scratch on your eyeball? ;)

I am a very strong Christian, I believe that ther is a God, and a messiah, and heaven, but I also believe, equally strongly in evolution and the big bang, it doesn't disprove God, who created the big bang, who created the thing that we all evolved from.

Creationists :sniper:

People who say that taking to Christians is like talking to a brick wall :sniper:

Pray tell, who was it that I insulted?

And whose ideas did I prove unwilling to entertain or explore?

"Then get out of canada, its a wonderful country and you are a disgrace to it."

Remember those words. I'd say that is about as insulting as one person can be to another. Even if that person was uneducated, which I doubt, being uneducated is not a disgrace and frequently outside of an individuals control.

Though you weren't speaking to me directly, I was insulted by the lack of consideration shown to a fellow human being. On the flip side, the person that you said that to, was baiting and insulting as well.

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.

Uhm, well, doesn't evolution give evidence to that theory? The only people who don't accept that we were not instantly created as perfect humans are the arrogant people who don't want to admit that primates may have evolved into humans. It doesn't make you less of a person. Just look at the scientific evidence.

you sure that isn't just a scratch on your eyeball? ;)

I thought about that, but then I decided that it was more probably a shiny bauble, hung by satan among the celestial spheres for the purpose of leading man into doubt, deception, and damnation.

Wow, that was utter, utter crap. They were right about one thing; C14 dating can't tell us that the earth was old. It has a half life of about 5,730 years, so we can accurately measure something's age until about 11,460 years. We have other forms of dating to determine ages of things. Uranium, K-Ar, etc.

The person that said "I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff."
No where EVER does the Theory of Evolution say we came from monkeys (Although some days, you kinda wonder). All it says is that we share a common ancestor. If we came from monkeys, then monkeys would have become obsolete and they would have been phased out. But we share so many traits with them: Work in groups, we cross our arms when we are getting defensive, balding, grey hair with age, social beings, the list goes on.
As for the idea that people 150 years ago would tell you the age of earth differently, that was because science was in its infancy. Comparatively, there was very little that could even be showed, due to lack of technology, such as the microscope. At that time, the earth was a "magical place" run by one or many gods of all sorts. It wasn't until French scientist Lavoisier showed the world that things blew up/set of fire/burned not because of phlogiston, but because of chemical reactions.

No, I mean it! It's fascinating! I would love to hear Neo Cannen talk more about the Matrix web site. Particularly about this segment, http://www.thematrix.co.uk/topic.asp?id=21, which goes into detail as to why Neptune and Venus can't (and don't) exist.

It's fascinating in the same way the Pew Center study on perceived media bias is fascinating: Because it demonstrates the flabbergasting lengths people will go to restructure truth or misconstrue evidence when it conflicts with their core beliefs.

Christ, Neo Cannen is a thesis waiting to be written. A one-man (or woman) version of Hoffman's True Believer, revised for 2005.
lol thats GREAT

"Then get out of canada, its a wonderful country and you are a disgrace to it."

Remember those words. I'd say that is about as insulting as one person can be to another. Even if that person was uneducated, which I doubt, being uneducated is not a disgrace and frequently outside of an individuals control.

Though you weren't speaking to me directly, I was insulted by the lack of consideration shown to a fellow human being. On the flip side, the person that you said that to, was baiting and insulting as well.


It might benefit you to read what led up to that particular comment.

MuhOre demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not well educated, it is self evident.

And if you are insulted by internet message boards, perhaps you shouldnt use them.

lol thats GREAT

Yeah. The capper is I turned "somewhat deadly" on that post. So bring it on, you deluded Matrix saps, cause I'm itchin' to test out my new kung fu.

I guarantee it's gonna rock *so* much harder than my old kung fu.

Wow, that was utter, utter crap. They were right about one thing; C14 dating can't tell us that the earth was old. It has a half life of about 5,730 years, so we can accurately measure something's age until about 11,460 years. We have other forms of dating to determine ages of things. Uranium, K-Ar, etc.
Half life is a log scale, not linear. The loss of C14 does not go 1/2 gone, all gone. Two half lives result in a half of a half of the original amount.

The half life of a radioisotpe is completely unaffected by things like temperature or pressure....


Thats *basic* science.

So you're saying that atmospheric conditions have no effect on the amount of radiation experienced on terra firma? I did forget to mention density and the possible differences in atmospheric gasses didn't I. My apologies.

I'm still laughing over them mentioning Neptune and Uranus. Obvious sign they don't know enough about scence to be worth a reply.

It has a half life of about 5,730 years, so we can accurately measure something's age until about 11,460 years.


Radioactive decay does not work like that. It is an exponential decay. I.e. after every 5,730 years, it has decay from half of what it was 5,730 ago, not half of the original total.

E.g. (x is the amount of remaining radioactive material, y is the half-life)

0 years - x
y years - x/2
2y years - x/4
3y years - x/8
4y years - x/16

So, for an element with a half-life of 5730, there would be a quarter left after 11460 years.

It might benefit you to read what led up to that particular comment.

MuhOre demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not well educated, it is self evident.

And if you are insulted by internet message boards, perhaps you shouldnt use them.

Did you not read the last sentance of my post. I acknowledged that the individual to whom you were responding was culpeable as well. That doesn't make your comment less offensive.

So you're saying that atmospheric conditions have no effect on the amount of radiation experienced on terra firma? I did forget to mention density and the possible differences in atmospheric gasses didn't I. My apologies.

No, I'm saying that atmospheric conditions have no effect on the decay of radioisotopes.

Which is, since you didnt read it, EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE.


>>>>

The half life of a radioisotpe is completely unaffected by things like temperature or pressure....


Thats *basic* science.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-neptune.html

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-uranus.html

But of course, these don't mean anything. After all, these are the same scientists who faked the lunar landing.

"Half life is a log scale, not linear. The loss of C14 does not go 1/2 gone, all gone. Two half lives result in a half of a half of the original amount."

I know that, it's just that determining the age of things becomes logarithmetically difficult to determine its age through many half lives. :) I believe that you can estimate through about 50 half lives or until there is about 10% of the original sample of c14. Something to that tune.

Or maybe the Bible says something different...

The Bible says nothing that directly precludes Evolution, except for the Adam and Eve rib part. Of course, most Creationists want to argue for the 7 days creation, which is a separate creation story written by a separate author.

The Bible also says that certain insects have 4 legs - but we know this to be untrue.

Have a look at this site and try to answer some of its points

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/index2.asp
Cool graphics!

Okay, I picked one at random. It claims to debunk the widely accepted "common knowledge" that petrification takes millions of years.

- The claim is patently incorrect, as the site demonstrates using a method of limestone calcification on a bag of flour. However, other methods of petrification --for instance, those using volcanic ash, which contains metal and carbon minerals-- can take much longer, as much as centuries.

- Nobody ever made this claim. The site does not give a source for the claim, nor does it pretend that it's anything more than "common knowledge" that it is debunking. I personally have never heard this claim, but I suspect the claim is a misrepresentation of a claim that I have heard, that petrification allows for objects millions of years old to be preserved to the modern day.

http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moonpics/gasstation2.jpg

Notice how the at point A, the shadow of the gas pump falls in the opposite direction than the shadow of the lunar rover.

The Bible says nothing that directly precludes Evolution, except for the Adam and Eve rib part. Of course, most Creationists want to argue for the 7 days creation, which is a separate creation story written by a separate author.

The Bible also says that certain insects have 4 legs - but we know this to be untrue.


And that hares chew cud.

Cant forget that one~

But this assumes relative constants of temperature and pressure, which may not have been the case.

Half-life is not affected by these things.

Of course, funny that you bring up poor assumptions, as the so-called "evidence" for Creationism makes all sorts of unfounded assumptions. One, although astronomy tells us quite clearly that stars go through stages, is that the sun must have been changing at the exact same rate and in the exact same way as it is now forever. Another is that the gravitational field (which is believed to wax and wane and switch from time to time) of Eart has likewise been changing at the exact same rate and direction forever.

Don't lump me in there. I've entertained the idea that Venus doesn't exist. But then some nights I can see it with my naked eye. So I'm done entertaining.

It is possible and very reasonable to disagree with someone without being insulting. Venus, clearly does exist. I'm rather fond of looking at it from time to time. I'd have to say that someone claiming it doesn't lacks sufficient credibility for me to agree with them, but I wouldn't call them stupid or a disgrace.

IMO, it is far more disgraceful to be insulting than to display a lack of knowledge on a given subject.

No, I mean it! It's fascinating! I would love to hear Neo Cannen talk more about the Matrix web site. Particularly about this segment, http://www.thematrix.co.uk/topic.asp?id=21, which goes into detail as to why Neptune and Venus can't (and don't) exist.

It's fascinating in the same way the Pew Center study on perceived media bias is fascinating: Because it demonstrates the flabbergasting lengths people will go to restructure truth or misconstrue evidence when it conflicts with their core beliefs.

Christ, Neo Cannen is a thesis waiting to be written. A one-man (or woman) version of Hoffman's True Believer, revised for 2005.

