100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
evolution is in direct comflict with the law of chemistry ie enthropy.for science to have any credibility its basic laws should agree and reinforce each other or be alligned in that direction.so I ask has evolution explained the origins of life or only purpot to?morever cosmology has yet to explain the cause of all processes that led to existence of this universe having started with only energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evolution is in direct comflict with the law of chemistry ie enthropy.for science to have any credibility its basic laws should agree and reinforce each other or be alligned in that direction.so I ask has evolution explained the origins of life or only purpot to?morever cosmology has yet to explain the cause of all processes that led to existence of this universe having started with only energy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evolution is in direct comflict with the law of chemistry ie enthropy.for science to have any credibility its basic laws should agree and reinforce each other or be alligned in that direction.so I ask has evolution explained the origins of life or only purpot to?morever cosmology has yet to explain the cause of all processes that led to existence of this universe having started with only energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. i hate it when that happens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Tue 05/22/12 02:54 PM
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. i hate it when that happens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evolution is in direct comflict with the law of chemistry ie enthropy.for science to have any credibility its basic laws should agree and reinforce each other or be alligned in that direction.so I ask has evolution explained the origins of life or only purpot to?morever cosmology has yet to explain the cause of all processes that led to existence of this universe having started with only energy. The reason what you are saying is nonsense? Easy, the earth is not a closed system, the sun provides low entropy energy. Next. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 05/22/12 03:11 PM
|
|
Yeah it does sound good. You see, I admit that creation is just a theory from an empirical point of view. I do believe its true from a faith point of view, but I'm not using that as an empirical argument. I believe all organisms were created at the same time. I believe they took turns to proliferate, and the fossils of the rarer types are often not discovered because of their scarcity during periods that other types proliferated. I believe micro-evolution and mutation explain differences within species and across some species, yet cannot explain the creation of increased genetic complexity. Regarding genetics, I believe the observance of chromosomal patterns retaining a certain genetic length or reducing in size, yet never increasing in the number of beneficial genes is an observance that favours creation over evolution as an empirically supported theory. I believe that observing the fossil record for clues regarding evolution, puts both theories on an even footing. Because the lack of rarer types during phases of proliferation is just as easy to explain as the evolutionary explanation for the lack of observance of transitionary fossils. Both theories say you do not find fossils of rare types, that is why they are not discovered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creation cannot be falsified, there for it cannot be a scientific theory. If it can be falsified please explain what data, or observation could show us this theory is invalid. So, is creationism a theory or not? In one sentence you say it cannot be a scientific theory, and then in the next you call it a theory? Maybe you could show us what data, or observation could show us that the evolution theory is invalid? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 05/22/12 03:25 PM
|
|
Creation cannot be falsified, there for it cannot be a scientific theory. If it can be falsified please explain what data, or observation could show us this theory is invalid. So, is creationism a theory or not? In one sentence you say it cannot be a scientific theory, and then in the next you call it a theory? Maybe you could show us what data, or observation could show us that the evolution theory is invalid? Try to read a little more closely, and look up terms you dont understand. I said If, and asked for those who support it to shoulder the burden of showing that this concept can be a scientific theory. (here a hint, it cant) . . also you guys dont seem to want to post on the JREF where real biologists can answer you guys . . . http://forums.randi.org/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creation cannot be falsified, there for it cannot be a scientific theory. If it can be falsified please explain what data, or observation could show us this theory is invalid. So, is creationism a theory or not? In one sentence you say it cannot be a scientific theory, and then in the next you call it a theory? Maybe you could show us what data, or observation could show us that the evolution theory is invalid? Try to read a little more closely, and look up terms you dont understand. I said If, and asked for those who support it to shoulder the burden of showing that this concept can be a scientific theory. (here a hint, it cant) . . also you guys dont seem to want to post on the JREF where real biologists can answer you guys . . . http://forums.randi.org/ Silly wabbit. If God were to come down and hold a press conference to the world revealing that He/She/It was NOT involved in creation, then that would falsify creationism as a theory. Now that I've shown that it could be falsified, you must now accept it as a viable theory, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. i hate it when that happens What happened to the fish? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. Well the more science progresses, the more the scientific evidence points towards bible type events. You seem to confirm all mankind dying out and only a small group (1000) left. All humans coming from that group. This is very similar to the Noah story. By the way, do you realise that scientific evidence itself points to a marine flooding (transgression) during the Permian-Triassic extinction. This was caused by the Siberian traps (Russian Volcanoes) causing global temperature rises and hence melting of the huge ice caps and melting of the extensive glaciation of the late Permian. Volcanic activity causes huge amounts of acid rainfall, and that period was the most volcanic of earth's history. Not only the coastal wetlands, but also the widespread low-lying huge flood-plains of the Permian show signs of rapid sedimentation during the Permian-Triassic boundary. This is also known as the planet's most extensive extinction event. What I am saying is that during the boundary between the Permian and Triassic, there were huge extinctions and also massive flooding in the floodplains and also the coastal wetlands, both caused by Siberian volcanic activity. This is science itself confirming massive death and massive worldwide flooding. No-one has bothered to piece together the evidence, but its all there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/23/12 02:32 AM
