100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
DNA can change??? Give me an example. Well - one example would be birth. You have DNA from one parent combining with DNA from the other. Now - if you are refering to the basic 4 letter code representing the enzimes never changing - than you would be correct. But your reference was that DNA doesn't change, and therefore evolution can't be true. But we know that there exists mutations within the genoe from one generation to the next - so it has been demonstrated that "things evolve". However - what is not supported in the evolution conjecture is the idea that there is information gained in DNA from generation to generation. This is not suppotred by any evidentiary proof. All that as been demonstrated - is that a loss of information occurs in DNA. That is the change that occurs. It is how we get "species" within "kinds". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Wed 02/25/09 02:43 PM
|
|
Evolution can be proven false with a few words. DNA cannot change. Its a scientific fact. Actually DNA can change. This is scientifically observable in almost all living things today. I don't think that things "evolving" is the question being debated here - just the observations and extrapolations of what this "evolving" leads to, or what it has led to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well except for new people that come in.....that I still get e-mails from. I would really like someone to show me something legit that has evolved....I know they say that it happens according to them over billions of years...so something in the past 500 years has to have evolved....otherwise I would say that the point of evolution has not been proved it is still a theory and creation has more credibility. And every time someone brings forth such evidence, we get a response out of you like: So this is the point.....if this is what your bringing me as evidence of evolution that the platypus was anything but a platypus...I say no try again. Which is why a number of us have given up. You're not being objective, what you are looking for is an answer that fits with YOUR definition of evolution, and as it has been stated by a number of different people, the "proof" you are looking for, that would prove your definition of evolution, would actually disprove the whole theory of evolution. Well what would you like me to do.....say yippy skippy to the answers that to me have not proved evolution....but more have proved the awesomeness of the God that created the platypus or other such creatures. It's not a matter of being objective here....it's a matter of give me something that is crediblle. I do believe in evolving within a species, but like I said so many times when your only evidence is that of teeth and skull that onlyy prove my point that the platypus has evolved within itself and gotten smaller and has no teeth......I would just say you have not proved evolution in the sense that you people are talking about.... Yet, again, all your words do, is prove that regardless of the evidence that we have posted, evidence that overwhelmingly disproves the "theory" of Intelligent Design, needed by your god... The only reason you don't find the evidence posted in these threads, by myself, Bushido, and others, is because it does not fit your definition of "Evolution", which, you have been told, time and time again, that your definition is incorrect. Religion = Ignorance. Hmmm... I'm miles behind on this thread - but I will ask this question again, though it may have already be answered. Just what is "Evolution" - as you view it - that brings about the dismissal of Intelligent Design/Creationism. In other words - define for me in your own words what the "Scientific Theory of Evolution" is in a nutshell. I would expect you to cover these points. 1) The explination for life on the planet. (in otherwords - is Abiogenesis a necessary concept) 2) What exactly makes this "theory" - scientific? 3) What supports it as theory in the first place? 4) Frame your answer as though you were convincing a Junior High Schooler what Evolution is. Now don't assume I don't know what the standard evolutionist's response to these questions are - I'm well aware of them. I just want to know what you and Bushio and Voile all feel this idea of "Evolution" is that you claim has a mountain of evidence to support it. At least then I will have some idea exactly what you mean when you are refering to "Evolution". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evolution is it a fact?
|
|
The title of this thread is "Evolution is it a fact?".
That's a loaded question. Just what do you mean by "Evolution"? There's the evolution of a thought process. One that goes from concept - to design - to execution. That's one idea - then there's the more recognized idea that is taught in classrooms around the world that is commonly refered to as a "tree" of one species mutating into another, and so on and so forth. Granted - a simplistic explination at best. Then there is the idea that mutations occur in every species - giving us Wolves, Hyena's, Dogs, etc. - but tending to be more specified - as we don't necessarily believe that a dog is going to mate with a cat any time soon to give us Dats and Cogs. And by asking this question - are we to assume that because we can observe mutation within organisms, that this demonstrates that all of the presumptions extrapolated from this are equally acceptable - even if the ability to obseve these presumptions are improbable - if not impossible? Where are you hoping this thread will head - and what do you intend to demonstrate by it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 02/19/09 10:15 AM
|
|
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/24 26283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar.  What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue. That goes totally ignored by the religious. Then they ask the same questions that were just answered. Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs..... I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved. I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved. Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet. It's really quite simple, for creationism/I.D. to be proven, someone needs to find an organism that is irreducibly complex. Simply, for ID to be correct, you need to find an organism, or a system within the organism, that if you take just one part of that away, it will no longer work. Each and every example of this that the ID camp has trotted out with, Science has disproven the Irreducibly Complexity of the organism/organism system. I find it hard to believe that you actually watched all the videos, and didn't get a single answer.. Okay - I'll bit. As an evolutionist (or one adhering to that world view), explain how the Vanilla plant "evolved" to give us vanilla, and how we get it. Justify the evolutioniary process from catapillar to Butterfly. I can't seem to find the answer to these questions anywhere in my evolution investigation - and no one has answered the question yet, having asked it at least a dozen times on the evolution theads over the past 6 months. And yes - I sat through them all. Even watched Zeitgiest. I'm not saying that I didn't get any answers - just ones that didn't adress the question. Such as - what makes Macro-Evolution a science? The only science I'm aware of is what is called "micro-evolution", though I'm not sure how we got that phrase, since the planet isn't evolving - it's dying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok quite simple.... show me one animal in the last 500 years I even keep giving your more years...ok one animal that has gone from one animal to a complete new species. Now in evolution is always happening then at some point there has to be some ripe new species....so give me one.....just one....now this does not include a staph or other infection because again that is all within the same family... so go ahead. Best case I can give, given the narrow-mindedness of your time frame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase Basically, this bacteria developed an enzyme to breakdown nylon, a man made material. This enzyme could not have existed before the material existed. The food source must be present before the organism that eats it. Let's examine the facts. 