100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: My Challenge to Creationists | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Fine but do you understand what I just said at least?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine but do you understand what I just said at least? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo said:
MM, you may not mean to sound like your above it all and that were all beneath it - but unfortunately thats the way your coming across - at least to me, i understand your stance here- but if you dont have anything constructive to add past what you have - then your just being a troll - and i dont think you mean to do that do you?? And that is what Sam said to you! I would agree with his sentiment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sat 11/29/08 03:02 PM
|
|
Eljay said: Do I sense the challenge of a duel here? What I'm absolutely sure about is that those who claim that evolution has science to support it, and that it is a fact and not a theory, never seem to come up with irrefutable proof. I've never claimed that ID is a "scientific fact", for creation has never, and will never be possible to recreate in a laboratory. Therefore - science has no place in ID - nor evolution. When science shows us a match in DNA with a chimp and a human, then maybe we can move outside the realm of theory. But to say there are "similarities", and offer that as evidence of proof - then I have to quote Donald Fagan on that one: "Only a fool would say that". Well let's see. You never did get back to me on the whole Neanderthal thing. You left it at "I need to research this some more." For one thing Eljay, I have NEVER made the claim that the actual source of human life (or any other biological organism for that matter) is not somehow related to a "creative source" or ID. No one has any way of knowing that or proving it's reliability or fallibility beyond a shadow of all doubt. Dont be silly. What you have heard me express on these forums with absolute certainty is that Evolutionary Biology is assuredly the most plausible of any theory in existence today. This is simply irrefutable fact. There is much more credible evidence to support the validity of its claims, including the existence of tangible physical documentation, than any other theory espoused, either newer or older than it. As Abra pointed out, the theory of evolution is not at odds with most spirituality unless you choose to create that controversy on your own which we all know you are quite capable of. No, what I have said is that I dont buy into the idea that your particular choice of god designed anything. So please dont twist and spin my words because far be it from me to not call you on it. When science shows us a match in DNA with a chimp and a human, then maybe we can move outside the realm of theory. What the? What do you mean a match in genetic profile? Chimpanzee is a separate species in the family of primate, our closest relative here on Earth because our early hominid relatives diverged from their line a little under 6 million years ago. So you cant be ridiculous about this and make irrational requests.That simply wont do. I would have to agree with your quote, "only a fool would say that." It certainly is applicable here. I await your further detailed explanation instead of irrational garble. Better luck next time. Krimsa; Hello dear. Well - I wouldn't want you to think that I accuse you of irrational claims. You tend to support your hypothesis with dilligent research, and I respect tht - though I often do not respect those with whom you rely on for your information (as you tend to feel the same about those whom I rely on) It makes for interesting discussions. That being said - I don't disagree with Abra's idea that evolution is not inconsistant with ID - though our opinions on the origins of that ID are as far away is East is from West. But my sense of the logic of this follows his thinking - to a point. I have to disagree with you on your claim that "evolutionary biology" as irrefutable for the origin of the species. That is extrapolating the science far beyond that which it demonstrates. The argument is NOT about evolution within a species. But to assume that one species has evolved into another cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory - nor can it be linked through DNA. And as for DNA of chimps and humans. It should be clearly demonstrated that if humans and chimps share the same "ancestory" (for lack of a better term) since the idea that one evolved into another has now been abandoned by evolutionists since there is no way to demonstrate or confirm this idea; that there should be shared DNA to confirm that there is any relation to each other as evidence of one evolving from the other - or anything for that matter. And what "detailed explination" are you refering to? My point is that there is no detailed explination to explain that any primate is a "relation" to man in any way other than their both living on this planet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scientific origin of humans What does science have that verifies its position that humans are the result of evolution? Fully supported and demonstrated underlying principles, for one! The following is the “in a nutshell” version. a. Science has shown that DNA stores genetic information in the form of its base sequences. b. Science has shown that it is an organism’s genotype (genetic makeup) that determines its phenotype (outward appearance and biochemical properties). c. Science has shown that changes made to DNA base sequences can result in altered