I thank you for your enthusasiam, regretably I am not in University, nor when I do am I planning to do any sciences. I'm hoping to do international relations.

Cool graphics!

You know who else hides lies under cool graphics and shiny surfaces?

Saetan!

I love the title: "those who support evolution", as if its some evil political movement, that's corrupting "good American god-fearing citizens". As opposed to a proper scientific theory with evidence and logic on its side (unlike some alterative "theories" that come to mind...)

So how come there aren't more credible bridges currently living?

If the "bridges", as you call them, were still living, we wouldn't be here.

Do attempt to understand a theory before you attempt to argue against it.

Now, if you are asking why there aren't animals closely related to us, you have obviously never been around a chimpanzee or other ape, which demonstrate startling similarities to human beings (and, strangely enough, share nearly all of the same genetic code).

No, I'm saying that atmospheric conditions have no effect on the decay of radioisotopes.

Which is, since you didnt read it, EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE.


>>>>

Doesn't the rate of decay of radioisotopes change depending on how much radiation they are exposed to?

Do attempt to understand a theory before you attempt to argue against it.

It doesn't work like that. Creationists never understand evolution, they are too busy seeing it as evil. See also: my sig.

Every substance releases heat, until you reach absolute zero. It's just a relative thing, when you touch an ice cube, it's cold, an endothermic reaction. It still has heat, just to us it's not. If our body temperatures were below the temp of ice, then we would actually be getting warmer from the ice.

Of course, most Creationists want to argue for the 7 days creation, which is a separate creation story written by a separate author.


The "bible" according to whom?

Doesn't the rate of decay of radioisotopes change depending on how much radiation they are exposed to?

But radioactive things emit radiation, not absorb it. Besides, I thought the argument you guys were in was about whether temperature and pressure affect it? (they dont by the way)

Venus, clearly does exist.

If you would read the claim, you would see its not trying to claim that the planets are not there, but that they dont fit in with certian scienctific models.

Doesn't the rate of decay of radioisotopes change depending on how much radiation they are exposed to?


Do you have a citation that it does?

Doesn't the rate of decay of radioisotopes change depending on how much radiation they are exposed to?

Only if you are bombarding them directly with particles. (ie. a big, closed tank with radioactive isotopes being bombarded by huge concentrations of alpha particles.)

A radioisotope decays due to its own instability, regardless of any radiation being "added".

The Bible says nothing that directly precludes Evolution, except for the Adam and Eve rib part. Of course, most Creationists want to argue for the 7 days creation, which is a separate creation story written by a separate author.

The Bible also says that certain insects have 4 legs - but we know this to be untrue.
Its not untrue! Insects that have lost 2 legs have 4 legs!

If the "bridges", as you call them, were still living, we wouldn't be here.

Do attempt to understand a theory before you attempt to argue against it.

Now, if you are asking why there aren't animals closely related to us, you have obviously never been around a chimpanzee or other ape, which demonstrate startling similarities to human beings (and, strangely enough, share nearly all of the same genetic code).

When was the last time you heard a chimp give a dissertation on evolutionary theory? There ought to at least be 1 other creature with an IQ over 80 out there shouldn't there?

Its not untrue! Insects that have lost 2 legs have 4 legs!


Yea, verily!

It stands then to reason that jesus and the angels must have pulled two legs off of every insect in antiquity!!!!!!!!!

The "bible" according to whom?

Do you have a different version of Scripture than every other version on the planet?

I am speaking of the Bible (a set of Scripture) as cannonized by the Church. Genesis specifically is also a part of the Torah in Jewish scripture and I believe Islam recognizes it as well.

But radioactive things emit radiation, not absorb it. Besides, I thought the argument you guys were in was about whether temperature and pressure affect it? (they dont by the way)

The point I was making was that the content of the atmosphere affects how much radiation is filtered from extra-terra sources.

I thank you for your enthusasiam, regretably I am not in University, nor when I do am I planning to do any sciences. I'm hoping to do international relations.

Wow. Neo Cannen, based on your posts here, and the way you have played your country, I hereby ban you from the field of International Relations. I do not believe that the International community could withstand another dupe of this caliber.

ok, fact is, this thread can go nowhere in proper debate. The main opposition are the creationists, and they have god on their side. I challenge you to come up with an argument that cant be countered with God did it. Lousy all powerful god....

Do you have a citation that it does?

No. That's why I asked the question rather than making a statement.

When was the last time you heard a chimp give a dissertation on evolutionary theory? There ought to at least be 1 other creature with an IQ over 80 out there shouldn't there?

What on Earth makes you think that?

First of all, there are animals that ahve something close. Both dolphins and apes show an amazing amount of cognitive ability. Even dogs and pigs demonstrate cognitive abilities on the order of a 3 year old human child.

However, in order to develop in the way that we have developed, a creature must fit a very specific niche - and must be different from or outcompete human beings. Thus, it is very unlikely that we would see another species on this planet which met the intelligence criteria which we have devised for ourselves.

Yea, verily!

It stands then to reason that jesus and the angels must have pulled two legs off of every insect in antiquity!!!!!!!!!
Of course! And we must continue Gods good work. :p

He said certain insects, so thoese certain insects lost 2 legs.

When was the last time you heard a chimp give a dissertation on evolutionary theory? There ought to at least be 1 other creature with an IQ over 80 out there shouldn't there?
Maybe will be ... we were just the first (still relitivly short time as far as world history goes sense we became "smart")

ok, fact is, this thread can go nowhere in proper debate. The main opposition are the creationists, and they have god on their side. I challenge you to come up with an argument that cant be countered with God did it. Lousy all powerful god....
Yeah I don't know why they don't just say God created the world 10 days ago and say God created all the evidence.

If you would read the claim, you would see its not trying to claim that the planets are not there, but that they dont fit in with certian scienctific models.
That's the great thing about scientific models. When facts are found that don't fit them, they get modified to fit the new facts. Now the site claims that "textbooks and popular media so confidently proclaim that we ‘know’ for certain" these things that are incorrect. What it doesn't say is that we know these textbooks are old and no longer correct, and it also doesn't point at the newer textbooks that are correct. We know the popular media is often incorrect; that's why we take what they say with a grain of salt.

The website is debunking things that don't need to be debunked. The only ones who believe these things to be common misconceptions are Creationists.

When was the last time you heard a chimp give a dissertation on evolutionary theory? There ought to at least be 1 other creature with an IQ over 80 out there shouldn't there?

No. Creatures just need to be able to survive. They don't have to be intelligent to do this. Rats survive without being very intelligent. Cockroaches more so. The human method of survival is intelligence.

When was the last time you heard a chimp give a dissertation on evolutionary theory? There ought to at least be 1 other creature with an IQ over 80 out there shouldn't there?

actually theres been three. neatherthal and...er two others. I forget their exact names, but they were a sub species of homo sapiens. ill find out the names if you like

"I thank you for your enthusasiam, regretably I am not in University, nor when I do am I planning to do any sciences. I'm hoping to do international relations."

Guess what little boy (girl?) in college you HAVE to take science courses as your general education requirement, so get used to it. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Personal responsibilit
When was the last time you heard a chimp give a dissertation on evolutionary theory? There ought to at least be 1 other creature with an IQ over 80 out there shouldn't there?

80 is pretty retarded. It's what I call room-temperature IQ. We gained it because of what is called evolution. We gained it as we climbed up the biologic ladder. Like opposable thumbs, bipedal motion, etc. Chimps also have a significantly smaller cranial cavity as well as brain to fit in it. That is also part of why they can't get PhD's or make theoretical dissertations. We've done experiments on monkey brains and ours to see how they react to stimulus.

No. Creatures just need to be able to survive. They don't have to be intelligent to do this. Rats survive without being very intelligent. Cockroaches more so. The human method of survival is intelligence.

Which leaves the question as to why the majority of humanity doesn't fall down dead.

Humanity doesn't survive through intelligence. If it tried to, it'd go extinct. It survives through adaptibility, being able to adapt to a multitude of environments and even able to adapt the environment. And that really doesn't require much intelligence.

From the Matrix site (which is, to me, one of the most un-intentionally humorous sites I've seen in a long time..)

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/topic.asp?id=12

"One geologist testified how he never saw any evidence for the Flood – until, as a Christian, he was convinced from the Bible that the Flood must have been a global cataclysm. Now he sees the evidence everywhere. It’s a case of ‘I would not have seen it if I had not believed it!"

So what this 'geologist' is saying is until he became a Christian, he operated on science. Observing evidence and working on rational hypotheses. After his conversion, he could see evidence that he could not see as a heathen? What is more logicak to have changed? His eyes themselves, or the brain's memetic patterns? He even said it himself. ‘I would not have seen it if I had not believed it!’ Ah yes. Belief. The great blinders. Thank you, but I shall stick to logic.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. And a website that attempts (no matter how badly) to provide PROOF and show (no matter how much of it is made up) EVIDENCE.. bu definition, destroys Faith.

End Trans

Which leaves the question as to why the majority of humanity doesn't fall down dead.

