Any SOLID arguments against evolution?
March 20, 2009 at 12:04 pm #11090
Can anyone come up with any solid, completely unexplainable arguments that defy evolution with our current scientific understanding of the issue.
Note: Please do not run at me and bash me with your bibles.
March 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm #89788
The world is overrun by idiots. Therefore, either stupidity is somehow extremely beneficial to the human species (which seems very doubtful to me) or natural selection should have weeded us out long ago in favor of mice. This clear failure of natural selection demonstrates that we cannot be the products of evolution, and have clearly been designed (probably by mice) to be a species of idiots.
March 21, 2009 at 1:27 am #89798
Heh, ok that’s about the best I’ve heard yet… and that says something. We’ve become way too good at surviving. But seriously I’ve not seen any decent argument against it yet… someone…anyone!!! Argue with me!!
March 21, 2009 at 3:53 am #89800
Seems to have been very little anti-evolutionist activity on the forum lately. Had you asked this question a few months ago you might’ve gotten yourself into quite a debate.
March 21, 2009 at 7:31 am #89802
The Babel fish.
March 23, 2009 at 9:09 pm #89839
I’m glad someone picked up on my Hitchhiker’s reference. 🙂
March 27, 2009 at 3:00 pm #89887SepalsParticipant
There are none.
March 28, 2009 at 12:08 pm #89904mcarParticipantquote :
Forgive me for this one,it might not be related to this thread. Last week, as I was looking for some materials needed for our convention, I have seen a shirt worn by a woman. Written on it was,
"ALL MEN ARE IDIOTS AND I MARRIED THEIR KING".
April 16, 2009 at 11:52 am #90172JorgeLoboParticipant
Ahh – have to love the sexism. Care to tell any racial jokes?
April 16, 2009 at 6:52 pm #90176
Here’s a racial joke; hope nobody finds it offensive, but if you do, please remember that I’m half-Irish so I’m technically making this joke at my own expense:
Q: Why was the wheelbarrow invented?
A: To teach the Irish how to walk upright! :p
May 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm #90719
There are no no solid unexplainable arguments to you sir, because you have already made a conscious decision to accept evolution–which is something you have never seen with your eyes. Yes you have seen all kinds of illustrated diagrams which show us what allegedly happened. But these are drawn by men who have in turn learned these things from men–none of whom were here when the beginning of life took place.
And you have heard the INTERPRETATIONS of the current evidence, made by men who hold no place for a literal interpretation of scripture at most– or who are atheists at least. It is no wonder they come to the conclusions they do.
I could go in to lots of things, but bottom line is you will always go with your unconscious presuppositions, which in turn become convictions, which in turn build an organized sometimes unconscious way of thinking, which in turn interprets your own existence and purpose, as well as all data that comes your way.
Here are some questions–and yes I know there are hypotheses that explain these, but they are futile attempts to explain away the eternal power and wisdom of God.
Where is the antimatter that should be a result of the big bang?
If sedimentary rock built up over billions of years, why are there tremendously vast graveyards of fossils which contain sea creatures BESIDE mammals and other land animals, often twisted as evidence of a large catastrophe and that vast amounts of sediment overcame them quickly?
If sedimentary rock built up over millions of years, why are there 90 degree bends in multiple very thick strata in the grand canyon without cracks? These same strata extend throughout the US, some as far as the UK. This would be an impossible feature unless the strata was still wet when bent.
Why is there evidence that literally the equivalent of 24 cubic miles of sediment was moved from the northwestern US to the south central US? By what means did this happen?
From what source did the hydrogen gas come from that has been in the sun for over 5 billion years? The law of thermodynamics would conclude that all the energy of the sun must be accounted for, therefore what is the vast amount of hydrogen that would be required to acount for billions of years of joules and enrgy, and how did it all come together as hydrogen into one place?
Since scientists insists on the oxygen crisis–that is that the O2 in the atmosphere came from plants–and that before the O2 crisis in the Hadean period, the earth’s atmosphere was formed by volcanoes and high in CO2—How did liquid water form? It would have been in vapor form and the heat caused by the greenhouse gas of CO2 would not have allowed it to condense to liquid. By what means did the alledged early earth change from mostly CO2 to now levels around 1% CO2 and 17% O2 with liquid water, if this model is true?
May 10, 2009 at 8:09 pm #90721
AFJ, I’m sure a lot of us here would appreciate if you would give us a bit more credit as far as open-mindedness goes. Some would consider your claim that we are all incapable of overcoming our stiff-necked biases as downright insulting.
That said, I’m going to extend an open mind to your ideas. Give me a theory explaining the development of life, complete with a few falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested against evidence. While you’re at it, you may as well provide a few sources (websites and books are my favorites) presenting some evidence for this theory of yours.
I’m asking you to start this from a clean slate, even though you’ve already explained a little bit about your beliefs, because I admit I may have made a few assumptions about your position that are less than justified. I apologize if you feel the need to repeat yourself on some issues, but I am trying to make sure I understand exactly what your trying to say, which is why I’m asking you to explain it yourself instead of relying on my "presuppositions."
May 10, 2009 at 9:18 pm #90722
Alex, I am aiming at anyone personally. I am not saying you or anyone is close-minded. I apologize to you if that is how you took it. I am merely stating what I assumed was self evident–that in general we all, including me, have presuppositions by which we form opinions, and beliefs. The most basic of these is that we exist, and then we can go from there. I am not escaping your request to present citations. I can do this, but it is much more time consuming. I have done this before in my small experience of this debate on other forums, and been accused of copying and posting, without really having any background knowledge.
Can I say that the opening post on this goes as follows:"Can anyone come up with any solid, completely unexplainable arguments that defy evolution with our current scientific understanding of the issue.
Note: Please do not run at me and bash me with your bibles."
Lets reverse this to see how this sounds. Can anyone come up with any solid…arguments that defy THE SCRIPTURES with our (that being knowledgeable experienced Christians) understanding on the issue? Please do not bash me with your science text books.
Would this question not be considered purely rhetorical from someone who was convinced of evolution? Yet you can hear the bias of someone is completely convinced that the scripture is trustworthy. I’m not saying that there is something wrong with this bias, but that it is self evident–no one has to explain it or make citations from pschycologists or philosophers to see it.