phenotypes. d. Science has shown that mutations – changes in the DNA – occur spontaneously, changing the information stored and therefore the phenotype of the organism. e. Science has shown that mutations occurring in gametes (sex cells) can be passed on to offspring. Therefore, there is a fully supported scientific explanation for how organisms come to have the morphology and biochemical properties they do (development, which is controlled by genetics), as well as how their morphology/biochemical properties can change over time: completely naturally. Logic and experimentation have shown the next key factor: natural selection. Individuals in a population, though very similar to one another, differ. Because of these various individual differences, some members of a population will be more fit than others. That is, in the particular environment the population finds itself in, some individuals, based on their physical/biochemical traits, will have a better chance of surviving and reproducing, thus having a better chance of passing on their genes to the next generation. This differential passing on of genetic information into future generations (with “fitter genes” being more likely to be passed on than less “fit” ones) leads to changes in the genetic makeup of the population over time. And as one might expect, as the genetic makeup changes, so too does the morphology and/or biochemical properties of its members. Thus, there is a fully supported scientific explanation for how populations evolve. In addition to the straightforward extension of the above that indicates speciation would occur in the wild, science also has documented cases of such: both for plants (for example, by means of allopolyploidy) and for animals (for example, by allopatric speciation). Note that acording to most biologists, speciation is a macroevolutionary event: thus, Creationists cannot legitimately claim that only microevolution is well supported by scientific theory and observations. So we see that science has a fully supported theoretical model for speciation, which has been confirmed by observations and lab experiments. Evolution at and below the species level stands on firm, well supported, scientific ground, and has in fact been confirmed by observations. The rest is often times said, by Creationists, to be nothing more than extrapolation: that evolutionists simply assume that because microevolution and speciation have been observed in the short amount of time that biologists have been examining organisms, that additional time would produce larger scale evolution. The following is one example of an anti-evolutionist questioning the validity of this extrapolation. ”Actual scientific evidence, both experimental and paleontological, supports only limited variation within fixed boundaries, or what is called microevolution. Macroevolution – the unlimited capacity of organisms to transform beyond all boundaries – is an extrapolation from microevolution. As with all extrapolations it is legitimate to question whether this extrapolation is warranted.” (Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, William A. Dembski, InterVarsity Press, 1999, p250) For the current discussion, the extrapolation past confirmed evolutionary processes would be the origin of humans from an ancestor we shared with chimps. But is this just extrapolation? No! Multiple scientific evidences support the position that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Here’s a listing of many of them. 1) The 96% - 99% identity between the human and chimp genomes indicates both common ancestry and our being more closely related to chimps (including bonobos) than to any other extant species 2) The sharing of multiple pseudogenes, and their specific disabling mutations, by both chimps and humans: this bolsters the case of genetic relatedness by means of common descent and crushes the "common design" counterargument. 3) The head-to-head fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (most similar to those of chimpanzees) to form one of our human chromosomes. 4) The individual anatomical differences between humans and chimps being so minor: mostly differences in the mere size, shape, or amount of shared structures (brain size, limb length, jaw shape, curvature of spine, amount of hair, etc.). No major biological novelty separates the two species (and neoteny alone can explain several of the differences). 5) The nearly identical brain structure for chimps and humans, including several shared asymmetries. 6) The fact that chimps have several "humanlike" mental qualities, such as high intelligence, self-recognition, empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity, peacemaking, a sense of fairness – which is correlated with the strength of the social bond – and a wide range of other emotions we humans have, such as joy, sadness, and compassion. 7) The numerous hominid fossils that help document our evolutionary past. Together, all of these evidences – which come from multiple, independent, objective sources, and which are verifiable, at least in principle, by anyone – form a very convincing argument in support of our evolutionary origin. And, they show that the evolutionary position that humans evolved from a common ancestor we share with chimps is not mere extrapolation from the confirmed processes of microevolution and speciation. Evolutionists have both the logical extrapolation and the multiple supporting evidences. You think this is a convincing argument for the validity of evolution? That's laughable. What viable premises support any of these claims? I would expect that the "high intelligence" of an ape - in comparison to humans should lead to one being able to a tune-up on a Lexis after all these years. Non of these points on their own merit are convincing - let alone trying to lump them together to prove a point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O.K. now creationism:
Let’s see, what observations or objective evidences demonstrate that a supernatural being poofed fully formed man into existence, out of dirt, only about 6 to 10 thousand years ago, and then yanked out a rib to create woman? None. Zip. Zilch. All that supports those religious assertions is a book written several thousand years ago. And this book – the Holy Bible – was written by grossly superstitious people who were completely ignorant of modern biology, astronomy, geology, physics, and other sciences; has been translated and mistranslated time after time over the years; and consists primarily of second-hand and third-hand stories (at least), many of which are reports about other people’s dreams. This “evidence” for the special creation of man does not even begin to compare favorably with the many scientific evidences listed above for the evolutionary origin of humans. But let’s go ahead anyway and spend a few minutes considering what it would mean for a Creationist God to have created humans as mentioned in the Bible. More precisely, we are looking at two possible explanations for human origins: Creation (special creation by God about 10,000 years ago) and evolution (our species arising by descent with modification, most recently from an ancestor we share with chimps). Let’s consider just the first piece of genetic evidence provided above (the 96% to 99% identity between chimp and human DNA) and ask which of the two possibilities is the better explanation. Or rather, how does the Creationist explanation compare to the evolutionary one already laid out. According to Creationists, God is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-righteous supernatural being who created the entire Universe in only 6 days: His powers are unlimited and He knows the past, the present, and the future. But then why would God have created humans and chimps to share 96% to 99% identity in their DNA? 1) First, God could have created humans with completely different DNA sequences. For example, God could have effortlessly zapped humans into existence with a gene for hemoglobin that is only, say, 85% identical to that of chimpanzees. Why did God make ours exactly identical to the chimp’s? Worse, why did He not only make the human and chimpanzee base sequences for hemoglobin identical, but also make them different from that of most other animals? And, different in just the right manner to give the supposedly false illusion of a hierarchical system (groups within groups) of relationships between species, that He also tricked scientists into believing by falsely creating a vast number of other genes that overall also demonstrate the same nested groupings? For some unexplained reason, God knowingly chose to make our DNA – not just for hemoglobin, but for a whole slew of other genes too – so similar to chimps, and decreasingly similar to increasingly less-related species, that it convincingly gives the supposedly false illusion that we share a common ancestor with them? Why? That would be knowingly misleading: grossly misleading. 2) Second, God is claimed to be all powerful and not limited by the laws of nature. So He could have created humans such that we didn’t even have DNA! We humans could be based on some weird genetic molecule called, for example, “ZNA”, which is based on inorganic metals like zinc and iron (instead of carbon), while all other life was based on DNA. Now that would be great evidence that we were created separately from all other life: but it’s not the case. 3) Third, why did God even create chimps? If God didn’t create the great apes – animals that genetically and anatomically are highly similar to humans – and ancient hominids, which was surely within His powers, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Unlike nature, God didn’t have to create any primates or ancient hominids in order to create humans: He controls the whole Universe and is not bound to creating something only if something else like it already exists. Maybe God wanted to plant more misleading evidence, laying His great deception on extra thick! All of these things God would have done, intentionally, knowing the future. Why? It sure appears that He would have done so specifically to mislead future scientists into believing “the lie” of evolution. God set a complex, interdependent trap, so that He could then condemn to eternal damnation and unending torment anyone who falls prey to His deceit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's to say that Charles Darwin was not "Divinely Inspired" to write "Origin of Species" to help us unravel this mystery anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 11/29/08 06:03 PM
|
|