Humanity doesn't survive through intelligence. If it tried to, it'd go extinct. It survives through adaptibility, being able to adapt to a multitude of environments and even able to adapt the environment. And that really doesn't require much intelligence.

Actually, we do survive by intelligence. We have the intelligent to learn, communicate, make clothes, and tools (since we dont have fur or claws). The more stupid humans survive because human society and/or its products allow them.

Do you have a different version of Scripture than every other version on the planet?

I am speaking of the Bible (a set of Scripture) as cannonized by the Church. Genesis specifically is also a part of the Torah in Jewish scripture and I believe Islam recognizes it as well.

The I quote:

"Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work. Thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in SIX days the Lord made the heaven's and the earth, the sea and all that in them is and rested the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11

Wow. Neo Cannen, based on your posts here, and the way you have played your country, I hereby ban you from the field of International Relations. I do not believe that the International community could withstand another dupe of this caliber.

There go the insults again... :rolleyes:

Which leaves the question as to why the majority of humanity doesn't fall down dead.

Humanity doesn't survive through intelligence. If it tried to, it'd go extinct. It survives through adaptibility, being able to adapt to a multitude of environments and even able to adapt the environment. And that really doesn't require much intelligence.

You claim you can seperate adaptability and intelligence? we need intelligence to adapt. intelligence is the only thing humans have going for them. we are weak in all fields compared to animals. we have no fur or anything like that, ineffective natural weapons. standing up exposes the genitals and chest, so u know, thats not good news. without intelligence we would have perished

Maybe will be ... we were just the first (still relitivly short time as far as world history goes sense we became "smart")

relative to what?

Actually, we do survive by intelligence. We have the intelligent to learn, communicate, make clothes, and tools (since we dont have fur or claws). The more stupid humans survive because human society and/or its products allow them.
Yup there has been big arguments about the slowing of evolution on humans becase we reduce envyromental pressures

I'd like to not think I'm insulting. Rather, I'm merely saying that Neo Cannen is well... unqualified in my opinion

Humanity doesn't survive through intelligence. If it tried to, it'd go extinct. It survives through adaptibility, being able to adapt to a multitude of environments and even able to adapt the environment. And that really doesn't require much intelligence.

That in itself is intelligence. You have to use your mind to adapt with an environment, understand when something is unfavorable to your survival, and create tools, whatnot to withstand the elements. Apparently you lack the intelligence to grasp that. Just Kidding. :p

actually theres been three. neatherthal and...er two others. I forget their exact names, but they were a sub species of homo sapiens. ill find out the names if you like

Can you prove to me that they weren't humans whose bodies weren't aberant from the norm?

relative to what?
History of species ... you asked why evolution has not produced more species with high intelligence ... you are asking about an evolutionary question so you must abide by the tenants... that the earth is old ... and the relative time it takes for a species to diverge and acquire traits


In evolutionary world history we are young ... VERY young ... so if you want evolution to produce another smart species maybe have to wait for the time evolutionary movements take

The more stupid humans survive because human society and/or its products allow them.

Human beings are always intelligent enough to survive, however stupid they seem. unless, i guess in mental illness, but thats not the same as stupidity

Of course! And we must continue Gods good work. :p

He said certain insects, so thoese certain insects lost 2 legs.


I have found my vocation!

I shall start a monastic order devoted to doing the lord work and correcting the insects which have strayed from the path of god.

We shall build a great shrine and church with the legs we collect and it will be a light of faith and God's Love for all mankind~

There go the insults again... :rolleyes:


Please stop spamming the forum with all this whining claptrap about 'insults'

It stands to reason that you only complain about insults to make your post count go up.

The I quote:

"Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work. Thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in SIX days the Lord made the heaven's and the earth, the sea and all that in them is and rested the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11

(a) The Bible was not written in English and the wording used was not specific to day, nor was it necessarily meant to be taken as literal fact.

(b) The priestly account to which this refers is included in Genesis with a different account, known as the Yahwist account. The two clearly contradict each other as to exactly how/when things were created. As such, what makes you think that either are meant to be taken literally or that either are factually, rather than metaphorically, correct?

If god cut off insects legs, then wouldn't the next generation have 6 legs again? Simple genetics. :p

Just being facetious, considering this is a religious/ scientific discussion...

If god cut off insects legs, then wouldn't the next generation have 6 legs again. Simple genetics.
Not according to Lamarck. And if the insect's legs, then they probably wouldn't reproduce. And, last of all, God wouldn't be able to cur off insects' legs, because then the driver ants would come and strip him of all tissues.

If god cut off insects legs, then wouldn't the next generation have 6 legs again? Simple genetics. :p

Just being facetious, considering this is a religious/ scientific discussion...
yeah thats why insects now a days have 6 legs! But back when God was bored he ripped the legs off some insects.

Not according to Lamarck. And if the insect's legs, then they probably wouldn't reproduce. And, last of all, God wouldn't be able to cur off insects' legs, because then the driver ants would come and strip him of all tissues.

And then God wouldn't be able to blow God's nose...

=)

Not according to Lamarck. And if the insect's legs, then they probably wouldn't reproduce. And, last of all, God wouldn't be able to cur off insects' legs, because then the driver ants would come and strip him of all tissues.
Don't forget that God has the Giant Holy magnifying glass of Bethlehem.

Not according to Lamarck. And if the insect's legs, then they probably wouldn't reproduce. And, last of all, God wouldn't be able to cur off insects' legs, because then the driver ants would come and strip him of all tissues.


It was actually jesus and the angels who ripped off the legs on each successive generation.

They stopped doing it (or anything for that matter) when man invented the camera because they didnt want photos taken of them.

It was actually jesus and the angels who ripped off the legs on each successive generation.

They stopped doing it (or anything for that matter) when man invented the camera because they didnt want photos taken of them.

Because it might steal their souls?

It warms the cockles of my heart to see this thread degenerate into a theological evaluation of insect-mutilation.

I thought that was the Muslims that were that way. I may be wrong... Then again, they're all worshipping the same god

I can't help from breaking out hysterically from this:
Don't forget that God has the Giant Holy magnifying glass of Bethlehem.
Kudos to you. You get a Jesus-Point in my book! :D

It was actually jesus and the angels who ripped off the legs on each successive generation.
That would explain why god is slow to answer people's prayers. If they werent so busy ripping off the legs of insects (sounds like what we did when we were kids; what a childish god) maybe he'd make me win the lotto. :)

I'd like to not think I'm insulting. Rather, I'm merely saying that Neo Cannen is well... unqualified in my opinion

Calling someone a dupe, is insulting. Stating that in your opinion someone is unqualified to comment is at least less so to the point of being civilized IMO.

www.wayofthemaster.com

For the evolutionists, go here and go to the part of the site that answers questions. Look for evolution, and it has about 18 reasons proving evolution wrong.

History of species ... you asked why evolution has not produced more species with high intelligence ... you are asking about an evolutionary question so you must abide by the tenants... that the earth is old ... and the relative time it takes for a species to diverge and acquire traits


In evolutionary world history we are young ... VERY young ... so if you want evolution to produce another smart species maybe have to wait for the time evolutionary movements take

Your kind of making my point for me... In evolutionary theory the world is old as you stated. In evolutionary theory, humanity is young. The question is, if evolution is so old, why hasn't it produced more than one life form with equal intelligence to that of humanity. Why not an intelligent bird or reptile if not a mammal?

Your kind of making my point for me... In evolutionary theory the world is old as you stated. In evolutionary theory, humanity is young. The question is, if evolution is so old, why hasn't it produced more than one life form with equal intelligence to that of humanity. Why not an intelligent bird or reptile if not a mammal?

Good point. I also want to know with what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Nothing, because there is only one cell. Evolution sorta falls on its face.

Please stop spamming the forum with all this whining claptrap about 'insults'

It stands to reason that you only complain about insults to make your post count go up.

Or because I actually prefer a truly "civilized" conversation/argument/disagreement as opposed to a flame war.

Your kind of making my point for me... In evolutionary theory the world is old as you stated. In evolutionary theory, humanity is young. The question is, if evolution is so old, why hasn't it produced more than one life form with equal intelligence to that of humanity. Why not an intelligent bird or reptile if not a mammal?

(a) We don't know that it hasn't.

(b) It would be highly unlikely, as it takes a creature of great complexity to obtain intelligence.

(a) We don't know that it hasn't.

(b) It would be highly unlikely, as it takes a creature of great complexity to obtain intelligence.

A. Oh yeah, a super intelligent creature has been hidden for 6000 years!
B. Or it takes a super intelligent being to create a creature with such intelligence.

(a) The Bible was not written in English and the wording used was not specific to day, nor was it necessarily meant to be taken as literal fact.

(b) The priestly account to which this refers is included in Genesis with a different account, known as the Yahwist account. The two clearly contradict each other as to exactly how/when things were created. As such, what makes you think that either are meant to be taken literally or that either are factually, rather than metaphorically, correct?

