Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. | |
---|---|
Well, to me it sounds as if you "want" to believe in evolution....That is how I see it, and that is how you come across. At least I'm being honest about what I choose to believe. Maybe you think that because I criticized your earlier statements, that therefore I must want to believe in evolution? lol. No. I do not agree with every aspect of every presentation of the theory of evolution, and I take pleasure in finding people that can and will offer and informed, educated critique of scientific ideas. No, I criticized your earlier statements because they were ignorant and irresponsible. Just a theory? No evidence of transitional fossils? I criticize ignorant statements by many people, even if I agree with their overall position. |
|
|
|
Well, to me it sounds as if you "want" to believe in evolution....That is how I see it, and that is how you come across. At least I'm being honest about what I choose to believe. Maybe you think that because I criticized your earlier statements, that therefore I must want to believe in evolution? lol. No. I do not agree with every aspect of every presentation of the theory of evolution, and I take pleasure in finding people that can and will offer and informed, educated critique of scientific ideas. No, I criticized your earlier statements because they were ignorant and irresponsible. Just a theory? No evidence of transitional fossils? I criticize ignorant statements by many people, even if I agree with their overall position. There is no real evidence of transitional fossils... |
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Tue 08/12/14 05:20 PM
|
|
At this point, it sounds as if you're conveniently making things up. There are credible scientists that have opionions and facts that don't agree with yours. Yes, they certainly disagree with many of my arbitrary opinions in life, but they nearly universally agree with the basic tenets of evolution. Again, popularity of an idea among scientists doesn't make it true. But its totally wrong to act like there is still a meaningful debate among scientists about the validity basic tenets of evolution. There isn't. There was, once, but the facts are just overwhelming. We've moved on. Now they argue about the details, not the basic tenets. Wikipedia has a list of scientific organisations which have explicitly denied intelligent design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design And here is a relevant commentary on a poll: http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904 Edit: "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees," |
|
|
|
There is no real evidence of transitional fossils... http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ |
|
|
|
At this point, it sounds as if you're conveniently making things up. There are credible scientists that have opionions and facts that don't agree with yours. Yes, they certainly disagree with many of my arbitrary opinions in life, but they nearly universally agree with the basic tenets of evolution. Again, popularity of an idea among scientists doesn't make it true. But its totally wrong to act like there is still a meaningful debate among scientists about the validity basic tenets of evolution. There isn't. There was, once, but the facts are just overwhelming. We've moved on. Now they argue about the details, not the basic tenets. Wikipedia has a list of scientific organisations which have explicitly denied intelligent design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design And here is a relevant commentary on a poll: http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904 If you look on the internet to find things that prove you are correct, you will find them. Liberals go to liberal websites to prove liberal views...Look, I respect your opionions, but we will never agree, no matter how many links you put up. I'm not stupid and I don't think that you think I am. This argument has no winner or loser, tho. That is what I believe. |
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Tue 08/12/14 05:59 PM
|
|
If you look on the internet to find things that prove you are correct, you will find them. That's true. Its also true that if you turn to the internet to find good sources for actual data (that is already well known by the people who are paying attention), you will often find that also. Do you question the validity of the Pew Research Center study? If so, on what basis? I'm not here 'looking for data which supports the idea that most scientists recognize the merit of the theory in evolution', I simply looked for data on what the actual degree of such recognition is. Pew is a respected organization. Is there another study we should be using? Edit: I started posting links because you said it sounded like I'm making things up. I might make mistakes, but I've never intentionally just 'made things up' in a discussion like this. Hence the links. never agree, no matter how many links you put up.