I asked questions in response to provoke thought, because I have seen that to simply say that this was all created by the word of God is to evoke the response that I suffer from blind faith. I want to show people that some Christians have actually thought this subject thoroughly. And that evolutionists, many who so confidently affirm that to believe anything other than on origins is ludicrous, have plenty of their own blind faith.
May 10, 2009 at 11:28 pm #90723
Alright, I see your point that one can read a degree of inherent bias into the original post. That said, I’m not so sure it was necessarily out of line. "The Bible says so" hardly counts as scientific evidence, especially when one could just as easily cite chapter and verse from the Qu’ran or Confuscious (misspelled?) as well as plenty of other religious scriptures.
My point is that the validity of any scientific theory is ultimately dependent on evidence. I am sorry if your efforts to present evidence have not met with success, but since you bring up the question of background knowledge, I must confess that I am curious as to the extent of your scientific education. Do you hold a science degree or are you simply an armchair enthusiast? If you’re curious about my own credentials, I’m an undergrad student pursuing a double major in biology and chemistry. I plan to go to grad school and work on a doctorate.
Most of the questions you presented have nothing to do with biology. The big bang, for example, is a matter of astrophysics, just as the development of rock strata is a concern for geologists. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t mind discussing those topics with you; I’m just skeptical if this is the right place to do so, since this is a biology forum. However, that’s probably up to the mods to decide. Still, given that evolution is a biological phenomenon, it might be best to base your arguments on biological facts and theories.
I must admit I am a bit concerned by the way you seem to equate evolution with atheism, especially since many of the greatest Christian theologians (Augustine of Hippo comes to mind) have been strong supporters of evolutionary thought. Even then, evolution is at its heart a scientific concept, and thus should be kept independent from any religious affiliation. Maybe I’m reading too much into your words here, but that’s just the impression I’m getting, and feel free to correct me if I’ve misinterpreted you.
I am also a bit concerned by this:quote AFJ:
Again, I might be misunderstanding you, which is why I’m going to ask for a clarification before I go off half-cocked. Are you implying, or do you believe, that all "knowledgeable, experienced Christians" are going to believe and think exactly as you do?
May 11, 2009 at 1:27 am #90724
My degree is in theology, but before that years of personal study of the Bible, so I have a good working knowledge of what is in it–a pretty good knowledge of prophecy also. I was a missionary for a number of years, but now do secular work. In science my level is laymen/student–but not according to what I can remember from high school–I am currently studying chemistry, but I also read much on the internet. I kind of take turns, so I don’t get bored. One day I may study the geologic time scale, another day I may read my chemistry book. Another day I may study about the electron transport chain or another area of microbiology. Then I read alot of articles on the answers in genesis website. So yes you would call me a science enthusiast. I have 3 kids and a grandchild in the house at this point so I couldn’t make a switch in careers at this point. I wish now I had majored in science. I could see myself being a high school science teacher (my wife is a 4th grade teacher).
Let me ask you a question, Alex. What do you with Adam and Eve and original sin since you are catholic. How do you blend evolution in with that? ❓
May 11, 2009 at 2:00 am #90727
Theology? Interesting; another favorite subject of mine. I’m sort of in the same boat as you are with being an enthusiast in a great many topics, and like you I don’t always find the time to indulge my academic curiosities as much as I’d prefer. Although my excuse isn’t a family; it’s just the simple curse of being a college student! 🙂 But despite my lack of spare time, I have a very strong interest in theology, and probably would’ve majored it if that hadn’t have meant going to a private university, which I can’t afford. Plus there’s not much prospect for employment in theology unless I would go into the clergy, which I’m not exactly cut out for. I am currently reading a book called Unabridged Christianity which examines the beliefs of the early Christians and compares it to doctrines today; it’s written by Fr. Mario Pamero, who’s pastor of a Catholic church in Lafayette, Louisiana; about two hour’s drive from where I am in the Houma-Thibodaux area. Anyway thanks for indulging my curiosity on that topic. 😉
As for your question, I’d be more than willing to answer it, but as we’ve both agreed here isn’t the place. Send me an e-mail and we can discuss it.
May 17, 2009 at 5:11 pm #90809
Hi Alex, sorry I did not have time to get back to you. i worked 73 hours this week–shooo!! I am getting a little read in my chemistry book about the basics of thermodynamics. i know generally about chemistry from the laymen articles I have read, but I want to get a strong foundation in my technical understanding of chemistry and microbiology. My motive being to be better equipped to speak in this debate.
I don’t have alot of time but I did want to say on the issue on the emergence of life that I accept wholeheartedly the biblical account that we were created by God from "dust"–which is a outstanding metaphor for the elements. The fact that it is dust — small particles of matter, rather than say a rock or by something other worldly say, speaks to all generations, especially us today.
Secondly, on the question of expecting all experienced Christians believing as I do. Technically no. Generally yes. Theologically, there is room for some speculation and interpretation on some doctrines, because we are not given the complete picture on some doctrines–eschatology (the study of end times) being one of them. There are essential doctrines for the salvation of the soul and then there are periphery doctrines in which we might in part err but will not disqualify us from a heavenly entrance.
For instance, no matter what denomination we are, we must be born again by water and spirit to be a Christian. Christ teaches this in the gospel John ch. 3. It is essential to be regenerated by God’s spirit and become a new creature in Christ Jesus, or we are only religious. Of course, you know we do this by acknowledging the truths found in Romans 3:23, 6:23, Romans 10:9-11, Acts 2:38, Epeshians 2:8-10, along with Christ teaching to Nicodemis in John 3. These principles are essential for genuine scriptural faith no matter what our denominational or theological background.
May 17, 2009 at 9:16 pm #90812
May 17, 2009 at 9:47 pm #90814quote AstusAleator:
Wait a minute; are you suggesting people should actually try to be open-minded? How dare you bring that kind of heresy in here! 👿
Just kidding, of course! 😆
May 18, 2009 at 12:43 pm #90821quote :
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf
‘THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG’
the Samuel Wilberforce T. H. Huxley debate
here is one slam dunk – noted over 160 years ago- and nothing has changed
THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION
As Dawkins notes the problemquote :
Darwin said it made his view wrongquote :
Goould says nothing has changed since Darwinquote :
Even the arch evolutionist Dawkins states the Cambrian explosion is a major problem and gives support for the creationistsquote :
May 18, 2009 at 3:35 pm #90824
Gamila, you are presenting arguments from a website that claims that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and even seems to suggest that some dinosaurs might still be alive in some parts of the world. Do I really have to explain how rediculous this is, and how unreliable it makes your source?