That's correct, the wording was accurately translated "evening and morning" or something along the lines of sundown to sundown. As for whether or not it was meant literally, the same wording is used for literal days and with out obvious contextual evidence for it's being metephorical it is more logical to take it literally.

As for your comments on "priestly verses Yahwist" accounts, there arm many theologians who do not see them as being contridictory and who see them as both being literal. I think we've been through this before or maybe that was with Graven Idol. Either way, I'm sure we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

(a) We don't know that it hasn't.

(b) It would be highly unlikely, as it takes a creature of great complexity to obtain intelligence.


Care to define "great complexity"? And then describe why the orders of reptile or bird would be less able to develop along those lines than a mammal?

Good point. I also want to know with what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Nothing, because there is only one cell. Evolution sorta falls on its face.

Actually, single celled organisms usually do not reproduce sexually. Some strains of yeast and bacteria do something very similar though and likely were doing so long before colonial or muliticellular animals or plants. Sexual reproduction (aka DNA recombination) is more at an invention of multicellular organisms; an adaptation allowing greater genetic diversity and such things as the various dynamics of population genetics which is really what is at the heart of micro and marco evolution. If evolution theory is incorrect despite overwhelming evidence to support it is more correct than incorrect what pseudo-theory of child-like simplicity shall we revert to? Christian, Hindu or Norse creation mythology? Take your pick, all are bunk.

A. Oh yeah, a super intelligent creature has been hidden for 6000 years!
B. Or it takes a super intelligent being to create a creature with such intelligence.

Based on that theory, it takes a man with a really large schlong to produce a man with a smaller schlong. And yes, that's a serious statement.

Tissue growth via evolution is tissue growth via evolution.

Dolphins and apes have comparable intelligence to immature humans. Intelligence is genetic (usually). Did it take a smarter dolphin to make the modern, stupider dolphin? My grandparents, while slightly above average intelligence, are not as intelligent as my parents and myself. Does that mean that a super-genius raped my grandmothers?

Even the freakin pope has accepted the theory of evolution.

"For the evolutionists, go here and go to the part of the site that answers questions. Look for evolution, and it has about 18 reasons proving evolution wrong."

Remember kids, this is the internet. Anyone can and will say anything they want even if it's nothing but a crock of shit. I bet one can find websites that would adamantly try to prove that god is made entirely of swiss cheese. ;) :rolleyes:

Even the friggin pope has accepted the theory of evolution.
"Like you said, Peter. I'm the freaking Pope!"

www.wayofthemaster.com

For the evolutionists, go here and go to the part of the site that answers questions. Look for evolution, and it has about 18 reasons proving evolution wrong.

You know, I've seen these before, and most of them have nothing at all to do with evolution. Meanwhile, they are *questions*, not *reasons*.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Irrelevant.

2. Where did matter come from?

Irrelevant

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Irrelevant

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

This question doesn't even make sense.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Irrelevant.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

(a) If there was not yet life, then there was no "dead matter."
(b) Irrelevant.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Life cannot learn anything.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Fallacy - adding desire to a natural process.

Also, name one plant/animal that is immortal.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Suppose we have RAP, a protein that does something. Copying mistakes copy it a second time, creating RAPRAP. However, we only need one RAP protein. This means that any mutations in the second copy will not be detrimental as long as one copy is working. We could have RAPRAR, then RAPPAR, then RAPPER. Now, PER does something very different from RAP, therefore we have new functionality. It really isn't that hard to understand.

Also, suppose we have RAP. RAP is mutated to RAR, which provides no new functionality, but takes something away and is a helpful mutation. Again, we can have mutations without detriment. RAR becomes RER, which becomes PER. Now we have the new functionality.

The idiots who continue to ask this question after having it explained are just that, idiots.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

(a) Fallacy - assuming "design."
(b) Possible? Of course. However, such would be a non-falsifiable assertion. I could also say that the world was made 5 minutes ago, but that wouldn't make my assertion science.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

See above.

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?)

We see colonies of single-celled organisms all the time. Over time, some of these developed into multi-cellular organisms as the cells became more and more specialized.

b) Single-celled animals evolve?

No such thing.

c) Fish change to amphibians?

Some fish could survive on land for a short while. This opened up a whole new niche.

d) Amphibians change to reptiles?

Staying on land and breathing air entirely also opened up a new niche.

e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

In truth, the eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, and body covering are not all that different. The differences and lungs and bones both evolved as a response to the creature benefiting from being airborne more and more.

How did the intermediate forms live?

The same way that all creatures live.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

All of them evolved due to a series of genetic changes which either placed their species in a new niche or made a member of a species more competitive.

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

Cells contain lysosomes, which are much like digestive juices. All life has an "appetite" and "digests" some sort of food which it has a way to find and consume. Obviously, these came before the digestive system as we know it. Anyone who states that the body is "resistant" to its own digestive juices has never studied biology, nor had an ulcer.

b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

Life reproduces as a matter of course.

c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

What "perfect mixture of gases"? The atmosphere we breathe is nowhere near ideal.

d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

Irrelevant.

e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

Without the "flagella", there would be no termite. This shoudl be obvious. Although, I doubt that the cellulose is digested by flagella.

f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

These coevolved.

g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

A blood supply of some sort is necessary for life larger than about a milimeter. Bones most likely developed out of cartilage, muscles, ligaments, and tendons (all of which are fairly similar) having been used before then to move the cartilage.

h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

"Repair system"? To what is this referring?

i) The immune system or the need for it?

Need for it.

As for your comments on "priestly verses Yahwist" accounts, there arm many theologians who do not see them as being contridictory and who see them as both being literal. I think we've been through this before or maybe that was with Graven Idol. Either way, I'm sure we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

There are many preachers who do not see them as being separate accounts. Theologists pretty much agree on that count. Anyone who actually takes time to look at the language cannot deny that they are contradictory.

You can disagree with the original texts if you wish, but that is your business.

A. Oh yeah, a super intelligent creature has been hidden for 6000 years!

Or died out prior to humans becoming intelligent.

Care to define "great complexity"?

It's pretty self-explanatory.

And then describe why the orders of reptile or bird would be less able to develop along those lines than a mammal?

Both reptiles and birds have relatively small brains and short lifespans.

Now, starting from the same ancestor, what makes mammals more likely to develop intelligence? Nothing. However, that is not what happened.

Are you seriously going to believe what Mike Seaver (Kirk Cameron) has to say? :rolleyes:

Even the freakin pope has accepted the theory of evolution.

He didn't say it was true, he said that it was a possibility and you can believe in it as long as you believe God had a part in it and still go to heaven.

Quite the political stance of him.

Because it might steal their souls?


It does stand to reason!

And since angels and jesus dont actually have bodies seperate from their souls, that would pretty much do them in.

Your kind of making my point for me... In evolutionary theory the world is old as you stated. In evolutionary theory, humanity is young. The question is, if evolution is so old, why hasn't it produced more than one life form with equal intelligence to that of humanity. Why not an intelligent bird or reptile if not a mammal?


You seem to view an organism like us as the 'goal' of evolution.

There is no reason that anything 'ought' to evolve, so the lack of lots of organisms that behave and work like humans is completely irrelevent to the process by which human organisms came about.

From a reasonable perspective, it seems that organisms of comparable facility to humans are extraordinarly rare, one species like us has evolved and propagated across the world in the hundreds of millions of years that earth has had life.

It's pretty self-explanatory.



Both reptiles and birds have relatively small brains and short lifespans.

Now, starting from the same ancestor, what makes mammals more likely to develop intelligence? Nothing. However, that is not what happened.

Didn't birds, reptiles and mammals all have a common ancestor. Why haven't those orders (birds and reptiles) of evolution developed at a similar rate? Is there something that precludes them developing larger brains?

Didn't birds, reptiles and mammals all have a common ancestor. Why haven't those orders (birds and reptiles) of evolution developed at a similar rate? Is there something that precludes them developing larger brains?

You are still using the fallacy that the end result of evolution has to be intelligent life - common among those who don't understand it. Intelligence is *one* way in which *some* species can enhance their chances of survival. Birds and reptiles have developed at a similar rate. They have just developed differently.

You are still using the fallacy that the end result of evolution has to be intelligent life - common among those who don't understand it. Intelligence is *one* way in which *some* species can enhance their chances of survival. Birds and reptiles have developed at a similar rate. They have just developed differently.

Not using any such fallacy. It just makes sense that if one order found use for the trait that another probably would as well.

Not using any such fallacy. It just makes sense that if one order found use for the trait that another probably would as well.


Recall though that the nature of the mutations that fuel evolutionary change is a random one, which accounts for the great diversity of species.

Didn't birds, reptiles and mammals all have a common ancestor. Why haven't those orders (birds and reptiles) of evolution developed at a similar rate? Is there something that precludes them developing larger brains?


You may as well ask why humans haven't evolved wings or why reptiles haven't evolved beaks. In fact, you would be asking "Why hasn't evolution produced a single species rather than several?"

Evolution occurs radially; species under pressure adapt to fill less competitive niches. This leaves the original species and the newer species. Both of these species can then evolve along totally different routes--feathers, scales, skin.