I don't think you'll ever stop being critical of the theory of evolution, but you can stop spouting complete falsehoods about it - like 'ID is also a theory, just like evolution' and 'there are no proven transitional fossils' and similar claims. I think that eventually you will stop saying these things, because honesty will require it of you. You aren't being a 'good person' by most measures if you spread outright lies about an idea. I'm not stupid and I don't think that you think I am. This argument has no winner or loser, tho. That is what I believe. Some might say that anyone who is given cause to re-evaluate their beliefs is a winner. Having a more accurate worldview is a good thing. Some might even say its a blessing. |
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Wed 08/13/14 04:11 AM
|
|
so not true, the mutations & evolving organisms are the very proof that it did happen... having faith is good but blind faith not so good... religion i feel is complete bull it is the biggest killer of mankind.. |
|
|
|
s MIT CALCULATED THE ODDS
You make it sound like the university did this, collectively. *Individuals* have done this, but I know of no work or corresponding statement from an entire university endorsing this conclusion. Are you talking about Murray Eden, the electrical engineer at MIT? with the bible, which i believe is fact. Does your faith in God require that you believe the bible is fact? Does your faith in the bible require that you believe that evolution is not correct? |
|
|
|
with the bible, which i believe is fact. Does your faith in God require that you believe the bible is fact? Does your faith in the bible require that you believe that evolution is not correct? YES. Makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
s MIT CALCULATED THE ODDS
Are you talking about Murray Eden, the electrical engineer at MIT? Don't you love how creationists will go to great lengths to show academic credentials? Even when they demonstrate no relation/scholarship/experience with the subject at hand. I esp love the Dr. So and So's whose doctorate is in Xian education and not geology, biology, etc |
|
|
|
s MIT CALCULATED THE ODDS
Are you talking about Murray Eden, the electrical engineer at MIT? Don't you love how creationists will go to great lengths to show academic credentials? Even when they demonstrate no relation/scholarship/experience with the subject at hand. I esp love the Dr. So and So's whose doctorate is in Xian education and not geology, biology, etc who cares as long as he can add? dont you love how evolutinists, when confronted with facts from a place like MIT, THAT dont support thier position, how they nit pick details, theoroze that who did the work wasent cometent, ect? who has faith here? i look at all this with an OPEN mind. do you? |
|
|
|
s MIT CALCULATED THE ODDS
Are you talking about Murray Eden, the electrical engineer at MIT? Don't you love how creationists will go to great lengths to show academic credentials? Even when they demonstrate no relation/scholarship/experience with the subject at hand. I esp love the Dr. So and So's whose doctorate is in Xian education and not geology, biology, etc who cares as long as he can add? dont you love how evolutinists, when confronted with facts from a place like MIT, THAT dont support thier position, how they nit pick details, theoroze that who did the work wasent cometent, ect? who has faith here? i look at all this with an OPEN mind. do you? Evolutionists are the most closed minded people I have ever met. It doesn't make me put a lot of faith in what they say.....You are right..they nitpick, and they pick and choose what "facts" are relevant. |
|
|
|
s MIT CALCULATED THE ODDS
You make it sound like the university did this, collectively. *Individuals* have done this, but I know of no work or corresponding statement from an entire university endorsing this conclusion. Are you talking about Murray Eden, the electrical engineer at MIT? with the bible, which i believe is fact. Does your faith in God require that you believe the bible is fact? Does your faith in the bible require that you believe that evolution is not correct? with free will, I am not required, I can choose faith in God influences my choice to believe the bible as fact Evolution is complex, so one has to be more specific when asking questions about it I have 'changed' or 'evolved' in my lifetime , so I of course believe change or 'evolution' is a real thing over the course of the history of the world,,,, I do not believe in the idea of being a cosmic accident or result of sequence of coincidences,,,,, |
|
|
|
Why you should stop believing in evolution KEITH BLANCHARD | AUGUST 4, 2014 322 30.0k 692 When people joyously discover on Ancestry.com that they're related to, say, a medieval archduke or a notorious Victorian criminal, evolutionary biologists may be permitted to snicker. Because in actuality, we are all related: Humans all share at least one common ancestor if you go far enough back. You are related to every king and criminal who ever lived, to Gandhi and Paris Hilton and Carrot Top. You are even related to me. But buckle up â that's only the beginning. Humanity, after all, is but one ugly branch on the big tree of life. Go back far enough, and you'll find an ancestor common to you and to every creature on Earth. You are related to your cat â which may help explain why you get that stare all the time. You are related to a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and to the mosquito you just murdered, and to your houseplants. At any given meal, you may eat all or part of a dozen extremely distant relatives. It's remarkable how poorly understood evolution is today â how easily "debated" it is â given that its rules have been in place