1) Nylon was not "created" - it was discovered as the combiniation of elements that has existed on this planet since the time of it's creation. Therefore the idea that this bacteria could not have existed previous to the discovery of Nylon is a "narrow-minded" ill informed presumption. Now let's examine this fallous statement from the site. There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection.[7][8][9] As a result nylon-eating bacteria have been discussed, in articles and on websites, in the context of the creation-evolution controversy. This is crap. First of all - the idea of an "improved fitness" to this bacteria is more than a wild guess, as it has yet to be determined that any information is added to DNA. It is known that information is lost - but to date, no scientific evidence of information being added to any genome exists. What is most likely is that the bacteria - through de-evolving (loosing information through mutation) developed the ability to synthesize nylonese. It is quite possible that the ability to do this has always existed in a previous generation of the bacteria's DNA, but had mutated over time to bring about the occurance of synthesization that was not witnessed until 1975. This presumption is equaly viable. So what's this about "narrow mindedness"? Perhaps you should consider thinking outside of the box, eH? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here - let's take a closer look at this "study".
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/24 26283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar. What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue. That goes totally ignored by the religious. Then they ask the same questions that were just answered. Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs..... I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved. I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved. Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet. I did post this earlier as something I found on the internet as a tangible proof to macroevolution. Tangible proof of macroevolution Tangible - adj. Able to be touched or percieved through the sense of touch. Let's see how this is demonstrated. Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — a gene that led to smaller, weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains. okay - let's stop right here. does anyone think these scientists have examples of "brains" in glass jars to support the tangibility of their study? Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull, they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain capable of tool-making and language. The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Hmmm... what are they using to compare this "muscle" presumption? How many different speciments of mustles are used in the control study? The Pennsylvania researchers said their estimate of when this mutation first occurred — about 2.4 million years ago — generally overlaps with the first fossils of prehistoric humans featuring rounder skulls, flatter faces, smaller teeth and weaker jaws. Interesting. 2.4 million years ago. Where did this come from. We're talking "tangible" here. I can guarentee that the control objects used for this study cannot be definitively doemonstrated to be this old without knowing the chemical content of the speciments at their origin - and without specific data as to environmental controls for the 2.4 million year time span. And even if they thought they had this information - it would have taken their entire lifespan up until now to hae just read it - let alone gleen any information from it. But hey - who needs facts. And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person, they said. Actually - this remarkable observation may be evident today - but how it relates to anything that happened 2.4 million years ago is the stuff of Hollywood legend. But nonhuman primates — including our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee — still carry the original big-jaw gene and thanks to stout muscles attached to the tops of their heads, they can bite and grind the toughest foods. Perhaps - and this just might be conjecture on my part - the control objects were, well - chimpanzee's. Seems fairly obvious that the small cranial cavity and enlarged jaw would be explained this way - would it not. After all, no fossil comes with a label. Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” I think we're stretching our idea of "tangible' here - you think? Got that information from a laboratory experiment where they recreated this mutation, did they? University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” Hey - what do you know. His presumption just became "tangible" fact. “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Yup. Saw the video myself on the discovery channel. Isn't it amaising how thwe Aboriginies in Australia are still making those tools today. Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” If you repeat something over and over again - eventually you'll get someone to believe it. University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” Wow - a double "Just Super". “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Yup. That was on the video too. Details of the study In their experiment, the Penn team isolated a new gene in an overlooked junk DNA sequence on chromosome 7. It belongs to a class of genes that express production of the protein myosin, which enables skeletal muscles to contract. Originally the scientists were concentrating on determining the biological underpinnings of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease. But once they isolated the mutation, they spent the next eight months deciphering its evolutionary implications. Different types of myosin are produced in different muscles; in the chewing and biting muscles of the jaws, the gene MYH16 is expressed. But the Penn researchers discovered humans have a mutation in the gene that prevents the MYH16 protein from accumulating. That limits the size and power of the muscle. In primates like the macaque, the jaw muscles were 10 times more powerful than in humans. They contained high levels of the protein, and the thick muscles were attached to bony ridges of the skull. Ah - now we have a little "tangible" information to deal with. Something absolutely verifyable and testable. An example of a mutation that - though conveniently not mentioned, has occured from a loss of information from the DNA. When did this genetic split occur? No one knows. But that won't stop them from assuming. That's called "circular reasoning". Extablish "pretext" and support it, rather than examine the facts and see where it leads. Scientists assume that the rate of genetic change a species undergoes is relatively constant over time. So the Penn group looked deep into the fossil record to determine when the jaws of human ancestors started looking smaller and more streamlined as compared to more apelike creatures. So - in the final analysis, we have "Scientists assuming". And not much of an example of "tangible" anything - other than the straight forward DNA observations - would could support the theory of UFO's and aliens if one wished. Am I getting my point across here. I'm not getting any questions answered here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/24 26283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar. What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue. That goes totally ignored by the religious. Then they ask the same questions that were just answered. Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs..... I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved. I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved. Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ever see the evolutionary explination for a butterly? Yep I have in fact. It’s linked to a process called "reinforcement". What this does is prevents closely related species from interbreeding thus driving them further apart genetically and promoting speciation. Is that what you are asking as far as how butterflies adapted and evolved?  How do we get butterfly's from Catapillars - (since all of the information of a catapillar is destroyed through metamorphasis). What is the evolution explination for this occurance? And also - could someone explain how evolution got us Vanilla? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well let’s say for a minute that your god truly did make everything all at once...poof. That is your claim correct? He’s omniscient and he just snapped his fingers and walla. Then why would there still be the pressing need for microevolution? Was your god so inept that he couldn’t just create all of the plant life and the animals and the humans perfectly formed and adapted to their surroundings? Wait, he created their surroundings correct? Wouldn’t he know about the coming ice age and the predation pressures and food supply and shortages ahead of time? Why would microevolution be needed at tall? And you can’t have microevolution and refute macro unless you just want to argue. Yup - poof, all at once. Science calls it the "Big Bang" - they just refuse to accept who banged it. Why - if creation - micro-evolution? That's easy - why not? It is what gives diversity and beauty to the creation. I have a friend who grows Orchids. It is one of his life passions creating crosses of Orchids and how beautiful the leaves (or petals) develop. Without micro-evolution, Roses would be only one color - three's only be one species of Dog, cat - all men/woman would be one color, and likely all look alike... Was that question rhetoric? Or are you serious? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay - catching up here - since the other thrad on evolution has run amok. I'll edit this down so it doesn't take up the whole page.
I would beg the differ that we actually know more today then we did back then and even why such writings where written at the time in the begin with. So -let me get this straight. You're claiming me know more today about the events of history than the people who were actually there? Or am I reading this wrong? These writings you read everyday or often in the bible is in my opinion a set of laws to control the masses using superstitious belief system to attain the order. With the help of some remarkable ancient mediterrenean stories, some history of the people to make it believable, and a wide range of imagination it remains a storybook at its best. Well - we differ in our opinions. They are not a set of laws, for theres no one holding you accountable for what is written in the bible. Only those "Laws" which society has deemed to adopt are controlling the masses. Most of the "laws" of the bible are not only ignored by the masses these days, but have been turned into lucrative business' - without a second thought to the consequesnces of these actions. I think that a more careful examiniation of the bible will prove to merely demonstrate that those who break the "laws" therein, suffer the consequences thereof. But those who read the bible and see only fairy tales - aren't reading very much of it. Concerning evolution, I was merely showing you the different technics evolutionists use to find out more about the past of our ancestory. These are just a few compared to other instruments they use. They use writings yes, but also cross exam with the treasures they find such as fossils. They use DNA, carbon, and so forth that I am sure Paul or John didn't use to see how life started back millions upon millions of years ago. No, but neither Paul nor John were concerned about the questions of science, so there is no need to adress these issues. They were greatly concerned about the concerns of man, and dealing with the consequesnces of life's actions. It is no secret that Judism was at the core of what they were writing about, and that eminating from Judism was the "coming messiah". But I'm not using the short comings of evolution to support the reality of creationism - it's not about keeping score here, just the cleaverly disguised premise of Macro-evolution being "dressed up" as science. I mean be my guest if you want to believe in the stories of the bible such as walking on water, healing the blind, or destroying complete civilizations with a wave of the hand. It is your choice, but many of us will not buy it and want to truly know where our ancestory comes from. What happened millions of years ago and how we came to evolve today. It matters not if you want to "buy what's in the bible" or not. That's not going to matter to anyone but you in that respect. Just because the stories sound fantastic - doesn't mean they aren't true. All I have to do is look at some of the headlines of what people do today, and I find their idiocy harder to believe than the miricles of the past. No - the trouble I have with evolution has nothing to do with my belief in creationism or the bible. Why should it matter what one's belief is - evolution should stand on it's own with verifyable facts to support it. Where are these facts? All I see or hear is the interpretation of observation. Most of it - with no acceptable foundation. For instance, your statement of "what happened millions of years ago". Nothing. There was no "million of years ago" outside of a Hollywood script. All depends on what you put your faith in. Now concerning this ongoing macroevolution and microevolution debate that goes on in various threads is something we can discuss. I believe that macroevolution (evolution on the grand scale of millions of years) is simply what you get when microevolution (evolution on the scale of individual lifetimes) is allowed to go on for millions of years. The contrary view is that macroevolution is something qualitatively different from microevolution. Neither view is self evidently silly if you think about it. Actually, I've given this a great amount of thought. Macro-evolution is a lucrative thriving business built on a foundation of fairy tales. It fits right in there with the wealthiest of world religions. What we've come to know as "micro-evolution", is just another name for the workings of melecular biology. It has nothing to do with the theories that have developed from extrapolating it back into history. Just a matter of how one is interpreting the evidence. Nor are thy necessarily contradictory either. They are not necessarily contradictory - but they are also not mutually inclusive. That is merely wishful thinking. As so often, it depends on what you mean. We could use the parallel growth of a child. Imagine an argument about an alleged distinction between macrogrowth and microgrowth. The study macrogrowth, we weigh the child every few months. Every birthday we stand her up against a white doorpost and draw a pencil line to record her height. More scientifically, we could measure various parts of the body, for example the diameter of