I have a question for you personal r.

I mean this to be in no way insulting or disparaging and ask only out of real curiousity.

Why have you never taken it upon yourself to learn about evolutionary biology?

I assure you that you would stand to learn a great deal more from classes or books and perhaps well-regarded websites than you do from people on an internet message board.

Your questions imply that you have no knowledge or understanding whatsoever of many principles which are basic to the theory of evolution.

I would appreciate an answer:
Why have you never been educated about evolution or taken it upon yourself to learn?

You may as well ask why humans haven't evolved wings or why reptiles haven't evolved beaks. In fact, you would be asking "Why hasn't evolution produced a single species rather than several?"

Evolution occurs radially; species under pressure adapt to fill less competitive niches. This leaves the original species and the newer species. Both of these species can then evolve along totally different routes--feathers, scales, skin.

So why aren't we living along side our "original species"?

Hi Spookistan and Jakarta!

So why aren't we living along side our "original species"?

Something probably ate it to death.

And howdy, Spookopolis.

Not using any such fallacy. It just makes sense that if one order found use for the trait that another probably would as well.

Yes, you are. You are assuming that animals in completely different niches would find use out of the same trait, or that they would even necessarily mutate in such a way to gain that trait. Both are fallacies.

As someone else mentioned, your logic is like asking why human beings don't have beaks or the ability to hang onto branches with their toes - we didn't evolve along those lines!

It is a common problem for people to try to assign intelligence to evolution.

So why aren't we living along side our "original species"?
We could very well have been living along side prior gradients that led to the human mammal if they hadn't died out. Species come and species go.

I have a question for you personal r.

I mean this to be in no way insulting or disparaging and ask only out of real curiousity.

Why have you never taken it upon yourself to learn about evolutionary biology?

I assure you that you would stand to learn a great deal more from classes or books and perhaps well-regarded websites than you do from people on an internet message board.

Your questions imply that you have no knowledge or understanding whatsoever of many principles which are basic to the theory of evolution.

I would appreciate an answer:
Why have you never been educated about evolution or taken it upon yourself to learn?

Actually, I've been through basic college biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, anatomy and physiology as well as the social sciences which is my area of expertise. I have found scientist in general to be equally closed minded as religionist, in some cases more so as well as being equally dogmatic. Both groups have a very tenacious belief structure and proslytise with equal zeal. I have found truth and fallacy in both places and have put together the best synthesis, albeit far from perfect, of all of the different truths I have been able to find. Though this is an ever growing knowledge set, I don't see it's foundation as being likely to change much.

Yes, you are. You are assuming that animals in completely different niches would find use out of the same trait, or that they would even necessarily mutate in such a way to gain that trait. Both are fallacies.

As someone else mentioned, your logic is like asking why human beings don't have beaks or the ability to hang onto branches with their toes - we didn't evolve along those lines!

It is a common problem for people to try to assign intelligence to evolution. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that they would have to develop intelligence to survive, it just seems reasonable that it would be just a likely for one order to develop it as another.

Earth is 10,000 years old, and dinosaurs co-existed with human beings.


Right.

I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.

Yeah, especially since we don't resemble them at all.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that they would have to develop intelligence to survive, it just seems reasonable that it would be just a likely for one order to develop it as another.

Yes, it probably is. But it's perfectly reasonable to throw a dice and get a six; you still get ones and twos. Just because an evolutionary direction is possible doesn't mean it will happen.

Not using any such fallacy. It just makes sense that if one order found use for the trait that another probably would as well.

So it equally makes sense that if I find sucking my thumb useful to calm my nerves, then you will too.
No this argument is fallacious. What is useful for something, or some species, is not necessarily useful for another. Big brains draw an awful lot of power from your metabolism. So much so that there would not be enough left to power flight. Hence the centuries long record of failure in attempts to emulate bird's flight by mankind. Reptiles, being cold blooded, simply do not have the metabolic power to drive a big brain. Ergo, only mammals have the conditions for big brains to evolve, and it is only in mammals that we see them.

..if we evolved from (apes?) then please tell me WHY THERE ARE STILL APES AROUND??? you would thing they would have all evolved into humans by now - especially if the earth is 'billions' of years old

btw
those who call themselves christians but dont believe what the bible says :sniper:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that they would have to develop intelligence to survive, it just seems reasonable that it would be just a likely for one order to develop it as another.



If by 'just as likely' you understand the immensely small liklihood (one known species in hundreds of millions of years)

then i suppose yes it is "just as likely"

but that ignores the fact that evolutionary biology isnt a probability game and demonstrates a deep misunderstanding or ignorance of the theory.

For those who argue that evolution/creation is the ultimate truth: we can always compromise. (I've read somewhere that humans always solve problems by compromising.) Let's just say that God created the first cell, and all the other cells (and species) evolved from that single cell. How do you feel about that?

..if we evolved from (apes?) then please tell me WHY THERE ARE STILL APES AROUND??? you would thing they would have all evolved into humans by now - especially if the earth is 'billions' of years old

btw
those who call themselves christians but dont believe what the bible says :sniper:

We did NOT evolve from apes. No evolutionary theory claims that. We and apes evolved from a common ancestor, which, by the way, is no longer around. :D

Actually, I've been through basic college biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, anatomy and physiology as well as the social sciences which is my area of expertise. I have found scientist in general to be equally closed minded as religionist, in some cases more so as well as being equally dogmatic. Both groups have a very tenacious belief structure and proslytise with equal zeal. I have found truth and fallacy in both places and have put together the best synthesis, albeit far from perfect, of all of the different truths I have been able to find. Though this is an ever growing knowledge set, I don't see it's foundation as being likely to change much.


That doesnt answer my question i'm afraid.

We can write off the school education to bad professors or (no insult!) not learning the material.

The question is still:

Why have you not made an effort to learn the basics of evolutionary biology?

It is not a particularly arcane field of study and there are ample resources available.

I for one try to learn as much as possible about something that interests me or that i think I ought to know about.

Bear in mind that learning about something does not imply belief in it.

So, do please answer as to why you havent taken it upon yourself to learn about evolutionary biology.

Actually, I've been through basic college biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, anatomy and physiology as well as the social sciences which is my area of expertise.

At what school did you take college biology? I'll have to be absolutely sure never to go there, suggest it to a friend, or send my kids there.

For those who argue that evolution/creation is the ultimate truth: we can always compromise. (I've read somewhere that humans always solve problems by compromising.) Let's just say that God created the first cell, and all the other cells (and species) evolved from that single cell. How do you feel about that?

It would seem OK to me, but the creationists will not like it as they want a special status for humans. The only beings with souls, created in God's image etc.

For those who argue that evolution/creation is the ultimate truth: we can always compromise. (I've read somewhere that humans always solve problems by compromising.) Let's just say that God created the first cell, and all the other cells (and species) evolved from that single cell. How do you feel about that?


The problem is that no reasonable secular person with any integrity, and no religious fundementalist with any integrity could honestly make that compromise.


As far as reasonable secularism goes, conceding the existance of god is just the same as conceding every sort of pseudoscience and quackery ever contrived, because the test of reason and science must be applied equally to everything.

It is absolute.


In a similar sense religious fundementalism has an absolute all its own, not a process, as with reasonable secularism, but rather a set of unchanging truths.

The fundementalist can no less dismiss his immutable truth in one occasion than can the reasonable secularist let his standards for determining truth go lax.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that they would have to develop intelligence to survive, it just seems reasonable that it would be just a likely for one order to develop it as another.

It is pefectly reasonable. However, randomness in mutations (as well as the advantages supplied by being warm-blooded) caused it to occur more readily in one order.

If by 'just as likely' you understand the immensely small liklihood (one known species in hundreds of millions of years)

then i suppose yes it is "just as likely"

but that ignores the fact that evolutionary biology isnt a probability game and demonstrates a deep misunderstanding or ignorance of the theory.
Either way you look at it --as being created through a process of evolution, or by a Creator --we's special. :)

..if we evolved from (apes?) then please tell me WHY THERE ARE STILL APES AROUND??? you would thing they would have all evolved into humans by now - especially if the earth is 'billions' of years old

btw
those who call themselves christians but dont believe what the bible says :sniper:

Wow, blatantly misrepresenting a theory is suuuuuuuch a good argument against it.

The problem is that no reasonable secular person with any integrity, and no religious fundementalist with any integrity could honestly make that compromise.

As far as reasonable secularism goes, conceding the existance of god is just the same as conceding every sort of pseudoscience and quackery ever contrived, because the test of reason and science must be applied equally to everything.

Of course, as the existence or non-existence of God is an axiomatic statement which cannot be proven/disproven, any truly secular person cannot state that there is no God.

..if we evolved from (apes?) then please tell me WHY THERE ARE STILL APES AROUND??? you would thing they would have all evolved into humans by now - especially if the earth is 'billions' of years old
Because evolution is not a set of specific steps through a program, just as individual humans each find their own path to understanding god. There is no reason at all to think apes, or even the creatures we descended from, would take the same path as we did.