May 19, 2009 at 3:32 am #90830quote :
you just refuse to see what is written dont you- i have pointed this out in numerous post quoted your own experts
the myths of your science have just a to greater hold on you
go read up on the cambrian explosion
dawkin and gould have told you the problem with itquote :
darwin has told you about itquote :
and gould againquote :
May 19, 2009 at 5:59 am #90833quote gamila:
You just refuse to use logic, don’t you?
May 19, 2009 at 8:23 pm #90842DanielSanParticipant
"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
This quote you just took out of context is from Richard Dawkins’ "The Blind Watchmaker". And it seems to me that you haven’t read the book…
May 20, 2009 at 1:54 am #90845
Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?
Since you "research the debate" you might want to take a long look at http://www.talkorigins.org
Researching a debate means looking at both sides right? Not just stocking up on the best arguments for your side of it?
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? – – "Urethra!!"
Sometimes theres no quote function on my screen so I copied you king cobra. Yes I will look at that, thank you. Sincerely and respectfully, not to be sarcastic, but I like to study science and reach my own conclusions about the origin. I have been inundated all my life with evolution. The debate in the education system and media is one sided.
For instance we are told that chloroplasts (Berkley website–geologic timescale) are actually cyanobacteria which somehow incorporated themselves into green plants without being digested and evolved with the plants. I have seen the same thing in biology textbooks regarding mitochondria.
No one saw that happen nor is there any proof of such, but it is repeated dogmatically as fact. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are facts, but to speak of their origin takes speculation or faith.
And speaking of mitochondria, when I see the the electron transport chain I don’t believe it is "close minded" to be rather amazed at the equivalent of pico-technology. This is a nothing less than a microscopic machine! I can not look at the perfect balance of this electron gradient pump which produces our ATP without seeing the mark of a all wise creator! Sorry if you don’t agree. GREAT VIDEO http://vcell.ndsu.edu/animations/etc/index.htm
May 20, 2009 at 3:00 am #90846quote AFJ:
In all fairness, that’s because there really isn’t that much to debate.quote AFJ:
If this is true, I suppose you’d better get ready to tell all the police detectives in the world that they’re out of work. If no witness saw the crime happen, there’ll be no way to prove who did it, will there?
May 20, 2009 at 3:52 am #90847
My understanding of the chloroplast/mitochondria hypothesis is that it is supported by genetics. Mitochondria have their own sets of DNA (mitochondrial DNA) which replicate independently of the parent cell and retain to a large degree their ancestral configurations.
Furthermore the multiple membrane configuration of the mito or chloroplast is an indicator that these organelles might not have originated as part of the cell.
It’s a pretty interesting topic. It would be nice if we knew more, but as it’s been pointed out, we didn’t see it happen so we can only speculate on what we’ve observed. Maybe someday we’ll find a good example of early-stage endosymbiosis.
wikipedia does a good job of covering the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory
Interesting reading about secondary endosymbiosis.
May 20, 2009 at 8:39 am #90850
you all just ignore the cambrian explosion-and hope it will go away
it is a slam dunk as darwin said against his views of evolution
May 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm #90857quote gamila:
That has already been answered in another thread: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about15762.html
If you want other people to have respect for your statements and address your questions, I suggest you reciprocate by showing some respect for others by actually reading what we type.
May 20, 2009 at 2:51 pm #90858quote AstusAleator:
Good article; it links to this one which is also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont
This article addresses endysymbionts, which live inside the cells of other organisms. This is actually very common and important in understanding how an ancestral mitochondria can be engulfed and not digested by the host cell.
What it all comes down to, in my opinion, is if it looks like a bacteria, and it smells like a bacteria, and it has the same genome as a bacteria . . .
May 21, 2009 at 1:44 am #90863quote AstusAleator:
Thank you Mr. Astus. Just a did a read on the mtDNA on wikipedia. Couple of comments.quote :
Speaking of genetics, Mr. Astus, the nucleus of the cell is in control of the information for the mitochondria, not the mitochodria. As well, in cytokenesis the mitochondria divides in sync with the entire cell. One would be hard pressed to come up with a logistical explanation in this hypothesis. However from my standpoint, I see cell division as the glory of God!quote :
"…are thought…" is the only evidence we have for this hypothesis, which amounts to opinion. Yet we are being told that these things are fact by people like Richard Dawkins. How do we arrive at a fact when this "fact" is built on hypotheses. This is a great wrong.
May 21, 2009 at 1:50 am #90864quote AFJ:
I am pretty sure the mitochondria are in charge of themselves, as far as DNA goes.
I have not read much detail about how this works in cell division, but just throwing some thoughts out there, it probably involves a chemical pathway between the nucleus and the mitochondria, telling the mitochondria when it is time to start dividing. This may even have been present in the ancestral inter-cellular endosymbiont; after all, there are obvious advantages to reproducing every time your host cell divides!quote AFJ:
The word "fact" is not used very often by scientists because it is almost impossible for anything to ever be established as hard fact. The reason such theories are so widely presented are because they are the best we have yet been able to come up with. If you have a better theory, you are more than welcome to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal and share your discovery with the rest of us.
As for Richard Dawkins, I think the man has a very exaggerated opinion of himself.
May 21, 2009 at 2:02 am #90865
That was quick my friend Alex. You did not read the quote I posted from wikipedia.quote :
Unless wikipedia is wrong, you can be pretty sure the actual proteins that the mito. is built from are coded by nuclear DNA. I am going to bed, but this has given me more to study. Thanks buddy lol!!
May 21, 2009 at 2:07 am #90866
Alex you never answered my question about Adam and Eve, original sin, and evolution. How do you mix it?
May 21, 2009 at 2:24 am #90867quote AFJ:
Sorry. I have a habit of glancing through quoted bits, since those are usually re-reads of something that’s already been said. My bad.quote AFJ:
I am certain I did answer it by saying I do not believe that this forum is the appropriate place to discuss theological issues. Send me an e-mail.
May 21, 2009 at 5:03 am #90868
a quick google search (All Hail Google) yielded this http://www.pnas.org/content/105/39/15202.full – among other articles.
I’m not offering this as "Proof" of current theory, just an example of the research that has gone into it and is going into it.