her head, the width of the shoulders, the length of the major limb bones, and plot them against each other. We also see significant events in the development such as the first appearance of public hair, or the first sign of breasts and menstruation in girls, and of facial hair in boys. These are changes that constitutes macrogrowth, and we measure them on a timsesale of years or months. So what I am saying is macrogrowth is the sum of lots of small episodes of microgrowth. In any case it doesn't matter which to use as long as the information is accurate. This is not a good example of the similarities of macro-evolution and micro evolution - unless she gives birth to a chimpanzee. All that is being determined here is the changes within a single female. But we would hardly use this to demonstrate the physical changes of an ostrich - of whom some billions of years ago a common ancenstor is assumed. Now what I have a problem is those who think Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains microevolution, but is in principle important to explain macroevolution, which consequently needs an extra ingredient. Unfortunately, this hankering after skyhooks has been given aid and comfort by real scientists whose intentions are innocent of any such thing. I have discussed the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" before with friends in Germany in my language who have a much broader and better understanding then I will ever have on the subject. I have never seen any good reason to doubt that macroevolution is lots of little bits of microevolution joined end to end over geological time, and detected by fossils instead by genetic sampling. Nevertheless, there could be - and I believe there are - major events in evolutionary history after which the very nature of evolution itself changes. Evolution itself might be said to evolve. So far progress has meant individual organisms becoming better over evolutionary time at doing what individuals do, which is to survive and reproduce. But we can also countenance changes in the phenomeneon of evolution itself. Here are some questions you should ask yourself Eijay and see if really the Bible can answer these questions? But here again - the biblical account has no bearing on the premises of evolution, other than offering a differing theology. The question I really have which remains unanswered it what brings macro-evolution into the realm of science? Mere observation of fossil records does not make it a science. What is to say that these fossil records aren't just mere accounts of the diversity of creation? NOTHING! No one has given me something I can hold onto that demonstrates otherwise. And sending me off to U-Tube to listen to the ministers of evolution doesn't do it, because they offer nothing beyond the self proclaimed facts of the religion of evolution, as percieved from their world view and the a priori's which must be accepted to support it with no demonstration of fact. I don't need the bible to "disprove" it, it doesn't offer any of it's own proof beyond the faith which supports it. Might evolution itself become better at doing something - what evolution does - as history goes by? Is late evolution some kind of improvement of early evolution? Do creatures evolve to improve not just their capacity to survive and reproduce, but the lineage's capactiy to evolve? Is there an evolution of evolvabilty? I am certain that macroevolution as of microevolution will find these answers much quicker then the Bible will ever tell us. That is if you truly want to rewind time to see. But it begs the question - why did it stop? If natural selection created this "adaptive differential reproduction" - why can it not be demonstrated to be going on even to this day. What we are viewing today is the de-evolving of the planet. When did we fall off the growth curve of continual improvement over these billions of years - when in fact we hae all of these disciples of Al Gore telling us we are destroying ourselves at an alarming rate. I'm sorry - but I don't find we're getting any "answers" from macro-evolution, just a lot of hemming and hawing, and all these new findings of atempting to say the same thing differently, just with the attempt of more authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So - let me ask you this. There exists - just as much proof for God as there is for gravity. Why isn't the sidewalk littered with fallen Atheists? "Eljay" ..gravity is a result of the laws of physics and can be reproduced by applying those Laws ...God being a figment of your imagination and faith can't you should know by now that it's not wise to use a scientific concept to justify a religious belief ...it makes you sound delusional Do the Laws of Physics describe gravity - or does gravity establish a Law of Physics? No "proof" of gravity - it is an a priori. Considered a "natural law". No explination as to where it came from. Can't bottle it, can't see it, can't create it's effect outside of it's domain. We can't send a group of scietists up to the moon to create the gravititation pull of the earth. Gravity is not a "scientific concept". Science attempts to measure it, study it - but it is not a concept derived from science, it's been around as long as God. It predates man. Demonstrating a belief of gravity - makes you sound delusional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Gospels
|
|
I can clearly recall events from over 60 years ago... And, know several people who can do the same... I can't recall them on a day-to-day basis, but I can put them in the correct chronological order... I recalled one incident that happened, while talking to my Mother one day and she promptly quizzed me... "Who told you about that?" I then correctly described the shirt my Uncle was wearing, as well as what I was wearing and the blanket I was wrapped in, as well as the geographical location where we were! She then told me the incident happened in June, after my birth... I was only 6 MONTHS OLD! I can still see, in my mind's eye, the incident today, just like it happened only a few minutes ago! This discussion took place in 1986 and I still remember it well also. So, yes, I believe The Gospels are factually accurate, no reason for me to doubt that.  Bro Clark Often times you will find that even though you believe you have a clear memory, you really don't. I'm not suggesting the authors of the gospels lied, only that their memories were most likely not as clear as they seemed to believe. Jesus' ministry only lasted for a few years. Even if you are spot on about your recollection of the memory you use as an example, that is how much time of the few years surrounding that event in your life? Furthermore Paul never even personally met Jesus. I think that you're missing a key fact in your assumption. Asking if someon remembers events of 20 years ago is not the same as wondering if the Apostles - who spent the 20 years after Jesus' death talking about what he said and did EVERY DAY. Think about that. From the time thy got up until they went to sleep - for 20 years (thats 7300 days - which would translate into about 115,800 waking hours) they told of their experience with Jesus. Now - you'd like to talk about "foggy recollections"? There isn't a teacher or expert alive who's spent that much time on the topic thy are considered "experts" in - who's text books measure the intelligence of others and who's idea's are unquestion - yet their "opinions" are given more validity than the authors of the gospels. Hope this helps put some perspective on the memories of the disciples. And how do you know Paul never met Jesus? As I recall - he was confronted by Him on the Demascus road. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So - let me ask you this.