(Edit: that's not grammatically correct, but I'm too tired to fix it)

Of course, as the existence or non-existence of God is an axiomatic statement which cannot be proven/disproven, any truly secular person cannot state that there is no God.

Right, but in saying that "god created the first cell, and evolution took over from there" you make a positive and wholy unreasonable assertion that god exists.

A reasonable person says "i dont believe that god exists because i have no reason to"

much the same way that such a person says "i do not believe that there is an invisible toaster filled with purple zebras deep in a cave on mars that controls the weather on earth"

much the same way that such a person says "i do not believe that there is an invisible toaster filled with purple zebras deep in a cave on mars that controls the weather on earth"
What are you talking about of course there is ;)

Anyway there is also no reson rely not to belive it if you aren't going to use it to hurt people so who cares.

Right, but in saying that "god created the first cell, and evolution took over from there" you make a positive and wholy unreasonable assertion that god exists.

A reasonable person says "i dont believe that god exists because i have no reason to"

much the same way that such a person says "i do not believe that there is an invisible toaster filled with purple zebras deep in a cave on mars that controls the weather on earth"
Actually, a reasonable person says, "others have a reason to believe god exists; I just haven't found a reason yet."

Actually, a reasonable person says, "others have a reason to believe god exists; I just haven't found a reason yet."


Not really.

I would contend that the standards which different people use to determine what is fact and what isnt differ, and that your use of the loaded "yet" is disingenuous.

Right, but in saying that "god created the first cell, and evolution took over from there" you make a positive and wholy unreasonable assertion that god exists.

A reasonable person says "i dont believe that god exists because i have no reason to"

You make the completely unfounded assumption that no reasonable person has ever had experiences and observations that lead them to believe there is a God, simply because you have not.

Not really.

I would contend that the standards which different people use to determine what is fact and what isnt differ, and that your use of the loaded "yet" is disingenuous.
Alright, then. A reasonable person says, "I don't know everything there is to know."

Yes, I wholeheartedly support study of the natural history of our planet, and I think much progress has been made in shedding light on our origins.

Scientists always do whatever they can to rule out magic, gods, or invisible fairies. That's what science is. They're trying to discover how it is possible for life to arise on this planet. By crediting it to some supernatural entity, what you are really saying is that you consider it impossible and believe that it could not have occured without some agent that is capable of doing impossible things as part of its definition. What the scientists are trying to do is find out exactly how it was possible. That's just the kind of thing that scientists do.

The sarcasm hurts from here :p
:confused:
Whoa, I thought he was serious.

You make the completely unfounded assumption that no reasonable person has ever had experiences and observations that lead them to believe there is a God, simply because you have not.


I disagree.

My dichotomy was between a dedicated 'reasonable secularist' and a religious fundementalist.

If you read what it was i was responding to you'd understand why it is those groups to which I was referring.

Since you didnt, I'll summarize:

Somone said "hey, we can solve the problem by saying 'god created the first cell, then it evolved' "

The problem in my opinion is that the only people who argue about science v religion as pertains to evolution are either religious fundementalists or die-hard secularists.

Do please give the simple, common, decent courtesy of reading things first.

Alright, then. A reasonable person says, "I don't know everything there is to know."

I can certainly agree there.

Read National Geographic's bit on evolution then come back and say that it is wrong.

So how come there aren't more credible bridges currently living?

Because the most efficient survivors deprive less efficient survivors, of resources.

Example. A race of tall people and a race of short people live on an island. The only food grows at about 7 feet (just within the reach of the tall people). It ripens for several days, and then drops to the floor.

Theoretically, both the tall and short people have food source there... and yet, if you didn't allow the two cultures to interbreed, the short people would die out in a fairly short time.

Why?

Because the tall people can harvest food from the trees, meaning they are constantly well fed, with reserves of food, and thus, can support large families. The short people can ONLY eat the fallen fruit, of which there is much less, of lower quality. They have low reserves, and can thus only support small families.

Within a few generations, there can be enough tall people to use up the entire growing food population - leaving NO fallen food, for the last few sickly short people. Thus, the short people die out.. in just a few generations.

It's a quick, easy example - but it illustrates the answer to your question.

I disagree.

My dichotomy was between a dedicated 'reasonable secularist' and a religious fundementalist.

...suggesting that no "reasonable secularist", which does not equate to atheist, could possibly believe in a creator.

If you read what it was i was responding to you'd understand why it is those groups to which I was referring.

Since you didnt, I'll summarize:

Actually, I did read it, and you are still setting up a false dichotomy.

The problem in my opinion is that the only people who argue about science v religion as pertains to evolution are either religious fundementalists or die-hard secularists.

Considering that the numbers of either are rather small, and the number of people arguing is large, I doubt that.

I'm here, and while I certainly argue in favor of secularism, that does not preclude me from believing that there is a God, and that God set things into motion at some point, although I don't know what point that was.

Do please give the simple, common, decent courtesy of reading things first.

Don't make assumptions that are unfounded.

Actually, a reasonable person says, "others have a reason to believe god exists; I just haven't found a reason yet."

Beg to differ. Your statement is fundamentally incorrect because your use of the word 'yet' implies that there IS a reason to believe that any god in any form exists, and that those who 'haven't found a reason yet' are ignorant and behind comapred to those who have.

Have a look at this site and try to answer some of its points

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/index2.asp
they are quite simply going on outdated and outright wrong information.

just because someone knows how yo make a neat little geometical shape on a website doesn't make them smart or knowledgable when it comes to science.

How much time do you think these people wasted making that thing in flash as apposed to just writing a simple F.A.Q. page?

Is it not possible for God and evolution to co-exist? I mean, evolution is a pretty smart idea in theory, why couldn't it be of God's creation? This isn't my take on the whole thing, just a compromise I'm offering.

Then get out of canada, its a wonderful country and you are a disgrace to it.

I *know* the canadians have schools.

But did you go to some sort of jewish madrassa or something? or are you like 14 years old or what?

How can somone from such a good country be so woefully ignorant about biology?
could be a jehovha's witness...

in my oac biology class, there was a girl who was a jw and during a presentation on comaparative anatomy, the presentor pointed out that apes have opposable big toes and i commented "it woudl be neat to have opposable big toes, wouldn't it?" at which she responded by yelling "i don't believe in evolution!"

my comment had nothing to do with evolution though, hell i think it would be neat to have wings and a tail...

as nice as this country is, we have our share of idiots.

Is it not possible for God and evolution to co-exist? I mean, evolution is a pretty smart idea in theory, why couldn't it be of God's creation? This isn't my take on the whole thing, just a compromise I'm offering.
it's not really so much of a compromise.

if anything, if god caused life, this god made it look like it evolved naturally. thus you're left with either everything coming about naturally or god causing it to come about naturally. and really, when you reach that point (as a number of creationists have) it doesn't matter. as they accept scientific theory, but simply add in their own little piece about god, which makes no difference to the scientific community.

it's idiots like these young earth creationists who keep relying on info from the 1950's and bringing up hoaxes that have long been debunked and the theory rebuilt because of them that make a bad name for christians and maul the science while they're at it.

...at which she responded by yelling "i don't believe in evolution!"

Serious? That story is gold!

...hell i think it would be neat to have wings and a tail.

I concur.

How much time do you think these people wasted making that thing in flash as apposed to just writing a simple F.A.Q. page?

Is it not possible for God and evolution to co-exist? I mean, evolution is a pretty smart idea in theory, why couldn't it be of God's creation? This isn't my take on the whole thing, just a compromise I'm offering.

It can't coexist because that would imply that God would be imperfect, which goes against Christianity's ruling on God's omnipotence. Why? Because something that is perfect wouldn't create something as incredibly unstabally imperfect as our universe, and that things created by God would have no need to evolve because they were created by him and ergo, were ALREADY perfect the way he designed them.

Indeed, since we are far less than perfect, it is ridiculous to assume that God or whoever created us in 'his image', because then he'd be less than perfect and thus wouldn't be omnipotent and omnipresent and .. yeah.

It can't coexist because that would imply that God would be imperfect, which goes against Christianity's ruling on God's omnipotence. Why? Because something that is perfect wouldn't create something as incredibly unstabally imperfect as our universe, and that things created by God would have no need to evolve because they were created by him and ergo, were ALREADY perfect the way he designed them.

Indeed, since we are far less than perfect, it is ridiculous to assume that God or whoever created us in 'his image', because then he'd be less than perfect and thus wouldn't be omnipotent and omnipresent and .. yeah.
But what if a constantly changing being fits his/her/its definition of perfect?

But what if a constantly changing being fits his/her/its definition of perfect?

Constantly changing? Once again, Christianity assumes that God in his 'current state' and has always been the very same, because otherwise it would imply that there has been a time when God was NOT perfect, which doesn't work in their belief.

Thus constantly changing of God and of the beings he creates is fundamentally against the principles of Christian religion.

Constantly changing? Once again, Christianity assumes that God in his 'current state' and has always been the very same, because otherwise it would imply that there has been a time when God was NOT perfect, which doesn't work in their belief.