It could very well be that mitochondria and chloroplasts have a completely different evolutionary origin than we think – and that at some point research will show this. Currently this is the best scientific explanation we have.
While I agree that scientific theory shouldn’t be accepted on blind faith; scientifically valid theories are backed up by a host of research and literature. These aren’t just made-up things a bunch of conspirators have agreed to brainwash our children with.
It doesn’t help that there are people out there (like Dawkins) who are blatantly trying to get rid of religion – and using evolution as a weapon in their war. Please recognize that the scientific study of evolution is not an attack on your religious beliefs.
The ETC is amazing, and if it speaks to your soul so be it. A quiet moment on a mountaintop does it for me. If someday scientists are able to definitively detail the exact process by which every microscopic function of our existence came to be – would that shatter your belief in a god, your sense of wonder and awe?
If you’re a Christian, you believe in a personal relationship with God. My advice is – keep it personal. Why should you have to prove to yourself or anyone else that He exists? God speaks to the heart of man, right? So why appeal to logic?
Anyway, enough religious talk. like I said before, I think endosymbiotic theory is fascinating – though we obviously don’t know a ton about it. We do know enough that the current theories seem to fit better than any other scientific alternative.
May 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm #90873quote AstusAleator:
Good point; for me the most recent jaw-dropping moment was a few days ago when my friend and I had set up our telescopes in the field outside of town and were waiting for the sun to set. We saw a mockingbird only ten feet away from us, cleaning its feathers. We both froze and lifted our binoculars to our eyes, and watched the bird for several minutes before it flew away. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t afraid to be so close to us, but it was absolutely wonderful to get to see it so close.
Then the sunset itself was gorgeous – a point sadly missed by most astronomers. The night sky always holds countless wonders, and I was able for the first time to identify several galaxies in the Virgo galaxy cluster. You need an almost perfect dark night to do that! The whole time, I couldn’t believe it, each galaxy is millions of light-years across, contains hundreds of billions of stars, and is several million light-years away, and there were sometimes up to five of them at once in my eyepiece! Then add in the fact that, when the light we were seeing left those galaxies, mankind didn’t even exist, and the sense of wonder is only deepened.
I know, none of this has anything to do with our topic; I’m just going on about how beautiful the natural world can be. No wonder I am studying to become a scientist, huh?
May 22, 2009 at 2:32 am #90881quote :
Thank you Mr. Arastus. You seem to be a really cool person, and yes I am a Christian through many seasons, backslidings, and back again. But I never lost my faith.
Evolution is a theory of origins so God talk is rather inevitable. So please indulge me, and I’ll get to my concerns. Then at least you’ll understand why there is still a debate.
No. 1. If evolution is true then Adam and Eve are not, because death entered into the world before them.
No.2 If Adam and Eve are just a bible story then there is no inherited sin that was passed down from Adam–that is a sin nature in our genes that makes us want to do opposite the law of God.
No.3 If there is no sin nature, nor death as a result of our sin, then there is no need for a Saviour form that sin.
no.4 Jesus Christ was then a liar or a lunatic, because he claimed to be Lord of all things and claimed that he was sent to be a sacrifice for our sins. then the CHURCH is a farce and has no relevant function on Earth–even a mistaken pitiful imposter, living a fantasy.
No.4 But because there is personal revelation in the heart about scripture resulting in faith in something that we cannot see–but sense and feel–therefore there is a debate.
No. 5 What I say, I say in utmost humility and sincerity. I do not mean it in any sense arrogantly. Scripture will have the last word to America and Europe who have led the way in this theory which denies God’s glory in His creation, and overthrows faith in children before it can root in them. For the heavens declare the glory of God the psalms say and in the last days which in my years of scriptural study can tell you we are in says that men will be heady and highminded, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.
May 22, 2009 at 5:02 am #90882
AFJ, forgive me for saying so, but I am surprised that you think your entire faith will fall apart because of one scientific theory. This really does baffle me.
I also do not understand how you are able to make some of the claims you are advancing. It is clear from any in-depth study of Scripture that the creation stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken as literally as you seem to interpret them, just as it is equally plain to see that we are not yet anywhere close to the last days as described in Revelation. I am simply at a loss to understand how you are able to claim such things.
Perhaps you and I should have a private discussion through e-mail concerning religious and theological topics. Then we could return here for the scientific part of it. First, however, I really would like to have a purely doctrinal dialogue with you, if only to help us understand each other, since we both claim to be Christian but we seem to be following two completely different forms of faith. My e-mail can be accessed through the information shown under my screen name.
I’ll be gone for the weekend, but should be back by Monday. I may or may not find time to post over the weekend; if not, I will see you again on Monday. Have a good weekend!
May 22, 2009 at 5:38 am #90884quote alextemplet:
You show the curiosity and excellent problem skills of a born scientist. It’s something that no school or university can give a person.
I could right away see that in your replies. Instead of acting on belief (includes many Atheists) and emotion you weigh the facts to arrive at as logical a conclusion as possible. I wish there were many more like you in the world.
May 22, 2009 at 6:28 am #90885David GeorgeParticipantquote alextemplet:
I simply don’t understand why you need to interpret "God’s own words"……….I’ve seen many christians who support evolution say this "interpretation stuff"……….it looks nice to balance evolution and faith………the problem is different people can interpret in different manners……and i simply don’t understand how the killing of innocent people can be justified…..i mean to say abt the plagues of egypt…….I would love to hear your "interpretation" on that…LOL
May 22, 2009 at 6:42 am #90886
David, I would like an honest answer to this question:
Are you honestly interested in hearing an answer to your question, or is this just another attempt of yours to advance your obvious bigotry while attempting – poorly – to disguise it as some sort of reason?
I am sorry if this offends you, but in my experience you have shown a debating style not unlike the currently-ignored gamila, and until I am certain you are interested in a serious discussion and not simple faith-bashing, I will decline to respond to your question just as I am currently ignoring his.
May 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm #90891
AFJ I totally understand your dillema. I just want to address these points:quote AFJ:
Perhaps not everything happened the way the Bible tells it – but that doesn’t make it untrue. Think of biblical creation as an allegory or a myth. There is still a core message to it that is culturally and religiously important, regardless of the actual truth of the account.