at least since life on Earth began, and that the truth of it is easily demonstrated. In fact, the basic theory has been in a state of continuous reconfirmation since Darwin proposed it in 1859, with geology, biology, anthropology, carbon dating, Pangaea, and every dinosaur bone ever found providing a nonstop barrage of additional proof points. Here are the rules, in a nutshell: ⢠Genes, stored in every cell, are the body's blueprints; they code for traits like eye color, disease susceptibility, and a bazillion other things that make you you. ⢠Reproduction involves copying and recombining these blueprints, which is complicated, and errors happen. ⢠Errors are passed along in the code to future generations, the way a smudge on a photocopy will exist on all subsequent copies. ⢠This modified code can (but doesn't always) produce new traits in successive generations: an extra finger, sickle-celled blood, increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shenanigans. ⢠When these new traits are advantageous (longer legs in gazelles), organisms survive and replicate at a higher rate than average, and when disadvantageous (brittle skulls in woodpeckers), they survive and replicate at a lower rate. That's a little oversimplified, but the general idea. As advantageous traits become the norm within a population and disadvantageous traits are weeded out, each type of creature gradually morphs to better fit its environment. The very notion of "species" is even a little misleading â a discrete-sounding artifice created for the convenience of people who live about a hundred years. If you had eyes to see the big picture, and could watch life change on a geologic time frame, you'd see constant gradual change, as generations adapt to circumstance. It's that incredibly slow pace that makes it hard for people to grasp intuitively. When you only live long enough to see three or four generations â a few ticks of evolution's clock â any tiny generational changes, like humanity getting marginally blonder or taller, are dwarfed by differences in the members among any one generation. Pile on enough eons, and tiny pidgin horses gradually become rideable by gradually less hairy apes. But it's impossible to see for yourself. (iStock) That's evolution left to proceed at its own lazy, trial-and-error pace. But it turns out you can make the gears turn a lot faster â in fact, we do it all the time. Have you ever seen strawberries in the wild? They're little tiny things, easily missed if you are not a bird or a bee. We bred them to be big and fat, specifically by only allowing the seeds from the biggest, fattest ones in each generation to reproduce. We similarly manipulate almost every other "natural" food we eat today: Take a stroll through any modern produce section and you can see the fruits, literally and figuratively, of evolution turbocharged by human intervention. Dogs are another example: We invented the dog, starting with wolves and quickening the natural but poky process of evolution by specifically selecting breeding pairs with desirable traits, gradually accentuating particular traits in successive populations. Poodles, Rottweilers, Great Danes, Hollywood red-carpet purse dogs â all this fabulous kinetic art was created, and continues to be created, by humans manually hijacking the mechanism of evolution. Listen, nobody wants to be related to monkeys. (Scientist 1, after the Scopes trial: "Well, that was a catastrophe." Scientist 2: "Yeah? Wait until they find out they're also related to friggin' carrots.") But "that's just too crazy to believe" cannot be a defense against science. Why do you have sharp canine teeth? An appendix? Hair under your arms? If your body was designed for its current usage, there's a lot of inefficiency there. If it seems, rather, to be in the process of becoming lessâ¦bestial, well, that's because it is. So if someone asks, "Do you believe in evolution," they are framing it wrong. That's like asking, "Do you believe in blue?" Evolution is nothing more than a fairly simple way of understanding what is unquestionably happening. You don't believe in it â you either understand it or you don't. But pretending evolution is a matter of faith can be a clever way to hijack the conversation, and pit it in a false duality against religion. And that's how we end up with people decrying evolution, even as they eat their strawberries and pet their dogs, because they've been led to believe faith can only be held in one or the other. But there's no reason for people of faith to reject the mountains of data and the evidence of their own senses. Reconciling is easy: Believe, if you want to, that God set up the rules of evolution among His wonders, along with the laws of physics, and probability, and everything else we can see and measure for ourselves. But don't deny evolution itself, or gravity, or the roundness of Earth. That's just covering your eyes and ears. And only monkeys would do that. 322 30.0k yes, but strawberries, wit all thier varieties are still strawberries. Flies are always flies, deer are always deer. they adapt, they get stronger with manipulation but they will always be what they are., which isexactly what the bible, and the foissil record shows is we look at it objectivly. They Still havent found the half one species half the other remains. not there. From Wiki: "A sheep–goat hybrid (sometimes called a geep or toast in popular media) is the hybrid offspring of a sheep and a goat. Although sheep and goats seem similar and can be mated, they belong to different genera in the subfamily Caprinae of the family Bovidae. Sheep belong to the genus Ovis and have 54 chromosomes, while goats belong to the genus Capra and have 60 chromosomes. The offspring of a sheep-goat pairing is generally stillborn. Despite widespread shared pasturing of goats and sheep, hybrids are very rare, indicating the genetic distance between the two species. Though sometimes called "geep",[1] they are not to be confused with goat-sheep chimerae, which are artificially created. Contents 1 Cases 2 Characteristics 3 References 4 External links Cases At the Botswana Ministry of Agriculture in 2000, a male sheep impregnated a female goat resulting in a live offspring. This hybrid had 57 chromosomes, intermediate between sheep (54) and goats (60) and was intermediate between the two parent species in type. It had a coarse outer coat, a woolly inner coat, long goat-like legs and a heavy sheep-like body. Although infertile, the hybrid had a very active libido, mounting both ewes and does even when they were not in heat.