|
|
Yeah it does sound good. You see, I admit that creation is just a theory from an empirical point of view. I do believe its true from a faith point of view, but I'm not using that as an empirical argument. I believe all organisms were created at the same time. I believe they took turns to proliferate, and the fossils of the rarer types are often not discovered because of their scarcity during periods that other types proliferated. I believe micro-evolution and mutation explain differences within species and across some species, yet cannot explain the creation of increased genetic complexity. Regarding genetics, I believe the observance of chromosomal patterns retaining a certain genetic length or reducing in size, yet never increasing in the number of beneficial genes is an observance that favours creation over evolution as an empirically supported theory. I believe that observing the fossil record for clues regarding evolution, puts both theories on an even footing. Because the lack of rarer types during phases of proliferation is just as easy to explain as the evolutionary explanation for the lack of observance of transitionary fossils. Both theories say you do not find fossils of rare types, that is why they are not discovered. If something cannot be falsified, surely this would prove the possiblity still exists, not invalidity? What you are saying makes no sense. If the theory cannot prove to be invalid, it therefore remains a possibility. The evidence exists in the limits to advantageous genes that exist in every organism, the fact that you cannot increase the number of active, useful genes naturally, and yet complex life exists, suggests that complex life just appeared. I am not saying its proven, just that creation is another valid explanation, no worse than evolution from an empirical point of view. My problem is that a lot of the scientific community has already accepted evolution as having more empirical evidence, when in fact it does not have more supporting evidence than creation. The evidence exists also in the increasing amount of "living fossils", organisms that exist today that are found fossilised in the early layers. As each one is discovered, the logic that most modern animals were all already there during the Carboniferous becomes more obvious. Sure, you do not find bunnies in the carboniferous. But the Carboniferous is a geolgic term for the wetlands fossils that are found widespread throughout earth in the deeper layers. Wetlands fossilise easily, and bunnies do not live in the wetlands. Even today you do not find dead bunnies in swamps, there is no reason EVER to expect to find grasslands and forest mammals in the layers regarded by geologists as Carboniferous. Even the expectation is illogical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Wed 05/23/12 05:14 AM
|
|
The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ya know How your true colors are coming out your just another Jesus freak creationist trying to manipulate what science has found and placing it in your nonexisting timeline to make it look like the events in your precious book happened.Your religion is like all the other Deity/deities driven religions they are simple mythology. As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus). Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So our common ancestors were the tchadensis named Adam and Eve?Wow thats a shocker. The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ya know How your true colors are coming out your just another Jesus freak creationist trying to manipulate what science has found and placing it in your nonexisting timeline to make it look like the events in your precious book happened.Your religion is like all the other Deity/deities driven religions they are simple mythology. As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus). Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support? That's hillarious coming from someone who tries to argue against creationism utilizing a Young Earth Creationist's view of a 6,000 year old Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..the earth evolves,we are merely along for the ride in this space of time.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Wed 05/23/12 05:39 AM
|
|
So our common ancestors were the tchadensis named Adam and Eve?Wow thats a shocker. The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ya know How your true colors are coming out your just another Jesus freak creationist trying to manipulate what science has found and placing it in your nonexisting timeline to make it look like the events in your precious book happened.Your religion is like all the other Deity/deities driven religions they are simple mythology. As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus). Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support? That's hillarious coming from someone who tries to argue against creationism utilizing a Young Earth Creationist's view of a 6,000 year old Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So our common ancestors were the tchadensis named Adam and Eve?Wow thats a shocker. The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ya know How your true colors are coming out your just another Jesus freak creationist trying to manipulate what science has found and placing it in your nonexisting timeline to make it look like the events in your precious book happened.Your religion is like all the other Deity/deities driven religions they are simple mythology. As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus). Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support? That's hillarious coming from someone who tries to argue against creationism utilizing a Young Earth Creationist's view of a 6,000 year old Earth. Oh yeah, that supports your views...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So our common ancestors were the tchadensis named Adam and Eve?Wow thats a shocker. The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ya know How your true colors are coming out your just another Jesus freak creationist trying to manipulate what science has found and placing it in your nonexisting timeline to make it look like the events in your precious book happened.Your religion is like all the other Deity/deities driven religions they are simple mythology. As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus). Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support? That's hillarious coming from someone who tries to argue against creationism utilizing a Young Earth Creationist's view of a 6,000 year old Earth. Oh yeah, that supports your views... |
|
|
|
|