People obviously need saving from something – otherwise why would they cling to religions that offer them such salvation? So perhaps the biblical account is not entirely factual; but recognizing this does not invalidate your faith. (or it shouldn’t)
The all-or-nothing attitude of literal creationists is what creates angry atheists. People will either turn a perpetually blind eye to scientific evidence or be so blown away by it that their faith is irrevocably destroyed.
I’ll come back to my previous point: There are many ways to interpret religious texts, and there are many doctrines, but there is only one you. You believe in a personal god, so why should you need everyone else’s interpretations of what you should believe? (mine included) To butcher a famous quote by Galileo: why would God endow you with reason and logic, and then expect you to forego them? The Bible is just words on paper that have been passed down generation to generation (and changed over time, make no mistake). You, according to your faith, are a direct creation of God. Ultimately, which can you trust more?
Finally I’ll just say this: AFJ you’re obviously an inquisitive person, you wouldn’t be here otherwise. I get the feeling logic and faith are pulling you different directions, but they don’t need to. I’d advise taking Alex up on his offer for email chatter. You guys can probably figure a lot out.
May 22, 2009 at 8:24 pm #90892quote David George:
DG has a point. 99% (statistic totally made up on the spot) of religious practice is interpretation. Two "bible scholars" could sit in a room for eternity quibbling over their various interpretations of religious text. One thing they can agree on is that there is an underlying truth. Personally I think that people of faith need to step back and realize what it is that they truly believe in – and let the less important matters settle out from there.
May 23, 2009 at 1:58 am #90894
No problem on the email, Alex. Back to science. Just one comment Alex and I’ll continue on Email–I already knew you thought Adam and Eve were an allegory. There’s no way to rectify a literal interpretation of Genesis and evolution. However, and this is all I will say on this website–if you read the apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans in the New Testament you will find that he taught the early Christians in Rome that we have a sinful nature that was inherited from Adam–chapters 3–8, and that Jesus Christ was the legal and substitutionary sacrifice which paid for the sin of the world.
Mr. Arastus, thank you for your understanding. I assure you that I see no difference between faith and logic. I simply love science. Even in evolutionary theory you have not or do not see many things which are postulated, or know how some things took place–but the theory fits in your mind logically or you would probably have a nervous breakdown (lol). My faith is not without evidence–some of the evidence would be supernatural intervention and would not be allowed in scientific discussion.
It is obvious that modern day science is naturalistic, and nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But the problem would be that if the truth of a matter is not completely in the scope of the natural, science would not be able to facilitate the correct answers and possibly be completely wrong in some matters. String theory postulates infinite dimensions using Einstein’s physics. It is ironic that scientists consider this a possibility and yet would not converse seriously about a spiritual dimension or the spiritual nature of man, or God.
May 23, 2009 at 2:34 am #90895
Endosymbiotic theory: These are some excerpts from an online article by Dr. Georgia Purdom
Ph.D., molecular genetics, Ohio State University.
She has published papers in the Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. She is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology, and American Society for Cell Biology, and the Creation Research Society.
"Endosymbiotic theory proposes that primary endosymbiosis of cyanobacteria by an ancestral cell gave rise to algae and plants and secondary endosymbiosis of algae by protists gave rise to photosynthetic protists.
"The following quote gives us a picture of how evolutionists believe plastid endosymbiosis may have occurred:
" ‘Endosymbiosis may be initiated when a phagotrophic protist engulfs an alga as prey. The protist fails, however, to digest the alga and thus accidentally retains it within the cell like a toothpick that cannot be swallowed [known as the “stuck-in-the-throat” model].1…This process of endosymbiosis requires genetic integration between the host and symbiont; vast amount of genes are transferred to the host nucleus, and protein transport machinery is established to transport products back into the plastid.’1"
"Endosymbiotic theory proposes that the genes for organelle proteins got transferred to the nucleus as part of a reduction process by the bacteria/cyanobacteria as they became a permanent part of the cell."
"The problem for the cell was that it then had to “evolve” transport pathways to bring the organelle proteins back to the organelle….Each organelle has specific [protein] pathways…to accomplish this and there are typically several different pathways [for each] organelle….five pathways have been identified so far for transport of proteins into mitochondria.2 The case is similar for plastids.
"Since mutations are the only “tool” evolution has to “work” with, and since evolutionists have yet to show how new information could be added to a genome without design, mutations cannot account for the origin of these protein-transport pathways. If there is no way to form these pathways, then the organelles would become obsolete once they started transferring their genes to the nucleus. Furthermore, if there was no pathway to return the proteins to the organelle, then the organelles would stop functioning and would no longer be selected for because they did not serve a purpose.
"Intermediates not found
"For many years, the eukaryotic protists Archezoa, a now abandoned classification, were thought to lack mitochondria and to have branched off before the mitochondrial endosymbiotic event.3 However, recent findings have shown that Archezoa have mitochondria-like structures called mitosomes or hydrogenosomes.3 They share similarities with mitochondria, such as membrane structure and protein transport machinery, but differ in function.3 So the search goes on for a eukaryote without mitochondria. But even if one were found, that still would not prove common ancestry and a later endosymbiotic event. Similarity is at best merely consistent with common ancestry. It may just be a different species of eukaryote that God designed in such a way that it does not require functioning mitochondria (prokaryotes don’t have mitochondria and yet make a sufficient amount of ATP).
"Scientists claim that Hatena, a recently discovered protist, is a “snapshot” of an endosymbiotic event that has not yet reached completion. This organism has a unique life cycle. It contains an algal symbiont, but when it divides only one of the daughter cells gets the alga.4 The other daughter cell has a feeding apparatus that allows it to engulf an alga.4 It only engulfs a certain species of alga, and the alga retains many of its cellular components, such as a nucleus4 (these are not found in plastids where endosymbiosis is thought to have reached completion). In a news article about the findings, one biologist commented, “Whatever you need to make that [the algal symbiont] a permanent part is not occurring here. Maybe in a hundred millions [sic] years it will figure it out.’5"
May 23, 2009 at 6:05 am #90897quote AFJ:
AFJ, you had such good questions I had to answer them with what I have.
Human speciation seriously has an Adam and Eve in it. Phylogenetics helps reconstruct them. From the theory:quote :
Even where one believes Adam and Eve is just a made up story, the common metaphor still applies. What makes us "human" is thus described in the Bible and Quran.
The theory also has mineral dust/clay metabolism, one of the four requirements to produce intelligence.