[2] He was castrated when he was 10 months old, as were the other kids and lambs in the herd.[3] A male sheep impregnated a female goat in New Zealand resulting in a mixed litter of kids and a female sheep-goat hybrid with 57 chromosomes.[4] The hybrid was subsequently shown to be fertile when mated with a ram.[5] In France natural mating of a doe with a ram produced a female hybrid carrying 57 chromosomes. This animal backcrossed in the veterinary college of Nantes to a ram delivered a stillborn and a living male offspring with 54 chromosomes.[6] In California Valley, a geep was born in 2011[citation needed]. It birthed several hybrid babies over a 3 year period, until 2014 when it began to have miscarriages. The geep was then slaughtered for meat because geep meat has its own unique taste compared to sheep or goat meat. The geep and its offspring were the only known examples in California. On May 12, 2011, a healthy and fertile geep was born in Bant, Flevoland, the Netherlands. The geep mated with a ewe and on December 25, 2012 two healthy lambs were born. [7] In April 2014, the Irish Farmers Journal reported on the birth of an offspring resulting from a goat-sheep cross, on the farm of Paddy Murphy, Ballymore, Co. Kildare. The animal was reported to be healthy and thriving; no chromosomal investigation has occurred yet.[8] On April 14, 2014, a healthy and active geep was born at Ticonderoga Farms, Chantilly, Virginia, USA{{Citation needed|date=April 2014}}. It was rejected by the mother." |
|
|
|
why do animals hv all the fun... breed em...fuukkk.......
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Thu 08/14/14 02:26 PM
|
|
q- who said... "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and fo the correction of sperical and chromatic abberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, i freely confess, absurd to the highest degree." and, 'There is another and allied difficulty, which is more serious. I allude tothe manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossil rocks.
if the evolution throry be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed., as long as, or longer thqn the whole interval from the cambrian age to te present age,and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. to question why WE DO NOT FIND deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian, i can give no satisfactory amswer.The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the ABSENCE of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrianis very great." and also, Why, if species have decended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? why is ot all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, AS WE SEE THEM, WELL DEFINED? BUT, AS BY THIS EVOLUTIONAL THEORY, INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL SPECIES MUSTN HAVE EXISTED, WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEM IN COUNTLESS NUMBERS IN THE CRUST OF THE EARTH? Geological researsh DOES NOT yield the innumerable many fine graduations between past and present species, as required. answer... Charles darwin, Origion of the species. |
|
|
|
q- who said... "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and fo the correction of sperical and chromatic abberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, i freely confess, absurd to the highest degree." and, 'There is another and allied difficulty, which is more serious. I allude tothe manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossil rocks. if the evolution throry be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed., as long as, or longer thqn the whole interval from the cambrian age to te present age,and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. to question why WE DO NOT FIND deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian, i can give no satisfactory amswer.The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the ABSENCE of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrianis very great." answer... Charles darwin, Origion of the species. Hmmmmm?.... |
|
|
|
Evolution... :)
|
|
|
|
re- Science today... All biologists are not equally satisfied. Some feel that the argument gets uncomfortably close to a point where an adequate number of monkeys tapping typewriter keys for an adequate length of time will inevitably produce an encyclopedia. such a thing is of course concievably possible but nobody in thier senses takes such a thing into consideration in everyday life. We either have to accept natural selection as the only available guide to the mechanism of evolution, and be prepaerd to admit that it involves a considerable amount of speculation, or feel in our bones that natural selection, operating on random mutations, leaves too much to chance. If we look on organic evolution as one of naturesgames of chance, it seems just a little strange that we should have been dealt quite so many winning hands.
|
|
|
|
Intelligent Design....:)
|
|
|