Thus constantly changing of God and of the beings he creates is fundamentally against the principles of Christian religion.
Ah, I see. I forgot about the 'created in his image' bit.

:p Hey, off the subject for a moment, does anyone else think this green smiley looks like Kermit the Frog? :p I like Kermit, but I think Gonzo and the Swedish Chef are better. :p

One of the key principles of the Christian religion is that we are not perfect. The Bible openly states that the only perfect being was supposedly Jesus. Ergo, we are not perfect but this is not a reflection of weather God is perfect or not. Just because we weren't created perfect was not out of God's error but it was his intention. Free will etc.

I feel it can fit into the Christian view if they understand that in order to create this universe in which we exist, one which progresses and changes over time, evolution is a nessecity. The 'system' which God created could be argued to be perfect even if it's inhabitans are not. Part of the sucess of this system, regardless of it's age, would be evolution.

BTW I'm not Bible bashing here, i'm just trying to approach the subject from an objective viewpoint and be fair to all sides.

:p Hey, off the subject for a moment, does anyone else think this green smiley looks like Kermit the Frog? :p I like Kermit, but I think Gonzo and the Swedish Chef are better. :p

Now that I look at it, yes, it does. *peers*

Beg to differ. Your statement is fundamentally incorrect because your use of the word 'yet' implies that there IS a reason to believe that any god in any form exists, and that those who 'haven't found a reason yet' are ignorant and behind comapred to those who have.
You are right. I'll retract it.

It looks like Kermit(t?)...but he has defiantly had a few beers.

You are right. I'll retract it.

You are forgiven. ;)

But what if a constantly changing being fits his/her/its definition of perfect?
It fits mine.

Well for one thing scientists have never said carbon dating proves the earth is old. They don't even use carbon dating since that only goes back 50,000 years.


Will read it tomorrow. Too late tonight.

Heh, I laughed when I read some of those proofs. They were quite amusing.
One in particular was memorable. That the earth, being only 10,000 years old and that modern techniques of figuring out age don;t work on modern things.
First off, Carbon dating only works on living, or once living, things. Can;t test rocks with it. So there goes that argument.

Another thing, one of the processes used to determine the age of a rock, called fission-tract analysis, can only give you a date, give or take a million years. This process also only works on rocks that have been around long enough to have Uranium decay in them (leaving tracts of fission material that is measured), and this takes millions of years as well.
Of course, I asked my mom, who works at the Dalhousie University Fission-Tract lab, how the stuff works. I'm not a geology student.

Stupid people who think carbon dating works on rocks are funny.

It can't coexist because that would imply that God would be imperfect, which goes against Christianity's ruling on God's omnipotence. Why? Because something that is perfect wouldn't create something as incredibly unstabally imperfect as our universe, and that things created by God would have no need to evolve because they were created by him and ergo, were ALREADY perfect the way he designed them.

Indeed, since we are far less than perfect, it is ridiculous to assume that God or whoever created us in 'his image', because then he'd be less than perfect and thus wouldn't be omnipotent and omnipresent and .. yeah.

First I would like to state that the Bible is a translation of a translation, etc. and one only accepts what one can fit into their own perspective. The main cause of this is the believes of those around us or vice versa, as in a teenager following the believes of society or the opposite in an attempt to rebel (or be individualistic with others just like you)
Back to the point, humans were not created in "his image” but as the phrase goes, "his (spit’n') image" or spit and image, which refers back to the meaning of the word “human” (made of mud). So in that sense, man is spit and dirt, and woman was made from man (which is funny because it is the woman who gives birth). Not much to do with any form of evolution there, so I don’t see how the two relate. (Not unless women evolved from men ;) )

Also, science has already “found” God (though noone will admit that). What in the universe is omnipotent, omnipresent, and cannot die (be destroyed)? Energy. Creation/evolution are simply different viewpoints on how that energy flows. It is impossible for us to track that flow of energy because we have no way to step outside of the universe to see where it is going or the ability to go back in time to see where it has been.

Without the acceptance of information, nothing is ever learned.
Not that it has to be believed. Try looking at http://www.religioustolerance.org if you have the time, it is a rather extensive site.

Are you saying that energy is God or prooves God's exitence or what?

Those who support evolution...


Are reasonable, throughtful people.


Those who dont arent taken seriously by civilized people anywhere in the world.

A century ago, thoughtful, reasonable people believed that evolution was a joke.

Don't be so closed-minded.

A century ago, thoughtful, reasonable people believed that evolution was a joke.

No they didn't.

Because the most efficient survivors deprive less efficient survivors, of resources.

Example. A race of tall people and a race of short people live on an island. The only food grows at about 7 feet (just within the reach of the tall people). It ripens for several days, and then drops to the floor.

Theoretically, both the tall and short people have food source there... and yet, if you didn't allow the two cultures to interbreed, the short people would die out in a fairly short time.

Why?

Because the tall people can harvest food from the trees, meaning they are constantly well fed, with reserves of food, and thus, can support large families. The short people can ONLY eat the fallen fruit, of which there is much less, of lower quality. They have low reserves, and can thus only support small families.

Within a few generations, there can be enough tall people to use up the entire growing food population - leaving NO fallen food, for the last few sickly short people. Thus, the short people die out.. in just a few generations.

It's a quick, easy example - but it illustrates the answer to your question.

Ok, so why are there still weaker speices around the place. If man evolved from primates, why are the lower primates still here?

Ok, so why are there still weaker speices around the place. If man evolved from primates, why are the lower primates still here?

Because we didn't evolve from those primates, we share a common ancestor with them. If you're going to criticise evolution theory it helps to actually familiarise yourself with it first.

Ok, so why are there still weaker speices around the place. If man evolved from primates, why are the lower primates still here?

they aren't 'weaker', they are adequately well adapted to their environments.

and if my parents had a child (me) why do i still have cousins?

Ok, so why are there still weaker speices around the place. If man evolved from primates, why are the lower primates still here?

Honestly, why is this *so* hard for you people to understand?

Honestly, why is this *so* hard for you people to understand?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the logic escapes them - which says it all, really.

Ha! ;) The site the topicstarter referred to was kind of cute :) Content and design looks more like something belonging to a mediocre computer game than an actual arguement against evolution. It would be a nice twist, if it didn't have to many obvious flaws. Honestly, arguing that 1900th century british records prove that dinosaurs (dragons) and man coexisted? Come on.. Not even my little sister is that stupid/naive.. (and she really is mind-numbingly stupid at times) ;)

It's both fascinating and scary that people actually believe in this nonsense.. :headbang:

..if we evolved from (apes?) then please tell me WHY THERE ARE STILL APES AROUND??? you would thing they would have all evolved into humans by now - especially if the earth is 'billions' of years old

btw
those who call themselves christians but dont believe what the bible says :sniper:

....WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!

Ok, when you say "Why don't all apes evolve into humans", you do not mean "Why don't all currently existing apes mutate into humans, X-men style", correct? Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean something along the lines of "If humans are superior to apes, why have apes not died out due to superior competition for food and breeding mates".

The only way that would occur is if humanity was in some way a direct and decisive upgrade from primates, and the fact is, we are not. We don't have the natural agility of most primates, the raw physical strength of gorillas, the natural climbing ability, or the fucking awesome tails. Also, we arn't in competition with primates for their chicks, or even for their food or habititat. Well, I suppose we eat fruit too, but not to the extent where we would compete with them.

Ok, more interesting question. Why, if man and dinosaur lived millinia appart, was their found in the Paluxy river basin in Texas, were human and dinosaur footprints found side by side in the same layer. Along with various human bones and teeth?

Ok, more interesting question. Why, if man and dinosaur lived millinia appart, was their found in the Paluxy river basin in Texas, were human and dinosaur footprints found side by side in the same layer. Along with various human bones and teeth?

I'm not sure about the human bones and teeth, but I'm 99% sure that the footprints thing was a hoax. I'll have to get back to you with a source for that later, though. Unless somebody wants to find one for me? :D

Ok, more interesting question. Why, if man and dinosaur lived millinia appart, was their found in the Paluxy river basin in Texas, were human and dinosaur footprints found side by side in the same layer. Along with various human bones and teeth?
I'll take an uninformed swipe at it. Running water implies erosion. Maybe for the millenia that separated man and dinos there was only one layer of earth, due to erosion?

Ok, more interesting question. Why, if man and dinosaur lived millinia appart, was their found in the Paluxy river basin in Texas, were human and dinosaur footprints found side by side in the same layer. Along with various human bones and teeth?

There are no human footprints at Paluxy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

1. The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not.

* Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs [Kuban 1989; Hastings 1987].
* Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
* Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration [Godfrey 1985].


2. The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it [Schadewald 1986].

There are no human footprints at Paluxy.


There are pressure lines running to the underlying layer. So they could not have been forged. You can't fake pressure lines.

Fine, thats one explination. So what about the bones and teeth?