From my experience "creating" computer models of this intelligence it is so "autonomous" it does not even care what I its "creator" tell it to do. I would just be talking to the computer. That does not change what it does in the virtual world we see through the video screen. But I don’t mind that it does what it wants to do it’s one of the properties of the way it works. Would be nice though for it to have the intelligence to wonder whether they have a creator pushing buttons from somewhere they can’t see. Emergent "intelligent cause" could do that to us from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence where our one lifetime is its next thought, sort of speak. Scientists estimated it is over 3 billion years old, which makes it possible for what seems to us to be a long time between thoughts, no problem at all when it lives so much longer than that we are just a brief moment. I cannot say whether molecular intelligence like this could be conscious, but that would explain where our consciousness is emergent from. Please let me know of any evidence anyone might think of.
I now reconcile Science and Genesis by considering it a thousands of year old scientific theory. None know how it was written down. But I expect scientists to be the first to be there for that event, however it happened. In this way science and religion are like one in the same. Our search for knowledge of where we came from and will go emergent from the genome that responds with high confidence pleasure chemistry similar to "love" even sex that we can feel. All that we are is inherent to in all other levels that produce the phenomena the ID movement calls "intelligent cause". And it’s coherent enough that accomplished scientists are not afraid to add what they can for new information. Any Creationist who figures all that has my and I am sure their respect for having accomplished that. When this intelligent cause is at the molecular intelligence compared to age of our human intelligence a number like 6000 years old looks about right to me. It is here the "day to the lord" that scriptures describes. What science gives us for a date multiplies by time relative to the human intelligence doing the measuring. Or in other words there are two entirely separate time frames, the one that our brain experiences and the one an intelligent cause would experience.
I reconcile Science and Religion with K-12 level science that even takes the Y forking from great-ape-48 right out of the classroom. Instead have Chromosomal Adam and Eve helping to explain what it is to be "human" and where it all began.
What do you think of that answer AFJ?
May 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm #90901
Mr. Gary, wanted to answer you. I didn’t really understand the point about Adam and Eve, are you trying to show where death originated and that the Bible symbolically uses Adam and Eve for the telomere theory of aging or is it an indirect explanation of how we came from primates, going from 48 to 46 chromosomes? http://www.telomere.net/ (read telemere theory of animal aging)
Some comments: You started with an article that says–
[quote]The article staed
"One giant chromosome may have advantage over two average sized ones, which would help explain why that sometimes happens with beneficial results. It first of all produces very large chromosomes from the shorter connecting together."[/quote]
No.1–The telomeres are for the PREVENTION and PROTECTION from the very first thing they are trying to put forth. It sometimes happens? What are the beneficial results? They give no examples.
No.2–Telomeres are the "knot" at the end of the chromosomes which protect "the chromosomes from fusing into rings, or binding haphazardly to other DNA in the cell nucleus." Check telomere.net the first paragraph.quote :
They are speaking as if the genome has a will and intelligence–it can’t guess! According to evolutionary thought, through unguided and unconscious, and unintelligent mutation this would take place. And IF it does not work, then it will be a genetic disorder–something of which there is scientific proof. Again, according to evolution, NS will then work to eliminate it, or it will stay in the population as a genetic disorder. Can you show me an instance of where these chromosomes fuse without causing a genetic disorder? Please give me research, sir.quote :
Exodus 19 and 20 Moses goes up the mountain in Sinai to God to receive the 10 commandments. He made several trips, the last one for 40 days. It was there that Moses recieved much of the law, and Genesis. 15 And Moses turned and went down from the mountain, and the two tablets of the Testimony were in his hand. The tablets were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other they were written. 16 Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets. Exodus 32:15,16
Some of the scripture is just history. You can not interpret historical events–you either believe it or you don’t. If I tell someone "I went to California on a train," they will probably believe me–they do not interpret it– because it is an event and it is believable. But if I tell someone "I went to Uranus on a space ship," they will not believe me–but they still will not interpret anything but that I am crazy (lol). In our history it says that Abraham Lincoln was shot by an John Wilkes Booth. There is no room for interpretation in this. I either believe it or not. The problem is not interpretation but weather you believe the historical facts of scripture as they are put forth.
May 24, 2009 at 12:30 am #90902
I would like to note that I did not see Moses go up the mountain, but I believe it. Just as evolutionists never actually saw the mitochondria get stuck in an ancestral cell, but believe that it did. We all have the same fossils, strata, chemistry, and science to study–we are just looking at it through different glasses.
May 24, 2009 at 6:45 am #90905quote AFJ:
At least I can’t argue with that AFJ!quote AFJ:
Accurately worded I would have to say that Adam and Eve are here a metaphor for "how we came from primates, going from 48 to 46 chromosomes". Science already has a "Mitochondrial Eve" so it’s not a big deal or beyond any limit of science to make this connection. Since there were humans before Mitochondrial Eve it’s not an accurate metaphor. Chromosomal Adam and Eve is the scientifically precise account of our speciation.
Contrary to popular misconceptions we are not the product of slow 46-46 drift process, we are the product of a 48-47-46 chromosomal speciation event where there is suddenly a first human man and woman in our human ancestry.quote AFJ:
Excellent theory! It’s describing the mechanism I thought would be there that "controls" whether telomeres are sticky or not.quote AFJ:
I wrote all that, so I’m the "They" who is physically writing the theory of ID blog. I’m currently looking for other examples but human, fruit fly and mosquito are the examples used in the PNAS paper referenced from the theory are already providing excellent examples.quote AFJ:
It is scientific terminology found in decades old AI, robotics and behavioral sciences. There is a tutorial in the Intelligence Generator/Detector that may already be in a science classroom near you.quote AFJ:
Only thing "evolutionary thought" seems to have done is steam up everyone’s glasses. Teachers are teaching that our speciation is no different from the 48-48 while we no doubt that we have 46 chromosomes. Instead of explaining this speciation event "evolutionary thought" ignored it, then used it as evidence we are just another ape.quote AFJ:quote :
I’m not sure what you are trying to evidence is unsupported with your use of NS based generalizations but if you have a problem with the current scientific views then you have to argue the matter with them by publishing your rebuttal in appropriate science journals.quote AFJ:
I’m not sure why you mentioned that either. I’m simply placing the Adam and Eve story to where in science where that event occurred.