There exists - just as much proof for God as there is for gravity. Why isn't the sidewalk littered with fallen Atheists? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Easier to read if I pick it up from here.
Evolution affects and deals with the natural dimension of our lives. We have little option but to deal, debate head-on and remain lucid with the natural dimension of our lives. To confuse that as you do by, shoving aside the Ken Miller tube dealing with the natural issue in a natural perspective, and shoving me right over to visit a 'Answer from Genesis' instead, which belongs to the religious-faith supernatural side of the equation, is exactly the insane hook I'm addressing here. Confuse? Just so you get some perspective here - Ken Miller is the Pat Robinson of the Religion of Evolution. You point me to a Utube presentation of a Biased "preacher", and then say I'm shoving you over to investigate the other side - and you call this insane? Hey, don't bother to check with any contradictory idea's. Ever wonder why you are constantly questioned when you attempt to convince the "religious-faith" croud that you've got a clue as to how we think? You claim me to be confused about Ken Miller's presentation when he offers no evidence other htan his presumed interpretation of the "facts". Let me clue you in on a fact. Ken Miller knows no more than I do why the second chromosone "appears" to be fused. And do you know why? Because he cannot verify his theory. He can take all the apes on the planet and fuse their chromosones, and I'll guarentte you - he's not getting a human out if it. Only dead apes. You and I have no options dealing with the natural dimensions of our existence. Try not breathing for more than 3-4 minutes!!! On the other hand, you and I have total freedom and unlimited personal options to believe or not believe, in our personal belief of personal choice, without any consequences on our ethical, or natural, or even supernatural existence. You believe in Genesis 'et all', and that is a right and freedom you have, which I respect. I do not share that belief with you. And yet someone else might, and it still wouldn't have any bearing on evolution. I happen to believe in something that is totally incompatible with genesis, or the bible. But I have no intention of convincing you of my beliefs. And while I respect your right to believe in Genesis, I have a real problem when you travestize that belief into a false-fact, which then profoundly interferes with OUR NATURAL DIMENSION. However - I'm not conprehending why you don't see why I'm not grasping these theories of Macro-evolution, when you elucidly give cause for why you don't believe Genesis. It is for the very same reasons. At least what I deduce from your posts. Your compaint is that Genesis cannot be proved. My complaint is that Macro-Evolution cannot be proved. You prefer to extrapolate micro-evolution back to equating evolving within a species as evolution of a species. I prefer to extrapolate it as species de-volving. I can see no refutation for this idea. Since it has been continually demonstrated that no information is added to DNA - but rather is LOST from DNA - I find it hard to justify that the transition of Ape into Man is possible, or even logical for that matter. It defies common sense. Much like those who think God's creating man from the dust of the earth defies common sense. It's belief on pure faith. ... Not extrapolation, ... not factual extension: 'if when pregnant women give birth, whether or not men might feel pregnant, they will not give birth, ... not verifiable association: if you were in fact 'somewhere' at a specific time, you weren't elsewhere at that exact same time. Believing or not in Genesis in the exact manner that YOU do 'ELJAY', will not have any impact on our natural world, and even less so on the theory of evolution. As a matter of FACT, let's assume for a moment that you win!!! That you are right right, and win total 'consensus of belief' in Genesis right now, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE believes just like you 'eljay', '... ARE TELLING ME THIS WILL CHANGE AN IOTA ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!?!?!?' But you are missing the point. My belief in Genesis is not the causation of my disbelief in Macro-evolution. My disbelief in Macro-evolution stems from it's numerous inconsistancies and unprovable premises. Both Creation and Micro-Evolution have their own set of A priori. The thing is - that one must accept one, or the other. You can't have both - they defy one another by definition. If one believes in Macro-evolution - than Genesis must be not only refuted, but disproved. This is only ever attempt by an appeal to authority. This so-and-so scientist, or that nobel-prize winner said it's this way, therfore it must be. Every time I ask ofr someone to support their claim that evolution is a proven fact - they send me to an evolutionary preacher. I think I've seen every U-Tube sermon on evolution now - and somehow I'm not left with any "proof". No verifyable experiment to point out as evidence of the claim. Only - "well look at the fossils". All I see when I look at fossils is a dead creature that was created. One has to "stretch" one's faith to think it's anything more than that. Let's get real 'eljay', FAITH is to be graceful and respected. When one tries to transform FAITH into FACT, it is a formidable REDUCTION act, touching everyone, and doing a great disservice to FAITH itself. I am very sincere with 'Eljay' and would hope that you could reciprocate. Evolution need not be the life long battle of any christian. As a matter of fact, all christians should give up 'battling'!!! It is squarely against everything that Jesus taught. This is my point as well. I don't much concern myself with anyone having faith in Macro-evolution. When they attempt to make it more than that - and assume that their faith in extrapolation cancels out my faith in the validity of eye-witness, I take issue. I don't claim their faith in the "religion of evolution" is a false one, I claim that their faith in it makes it a "science", and now attempt to convince me that I don't understand science because I don't have faith like they do. Well - if my faith in creation doesn't make it fact - I would like a comprehensive explination why an evolutionist's faith makes Macro-evolution fact? At least Creationism has had it's adherants for well over a few thousand years. Evolution had to wait for a disgruntled and angry pseudo-christian to testify on their religion. So, until someone can demonstrate to me that Evolution is not a faithed based religion - I can't preusume it anything but. And this has no bearing on the Validity of Geneisis at all. The less one thinks that Genesis is true, does not make evolution any more verifyable - or believable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From "Law and Order" we learn:
That there's always two cops who go in the front door while the perp sneaks out the back. That after he sneaks out the back, not to worry - they automatically catch him running down the street, and run - with gun in hand (not bothering to shoot the idiot) and miraculously catch him within a few city blocks. That crime doesn't pay - they'll find you within a half an hour, and a half an hour later - you'll be found guilty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Faith is Fantasy
|
|
I had faith in my car that it would start this morning. By golly - it did. But that was just a fanticy. Actually - it is still faith. It is just a faith confirmed through multiplicity. But the first time one walks out the door, starting a car for the first time, does not alter the level of "faith" one has that it will start. Here there is no repeated observable fact. According to Funches - this is a fanticy. of course the first thing on the list is that God and or faith has never regrown a lost limb or given a limb to anyone not born with them God and/or faith has never answers the prayers of the amputee Evolution has not figured out how to do this either. Faith in evolution has never grown a new limb. And what’s to say that modern medicine would not be able to grow human limbs if you religious folks would stay the hell out of embryonic stem cell research. They already grew a woman a new windpipe and she does not require anti-rejection protocol. If they're not doing it with adult stem cell research - it's not going to happen with embryonic stem cell research. Evolution supports this fact - does it not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Faith is Fantasy
|
|
I had faith in my car that it would start this morning. By golly - it did. But that was just a fanticy. "Eljay" ..so if one day your car don't start up then what does that mean ...that you lost your faith or your car need a tune up or do faith mean that little elves come and work on your car everytime you go to sleep No, because I have the same level of faith every time I walk out the door. The point being that your thread is assuming a broadly painted idea - whereas your intent is to paint it with the thin brush of "Faith in a Deity". Without that specifity - your statement is foolish, as everyone has faith in something - it is a basic fact of life. To claim "faith" as fanticy without the stipulation of a deity fails every test imaginable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Faith is Fantasy
|
|
of course the first thing on the list is that God and or faith has never regrown a lost limb or given a limb to anyone not born with them God and/or faith has never answers the prayers of the amputee Evolution has not figured out how to do this either. Faith in evolution has never grown a new limb. And what’s to say that modern medicine would not be able to grow human limbs if you religious folks would stay the hell out of embryonic stem cell research. They already grew a woman a new windpipe and she does not require anti-rejection protocol. Just so we don't corrupt the issue with mis-information, it has been ADULT stem cell work that has repaired damaged organs. There is no evidence that embryonic stem cells are capable of this. What is being discovered through the advancement and study of DNA in this field is that embryonic stem cells may be more of a detriment than a help. The problems of the rejection of foreign DNA, and the incerased possibilities of cancer due to incompatability in comparision to the discoveries made in Adult stem cell research make the point almost moot. It's like comparing CD's to 8 tracks. Adult stem cell research has been demonstrated to be sucessful over a period of 25 years now. Embryonic stem cell work has a zero success rating at this point in time. Why would anyne want to waste their time on embryonic stem cell research? Why take money away from something proven to be sucessful to pursue something with such a high rate of predictable failure? Why the uproar about embryonic stem cell research? Patent Law! It's all about the almighty dollar in this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat. Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. Actually it can now be said that it is 100%. 96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!! In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones). It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!! Voile; I've heard contrary information to that "fact". There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different. It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure. At least this is what my research has shown. As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable. We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it. For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view. I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism. So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories. Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith.... Is it not? OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend. Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone. Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing. And that is the point I am trying to make with you here: ... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!! 'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest. Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.) And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count. The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine. If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!! But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma. Watch the video, and tell me what you think. There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested. I will. I've got classes all weekend - I'll get to it on monday. For now, I'm off. 6:00 am comes WAY too early for me. Okay - I can now operate an aerial lift without killing myself (See Boston Globe for tradgedy of accident on Saturday. Right after my class - this happened less than a ile away) Now... The video. I have two problems with this agrument about #2 Chromosone - one being what was said, the other with what has been conviently not stated. The difficulty with what was said is that it asks the question "IF we shared common ancesters we should be able to solve the cromo' issue". Well, alright - that's a given. Of course there are a lot of other dissimilarities which need to be adressed - but let's just examine "THIS ONE". The explination is almost plausable - except it does not explain why the fusion of the #2C took place, and why it only happened once! Also - how does this now not explain that we are directly discendent from the Ape - for how else can one justify that there was a previous "common" ancester that puts man "side by side" on the evolutionary tree, and not a direct descendant? What are the presumed characteristics of the Genome of this mysterious common anscester that does not indicate that the #2 chromosone SPLIT and that apes are not directly discendant from man? None of this is even asked - yet, how can I see this as a clear question to ask, yet those in the field who spend their life studying this not? Also - what is not adressed is that there are more than just the difference in the number of Chromo's that need to be adressed... There is an obsevable difference in the size of the end markers as well. What is the explination for this occurance - as there is no effect on the information caused by this difference - yet it is there. Shouldn't this difference be explained by cuasation - rather than occurance. Sorry Voile - I'm not convinced. This video is a clear example of circular reasoning to attempt to explain what occured with no reasoning behind the why. I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we share lots of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has yet to demonstrate, and likely never will. With all due respect 'eljay', I think you completely missed the point of the video. See I would never pass myself as an expert whom could offer an expert opinion on the subject of evolution, or a whole lot of other subjects we could choose to debate on these forums. Likewise, I wouldn't think for one moment that you would dare pass yourself as an 'expert', whose personnal opinion could be offered on these forums, with the authority of a credible 'expert'. If that were the case, we would both be very busy delivering our expert speeches, and presenting our expert opinions in front of numerous court hearings across the country on this hot SOCIAL topic. In short, my personnal opinion, or your personnal opinion matter very little in the realm of moving world concensus. That you or I are convinced or not about an issue, changes absolutely nothing in establishing world concensus. That is why I provided the Ken Miller link. The video explains in great detail, the state of US consensus with respect to 'creationism'. I warned you that it gave a summary of a recent 'down' verdict of a state court (if you wish I'll get it for you, along a long list of other 'down' verdicts from other state courts, as well as the Supreme Court 'down' judgment judging 'creationism' unconstitutional. At that very conference where Ken Miller (a devout christian) spoke, they had been planning a debate between the Evolution side (Ken Miller), and the Creationist side. I can't put names of the creationist guest experts because they never showed up. Worse, they cancelled at the last minute, causing some degree of panick with the organizers, whom had turned to Miller, whom in turn graciously agreed to sum up the results of the hearings he and creationist experts had participated in. Now, your opinion and my opinion do not matter much, as I pointed out earlier. But there are people out, whom are considered creationist experts, whom were invited to present their case AGAINST THE FUSION OF CHROMOSE #2, and THEIR OPINION WOULD HAVE MATTERED. Unfortunately for your side, the creationist experts were at the hearings, they had been informed about the chromose #2 session months ahead, and yet, deliberately chose to present NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. The hearings official offered them more time to provide a rebuttal! They replied that they had 'nothingm of peritnent substance' to add, or to counter with, on that specific topic. That was the point I underlined to you before you viewed the video, and you missed it. Your side's experts had NOTHING TO SAY, OR ADD. That where it MIGHT HAVE MATTERED 'eljay'. Not what you or I are convinced of, or refuse to believe in. The STATE OF THE UNION on creationism, is that every efforts, whether through the scientific community, or the judicial sytem, are being debunked or judged INEPT TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, until the creationists experts come up with a rebuttal, or counter proposition that either the ...SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ... or the JUDICIAL can make sense of, THE EVOLUTION ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF CHROMOSONE #2, AND ANY OTHER EVOLUTION ARGUMENT OF YOUR CHOICE, STAND AS THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC, AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY OF THIS COUNTRY. ... and I understand and respect that your personnally are not convinced... I never claimed to be an expert in this particular disciline - but I'm not unfamiliar with it either. I spent a great deal of time studying chemistry in my youth - and have a degree in Math with emphasis on logic - so I have a fairly good idea when I'm asked to accept an premise that screams fallious reasoning. As is the case with the dating methods extrapolating fossils back millions of years ago. I remain unconvinced, and this is not due to my not being an expert in this field. It's due to reasoning and a gross lack of empirical evidence for the claim. Oh - one day there may be major demonstratable evidence - but it's not there. So - while I don't dispute the intelligence of these men, I do doubt their "theories", and don't accept them as proof. Just "viable idea's". This is the same reasoning that I use to accept the testimonies of the 1st disciples and their day to day walk with Jesus. I have no reason to doubt that they heard what they