And heres something else intersting. The relationship between protien and DNA. Left to themselves, acid base reactions will scramble DNA and Protien units into all kinds of strange things. Which is why Miller and Fox's experiments on Abiogenesis failed. Amnio acids and the bases of DNA and protiens would react extremely randomly, and no way could said reactions bring forth a coherent structure like DNA.

There are pressure lines running to the underlying layer. So they could not have been forged. You can't fake pressure lines.

Fine, thats one explination. So what about the bones and teeth?

Show me some evidence of the 'pressure lines' existing in every single footprint at Paluxy, then, given that this would disprove the work of several respected scientists who have shown proof that some of the prints are faked.

And what about the bones and teeth? Aside from you giving me no evidence they actually exist, the ground is not static. Layers are washed away, eroded, bought up or down and so on by dozens of types of geological events. It's no surprise to anyone except, apparently, creationists, that things can appear out of place in the ground.

And heres something else intersting. The relationship between protien and DNA. Left to themselves, acid base reactions will scramble DNA and Protien units into all kinds of strange things. Which is why Miller and Fox's experiments on Abiogenesis failed. Amnio acids and the bases of DNA and protiens would react extremely randomly, and no way could said reactions bring forth a coherent structure like DNA.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Have you forgotten what the title of your own thread is? Also, the first self replicating molecule wasn't a DNA strand.

Protein-DNA note:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

Show me some evidence of the 'pressure lines' existing in every single footprint at Paluxy, then, given that this would disprove the work of several respected scientists who have shown proof that some of the prints are faked.

And what about the bones and teeth? Aside from you giving me no evidence they actually exist, the ground is not static. Layers are washed away, eroded, bought up or down and so on by dozens of types of geological events. It's no surprise to anyone except, apparently, creationists, that things can appear out of place in the ground.

Baugh, C.E. Wilson, C.A. Dinosaur Promise Publishing 1987. Thats my source. Read it if you like.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Have you forgotten what the title of your own thread is? Also, the first self replicating molecule wasn't a DNA strand.


Fine, so how do you explain where DNA came from? What I am disputitng is the fact that when DNA and protiens mix in an acid base reaction, they mix each other up. They make dangerous concoctions. So while I can accept both existing, you still have the problem of them not exactly mixing.

Baugh, C.E. Wilson, C.A. Dinosaur Promise Publishing 1987. Thats my source. Read it if you like.

Appeal to authority. Quote it or don't bother bringing it up.

Fine, so how do you explain where DNA came from?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication [Jeffares et al. 1998; Poole et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999]. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids [Böhler et al. 1995].

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

All that says is that DNA and proteins could have existed togther. It doesnt solve the problem of them reacting.

http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/burdick/burdick.html

Talks about the 80 footprints and their "PRESSURE LINES". Said lines cannot be faked, so how do you explain them?

All that says is that DNA and proteins could have existed togther. It doesnt solve the problem of them reacting.

That's because that problem only appears to exist in your head.

That's because that problem only appears to exist in your head.

You need protien and DNA to make a cell. They dont apper together without scrambling one another up. So please explain how Amino acids (Later PROTIENS) could make up a viable cell? Certianly Millar and Fox had this problem.

Have a look at this site and try to answer some of its points

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/index2.asp

It would appear we have a new candidate for worst-informed site on the 'Net.

I dont know about anyone else, maybe its me using my laptop touchpad, but I had a hell of a time getting that damn naviroller thing to stop where i wanted it to :headbang:

http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/burdick/burdick.html

Talks about the 80 footprints and their "PRESSURE LINES". Said lines cannot be faked, so how do you explain them?

By the fact that you're lying. It talks about 'pressure lines' [claiming they cannot be faked without offering any kind of proof] in a SINGLE footprint [and one fifteen inches long]. And it's a fake, containing severe anatomical errors for a human foot.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html

The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock. The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine. Creationists would do well to abandon the Burdick track.

By the fact that you're lying. It talks about 'pressure lines' [claiming they cannot be faked without offering any kind of proof] in a SINGLE footprint [and one fifteen inches long]. And it's a fake, containing severe anatomical errors for a human foot.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html

How, prey, would you go about faking pressure lines. You would have to excivate an entire layer and then somehow implant said perfect pressure lines and then place the layer back perfectly. Now its quite clear that even with modern technology that's impossible. It would be far too clear that human intervention had been made. Also the fact that the foot is large is consistant with the Biblical idea of Giants (Genesis 6:4)

Fine, so how do you explain where DNA came from? What I am disputitng is the fact that when DNA and protiens mix in an acid base reaction, they mix each other up. They make dangerous concoctions. So while I can accept both existing, you still have the problem of them not exactly mixing.

Again, completely irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, as you are still discussing abiogenesis.

How, prey, would you go about faking pressure lines. You would have to excivate an entire layer and then somehow implant said perfect pressure lines and then place the layer back perfectly. Now its quite clear that even with modern technology that's impossible. It would be far too clear that human intervention had been made. Also the fact that the foot is large is consistant with the Biblical idea of Giants (Genesis 6:4)

You're just making this up. They're talking about the pressure lines around the toes of the foot, not at some magical depth below it!

[...]The cross section of the toe area shows clear pressure lines following the contour of the toes.

Seriously, lying about this isn't likely to make your case look any better.

How, prey, would you go about faking pressure lines. You would have to excivate an entire layer and then somehow implant said perfect pressure lines and then place the layer back perfectly. Now its quite clear that even with modern technology that's impossible. It would be far too clear that human intervention had been made. Also the fact that the foot is large is consistant with the Biblical idea of Giants (Genesis 6:4)
What exactly are pressure lines?

Again, completely irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, as you are still discussing abiogenesis.

Well if Abiogeneis didnt happen, evolution is pretty screwed isnt it?

Well if Abiogeneis didnt happen, evolution is pretty screwed isnt it?

NO.

Well if Abiogeneis didnt happen, evolution is pretty screwed isnt it?

Not in the least.

NO.

And why not. Whithout any single celled organisms to start your process of, where prey did they come from?

And why not. Whithout any single celled organisms to start your process of, where prey did they come from?

Who cares? Evolution theory doesn't describe that, it describes how animals can grow to vary over time.

And why not. Whithout any single celled organisms to start your process of, where prey did they come from?

Again, it doesn't matter.

The process of evolution doesn't begin until there is life. How it got there is irrelevant.

And why not. Whithout any single celled organisms to start your process of, where prey did they come from?
Because evolution is about what happened to life after it began, not where the first life came from. For instance the Catholic church accepts evolution, but still maintains that god created the first living organism.

The Earth is only Thousands of years old

HAHAHAHAhahahahAHahHahHAHahHAhA, oh my.

Who cares? Evolution theory doesn't describe that, it describes how animals can grow to vary over time.

Fine, but why then do evolutionists go around saying X, Y and Z is true and therefore Christianity is stupid. I wouldnt mind evolution so much if those preching it didnt go so far out of their way to be so pompous about themselves being supiror to Christianity.

A century ago, thoughtful, reasonable people believed that evolution was a joke.

Don't be so closed-minded.



Yes, and those reasonable, thoughful people changed their minds with new discoveries.

Which is why people do do not recognize evolution arent taken seriously anymore.

There is no honestly reasonable excuse to deny evolution.

Fine, but why then do evolutionists go around saying X, Y and Z is true and therefore Christianity is stupid. I wouldnt mind evolution so much if those preching it didnt go so far out of their way to be so pompous about themselves being supiror to Christianity.
Most people who accept evolution don't. They simply say that the two creation myths in the bible aren't litteraly true.

Fine, but why then do evolutionists go around saying X, Y and Z is true and therefore Christianity is stupid. I wouldnt mind evolution so much if those preching it didnt go so far out of their way to be so pompous about themselves being supiror to Christianity.

Most Christians accept evolution, so it's a non-point, really. Evolution and faith in a divine God aren't incompatible, as is proven by, say, the entire Catholic Church.

How, prey, would you go about faking pressure lines. You would have to excivate an entire layer and then somehow implant said perfect pressure lines and then place the layer back perfectly. Now its quite clear that even with modern technology that's impossible. It would be far too clear that human intervention had been made. Also the fact that the foot is large is consistant with the Biblical idea of Giants (Genesis 6:4)

*sigh* I had a lot more respect for you before I read this thread.

And can I ask... do creationists fail to believe that 'evolution' exists at all (which would be extremely stupid of them), or do they just refuse to believe that humans evolved from some missing link (much more understandable)?

I've had arguments with several people, including my uncle the preist, a 15 year old who claims to see angels and a person who claims to be the 'Pastor' from truechristian.com - strangely enough, even their faith falls short with the questions I asked them. Which is why I asked the above question. Evolution exists on many scales, to deny it's existance is rather petty... but I don't doubt that God and Evolution cannot function side by side, it would make more sense than either extreme, to be honest.

Fine, but why then do evolutionists go around saying X, Y and Z is true and therefore Christianity is stupid. I wouldnt mind evolution so much if those preching it didnt go so far out of their way to be so pompous about themselves being supiror to Christianity.

No one says that.

People do say that fundamentalists tend to be unintelligent - but that is true of fundamentalists in any religion.