The only way for you to change what is currently stated in the theory of ID is for you to present scientific evidence that can challenge what is already there. Which at least worked with the link to telomere theory but that only helped support what I was trying to say on the blog. The theory of ID was predicting that would exist but that was as far as I knew, which is why I had to generalize on the telomere protective/sticky mechanism. If you have info I can reference then let me know.
You’ll have to get used to using "random guess" and "good guess" terminology in science, because it’s already long existed. Many learned it that way and when you have enough experience in modeling of the phenomena there is a reason why that is a fact. We can flip a coin for "random guess". Or take a "good guess" that is in part based on past experience. It’s such a basic principal none can seriously argue it does not exist in reality which automatically makes it a part of science.
You are correct in saying that we are looking through the same science through different glasses. You have the ones I’m glad to be able to do without now that I found a pair with unusual clarity, even though levels of emergence makes it a kaleidoscope view where each has the same basic thing going on but all together makes something fascinating to watch change over time. Once you know what is going in one section it applies to all emergent views in the pictures then one thing after another keeps falling into place. And it just so happens the theory of ID glasses has Adam and Eve waving back at us when you look towards human speciation. Fruit flies have theirs too, which is a cute inference adding to the (under construction) speciation experiment.
The old glasses did not get me anywhere. I was just one more trying to validate another theory that so much changes with the direction science goes it’s something one follows. It is not a theory to go further into science with. For that we need the theory of theories, the Theory Of Intelligent Design that the Discovery Institute proposed. Only have to explain what they called "intelligent cause" and such a thing is represented in the 360 degree kaleidoscopic emergence making it all somewhat psychedelic looking. This forum’s collective intelligence in one of the sections with the AFJ reflecting through the "levels" of intelligence around it.
Proving that the Theory Of Intelligent Design could be written greatly adds to the experience of looking through that perspective. I and others are no longer repeating what everyone else is taught to repeat, we’re establishing the one that goes way beyond that. So far in fact, it is said that 99% of scientists said it was impossible. Not all know about it, but not all need to know for it to with patience become the future.
The theory thrives on your doing your best to find a weakness. But at some point you just have to accept that this "Theory Of Intelligent Design" makes perfect sense. The phenomena of "intelligent cause" is thereby coherently defined by the theory where that is the premise. Which in turn makes any you speculate and "evolutionary thought" totally irrelevant to discussion. The theory never mentions NS or "evolution" anything. Neither should you. That’s the foggy pair of glasses. These are the ones where the future of science is clearly visible through. What are the ones I’m looking through showing you?
May 24, 2009 at 11:58 am #90907
Wow i have missed alot(had exams), and im not about to read the last five pages but under skimming it seems to have turned into an ‘overwhelm the opposition with hundreds of little pieces of half relevant information" type discussions. Maybe i should have asked for any arguments against the process of evolution. As for any ‘Intelligent Design’ posters your theory defies every science possible and for someone on a science site i do not see your logic so i will take the following space to prove your theory long.
-Energy cannot be created, energy cannot be destroyed.
Don’t agree with that theory? Try it.
-Magicians at fairs are in fact tricking you, they cannot predict your future or talk to the dead.
Magic is not real.(‘Jesus was the only magic one’ i hear you say… 2000 years ago there just so happened to be a magician that was good at his game. Who knows maybe in 2000 years time Chris Angel will be worshipped)
-Black people are real.
Adam or Eve were not black.
There, 3 Simple points which defy your theory
AFJ, i was brought up as a catholic, i have only been to catholic schools for my whole life, i have made up my own mind based on simple logic. The human race is becoming too smart for magic. How can you say my ideas are based on something that i cannot see? One example –> European rabbits introduced to Australia have underwent changes in coat color changes which help them survive better in Australia bush, I can see this with my own eyes! What can you see of your theories? Alright, try this, instead of trying to prove the evolutionary process wrong which seems to be the overall action in the religious society, how about trying to prove your theory right? Lets see if you get one point other than that you saw on television blood coming out of a statue…
May 24, 2009 at 2:05 pm #90908
I am very sorry that futurezoologist that you believe that Jesus was a magician. I want to stick to science too, but this keeps coming up. Actually you are much more versed in the evolutionary doctrine than myself, but I understand the basics. You have alot of versed theory, but you show no research, so you are in effect just towing the company line.
You know all about the 48-47-46, but then you wonder if the telomeres are "sticky." SO what are you saying–it’s all glued together? The DNA is based on sequence as well as content. This is evident because of transcription and the mRMA, tRNA process to make protein. The RNA has to have the proper sequence to build the proper protein or the protein will not fit or be usable in the body. ANd the RNA gets it sequence from the DNA–so the DNA must have the proper kb sequence. Things don’t just get stuck together or mixed up like a cake and there it is. Microbiologists know that and there are some who don’t buy in to evolution!
So that’s why you read the theories you see "however it happened." That is nothing more than a suggestive statement, saying "Even though this is an idea in someone’s mind–this did happen, we can not say how, but one day we’ll tell you." All they’ll do is come up with another theory or present an extinct lemur like Ida and hail it as "finally the missing link!" Which is an admission by scientists of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil records.
Since the human race is so smart, why do we have children killing people in school, why do we have serial killers. Why do we have educated people selling balloon mortgages which have now hurt the economy. Hitler was so smart and he killed 6 million Jews. These are spiritual problems–it has nothing to do with intelligence. There thousands of smart criminals–and magic can not change them.
May 25, 2009 at 1:18 am #90909quote :
FZ are you under the impression that creationists deny species change or NS? Most don’t. A wise creator has put adaptation within his creation–and why not? It is for survival. The scripture uses the word " kinds." Well qualified Ph.Ds are now researching to see how broad a kind is. Is it the equivalent of a family or order? You see there is flexibility within a given model, just like you have flexibility in your model.
The rabbits are still rabbits, and the fossil record shows fully formed organisms, not extinct transitions which were not selected (not deformities but species who didn’t make it because they were in transition). Try to cross a dog with a cat FZ. There is a genetic boundary. ANd I do not believe the evolutionary theories of speciation through separation and genetic drift. The genetic boundary was put there by God in the beginning. Therefore you are made in the image of God!quote :
That’s not what I receive as testimony from the Spirit of God. You have been presented a stained glassed Jesus and Mother Mary with a little halo. No offense against catholics, but we live in the real world and we need power to overcome it. The Jesus we find in scripture is in the trenches with sinners–thats who he came to save–and in Acts he sends His Spirit and fire from heaven upon Peter and the first congregation. The bible says they turned the world upside down.