heard, and saw what they saw. When there is logical evidence to cause me to doubt this - I will. But usually, I find that those who cry "liars" - haven't even examined the text for themselves. Including the "experts". So - I do examine all of these contrary video's, and I generally study the flow of logic that brings about their concluisns - but they aren't any stronger than the logic that they're trying to refute. We're discussing theories here. Evolution (theory) and Creation (theory) The evidence I have witnessed supports either one without contradiction. There's no argument against a God creating species in their kind, and establing the ability of them to evole. Contrary to what scietists think - it makes more sense that he would have established the creation in this manner than it would have been to create every variance of species all at the same time. Why not let the creation exand in this way? We see the universe expanding as a perfect parallel to this very concept. Does not the consistancy make one stop and marvel? Cher 'Eljay', So far, your comments have shown clear confusion between ... YOUR personnal opinion, ... or anyone else's for that matter, ... including creationists who might happen to be scientists, AND, ... the POSITION OF THE SCIENCE as expressed by the few whom are publicly recognized as the 'CREDIBLE EXPERTS' representing the scientific community position, and the CREDIBLE EXPERTS from the creationist side, presenting or NOT PRESENTING scientifically accepted or newly acceptable proof (if there were such), about their respextive claims in this 'evo-crea' debate. That was the point of my earlier post 'eljay', that I repeat here. It will be kind of difficult to explore this further if you keep missing the point altogether. Whatever you or I would have to say about our personnal research, our personnal diplomas and our personnal convictions, would be totally impertinent and missing the point of this exchange altogether. You see 'ELJAY', neither you nor I have been invited to present the position 'for' or 'against' the evolution and creation sides in front of the numerous judicial hearings that have taken place in the past couple of decades (past hundred years, understandably we couldn't have anyway). Some people in both camps are publically credible and known out there as the one's representing their respective camp. They are the ones whom are instrumental in forging the infamous 'World View' you refer to often lately, or generally accepted consensus, giving us, mere mortals, a particular reality, or THE world view against which all other world views are measured, whether one agrees with it or not. And you see 'Eljay', ... when it comes to your legitimate right to 'believe' in the 'bible-inerrant' notions of creationism, ... and however much you might not agree with the theory of evolution, because YOU are not personnally convinced with the evidence of this particular 'world view', ... the scientific and judicial experts on the other hand, after more than 100 years of hearings, where claims against evolution have been presented, and yet none of these CREATIONIST CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT MIGHT HAVE CAST AS MUCH OF A SHADOW ON THE PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Ironically, fundamentalist-creationists are reinforcing the reality, or 'Meta World View' of the Theory of Evolution with their repeated and endlessly unsubstantiated claims: '... that evolution is false!!! ...' Very much like, '... what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger ...' (an evolution based evidence. This evolution reality is everywhere!!!) So that leaves us with a false debate so far, where false claims have been made and new unsubstantiated claims are peeking, without ever impacting reality, FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES : ... where 'creationism' has been judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SUPREME COURT, OR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE ... which has NEVER been presented with any form of testable proof that would invalidate the theory of evolution. The fundamentalists-creationists may never quit. That is their constitutionally protected freeomof religion and freedom of speech privilege. But the debate has been relegated to a stricly 'personnal belief' arena. Whether yours, mine or the creationist whom happens to hold a science degree, personnal beliefs or opinions alone, whatever the mass, will never change the 'Meta World View' or consensus on reality. The Meta World View once was that we existed on an earth centric universe, again out of a bible-inerrancy fundamentalist perspective. Of course the reality of our universe(s) is not bible-inerrant today, in spite the legitimate belief of some die-hards. So it is with Evolution. The Meta World View or reality we live within today is clearly 'evolutionary', in spite of a few 'bible-innerant' believers, whom hold onto a 'bible-inerrant human being centric' exclusive subordinated or junior world view, that is both scientifcally unproven, and judicially unconstitutional (creationism in schools). Is the point clearer with this additionnal information 'ELjay'? I would appreciate if you could respond to the point made here, in a specific manner: '... credible expert opinion, and scientifically accepted theories-proof, ... shaping judicial reality and impacting a 'meta world view', or consensus on reality, ... as opposed to personnal opinions and beliefs impacting only one's view, but not the consensus on reality.' 0,00262% of the world's christian population, arguing as lound as they could, ... WILL NOT A WORLD REALITY GIVE!!! Here - let's adress my primary issue. Macro-Evolution is unverifyable. Period. I have never once claimed Macro-Evolution to be false - I claim it is NOT possibly verifyable. It is NOT science. Oh, we can observe the evolution within species - but that has NO BEARING on the discussion. Just as one experiencing a miricle today can no more justify it as evidence that God parted the Red Sea for Moses, or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. So too with the events of Biology, or Geology. We can observe the effects of erosion caused by a quick flowing river - but that does nothing to verify our knowing how the Grand Canyon came about. Does one need a doctorate to understand this? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