HUMAN TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMAN TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS which one is mine??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMAN TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS which one is mine??? this chart only goes to letter N. I believe letter O had a hat and beard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not certain thats even topic related?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMAN TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS which one is mine??? this chart only goes to letter N. I believe letter O had a hat and beard. HMM? so your saying evolution stopped before i was born - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok then meet the challenge I put forth at the begining of this thred. There is no evidence for creationism. Creationism is not science. You can not test it. It is mytholigy. No one called it science. It's not Creationism vs. Evolution that's on the table--you're talking about the origin of life..."Intelligent Design/Creation vs. Big Bang Theory" Here's what should be taught: There is more evidence for Intelligent Design than for the Big Bang Theory. How the heck did Big Bang become an actual theory?? And for both of these, there is no testable hypothesis to even get to the theory step, so this thread is a waste of space. Interesting...I've been following your thread here & you seem to have the Intellectual/Faithful discussion under control. Like a breath of FRESH AIR! Keep up the good work sister.  I know it takes more guts to live by faith than by sight because without faith it truly is impossible to please God. There is plenty of proof of that on these boards.  right, and without faith Jim Jones would have never been able to get those people to kill themselves. Thats what faith gets you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMAN TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IMAGE REMOVED. Opps! H. Habilis didn't evolve into H. Erectus. Time to change science again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6937476.stm FYI... The way you linked that image is called "Hot Linking". It is a form of bandwidth theft and shouldn't be done. If you get their permission to use the picture, you should put it in a picture hosting website, otherwise you shouldn't be using the image at all. http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html You are also leaving yourself open to them pulling a switcheroo, which means that they will replace the image you linked with something else...possible disturbing pornography, which will cause issues between you and Mingle2's moderators and administrators. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMAN TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IMAGE REMOVED. Opps! H. Habilis didn't evolve into H. Erectus. Time to change science again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6937476.stm FYI... The way you linked that image is called "Hot Linking". It is a form of bandwidth theft and shouldn't be done. If you get their permission to use the picture, you should put it in a picture hosting website, otherwise you shouldn't be using the image at all. http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html You are also leaving yourself open to them pulling a switcheroo, which means that they will replace the image you linked with something else...possible disturbing pornography, which will cause issues between you and Mingle2's moderators and administrators. thnx for that spidey - so your saying you have to save it to like photo_bucket or other place before you post it then correct? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thnx for that spidey - so your saying you have to save it to like photo_bucket or other place before you post it then correct? Yes, but you can only use non-copyrighted images or images that you have permission to use. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thnx for that spidey - so your saying you have to save it to like photo_bucket or other place before you post it then correct? Yes, but you can only use non-copyrighted images or images that you have permission to use. how do you know its copyrighted - all the pics i've seen have right on it if its coprwrited or protected - this one didn't so how can you know for sure??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMAN TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS which one is mine??? this chart only goes to letter N. I believe letter O had a hat and beard. HMM? so your saying evolution stopped before i was born - well I did'nt want to have to be the one to tell you but....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thnx for that spidey - so your saying you have to save it to like photo_bucket or other place before you post it then correct? Yes, but you can only use non-copyrighted images or images that you have permission to use. how do you know its copyrighted - all the pics i've seen have right on it if its coprwrited or protected - this one didn't so how can you know for sure??? Email the web master. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ir someone is going to push for something to be taught in school, or even want it to be takin seriously at all they should be able to show some evidence of it. school - i can see your point. adults? how can you prove whats taken on faith? you either believe in whats stated as proof or not, and follow it or not. it's been debated to death on here, no one wins - you can not debate FAITH vs SCIENCE and have a definitive outcome. sorry. Well actually Tribo...not get into a pissing match with you but can't we all say that we live in a world full of unknowns. We live it every day if we are observant. I can say that even tho I am a visual person I know there are nuances to faith that most people don't realize for themselves or their lives. We only complain when things don't go our way but how about all the joyful surprizes in life? I think it's the same thing with evolution vs. creation. I think it's both. Since God can divinely intervene at any given time in the course of the natural realm...why not the big bang theory? I know you recognize that some things can't be explained. I do too. Can we agree on that? |
|
|
|
|