May 25, 2009 at 3:52 am #90910
Wow, apparently I missed a lot during my weekend out of town. Here’s a few comments:quote futurezoologist:
A. How do you know what Adam and Eve’s race was?
B. What does their race have to do with anything?quote AFJ:
I have never been able to see this as anything more than an "easy way out" for the anti-evolution crowd. Used to be they were very much denying the possibility of speciation – in fact many still do today. Then plenty of speciation events were shown, and they switched to denying genera and families; in some cases, whole orders or classes. One by one, these are being shown as well. What’s next? Retreating to classifying a "kind" as a phylum or kingdom? The beauty of this plan, is that every time new evidence comes to light, you can simply change your definition and claim your theory still stands.quote AFJ:
A little bit of shameless religious propaganda is in order here. You are exactly right, AFJ, that Christ and his apostles did work wonders. Acts is one of my favorite books because it tells the story of the founding of the Catholic Church, and the reason I am Catholic today is because that Church alone has the true annointing and power to overcome evil and continues to perform miracles. As Christ said Himself, "This is My Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it!"
Okay, I admit that probably wasn’t necessary; just showing a little pride in my faith, that’s all! :p
May 26, 2009 at 12:45 am #90912
Hi Alex and all,
Been doing a bit of thinking. First of all, I wanted to say that if I’ve been overly dogmatic in something I’ve said or seemed judgmental, it was not my intention. I don’t want to be labeled a troll, and I have noticed more and more buttons on top there. I think that we can respectfully disagree on things, without getting annoyed. That should be the spirit of true science I think. Bring your point out and be done with it.quote :
That was first of all a long time ago, the catholic and protestant churches all preached fixity of species back in the 1800s. If we are going to be true scientist or science students we have to acknowledge research. you can still keep the model until the model has run out of road.
Alex honestly we don’t know what "kinds" is. Species is also a word that is "controversial in biology and philosophy. Biologists disagree on the definition of the term ‘species.’ Philosophers disagree over the ontological status of species…" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/ So it’s not really fair to mock at not knowing what kinds is.
There are creationist theories I’ve heard and can not cite at the moment which believe for instance that the genes were much broader before the fall of man and afterward there was enough information in the genome to cause variation in the "kinds." For instance epines could have been a kind(I believe) and with more information which caused variation into modern zebras, horses donkeys and the like. Evolution says it happened by mutation, some creationists propose a DNA with more info which was already there. Maybe that’s why there’s junk DNA. Just a thought. I need to study it more, but that is the gist.
That would explain why some scientists say there is a continuing loss of info in the genome, and it would also be in line with the thermodynamic law of entropy. That systems left to themselves tend to break down, they do not become more orderly unless there is intervention of some type.
This is one of my greatest objections to evolution, the continual upward genetic drift by mutation. This would also in my mind bring deformities as fins turn to legs and other transitions and natural selection would eliminate it. It would not be able to survive. And why would it be upward when the genome has no intelligence? There are also new sequences, not just one kb. The mutation doesn’t know what it’s doing, or what it’s producing. And then modern mutations seem to be detrimental currently not upward.
May 26, 2009 at 1:02 am #90913quote AFJ:
In this I find myself in complete agreement with you. 😉quote AFJ:
The Catholic Church has actually always left the door open to evolutionary theory since at least the 4th century. Many Protestant churches have traditionally opposed evolution in any form, and this is why Christianity as a whole often gets labeled (incorrectly) as an anti-evolutionist religion, even when the oldest and original Christian Church has always been accepting of evolution. Some of those Protestant churches are today relaxing their opposition to allow such views as theistic evolution; some (especially non-demons and evangelicals) are just as opposed to it as ever. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems!quote AFJ:
I understand your point but I still don’t agree with it. Why couldn’t God have used evolutionary systems to create life?quote AFJ:
This only applies to a closed system; the earth (and life on it) is not a closed system because it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. If the sun were to die, life would soon follow, precisely because of the reason you have stated.quote AFJ:
How are you defining "upward"? Anyway experiments with bacteria and viruses have shown that completely new genetic material is capable of being developed through mutation. This is what gives medical doctors such headaches trying to stop diseases!
May 26, 2009 at 1:50 am #90914quote :
Because most evangelicals don’t pick and choose what they want to take as literal. How do you get your authority for the Catholic Church from Acts if I can turn around and say it’s symbolic or an allegory, or it doesn’t mean what it says? You take Acts ch. 2 literally but not Genesis. Do you take Exodus literally, because Moses received Genesis on Mount Sinai from God according to Exodus?quote :
Okay, I’ve got to address this.
No.1 We are not bacteria.
No.2 We do not pick up plasmids which change our genetic material.
No.3 Bacteria were put into whole different domain after it was discovered that they are completely different from us genetically–like night and day.
No.4 I don’t see them moving up the evolutionary scale because they obtain new genetic material. They will be hard pressed to become protists because protists are eukaryotes. Totally different genetically.
No.5 Cyanobacteria are dated (supposedly) at 2.8 billion years (evolution dated) , they are the (allegedly) oldest known fossils and are still bacteria!
No.6 This is obviously the way God gives them an immune system seeing they don’t have white blood cells and antibodies.
Good night my friend!
May 26, 2009 at 2:53 am #90915quote AFJ:
Careful analysis of Scripture will make it clear which parts are history and which are allegory; Acts was clearly written as a history. In my experience (sorry if this offends), many non-denoms have a rather poor understanding of Scripture because they do not actually study it rather than merely read it, if that makes any sense. Or, put another way, they simply accept whatever their pastor tells them, without taking the time to think about it, compare it with the Scriptures to verify or deny it, and learn to understand it so as to make their faith their own. Actually the same can be said for Christians in any denomination, Catholics included. Anyone who actually takes the time to study the Scriptures has a rare gift of faith indeed!
By the way, historical research shows that the Book of Genesis (in its current form, at least) did not come into existence until approximately the time of King David, when its final version was assembled from various other texts of widely differing authorship. Some parts of it no doubt date back to Moses, but other chapters are from different times and different authors. Anyway that’s drifting a bit from the topic of this thread, so I’ll get back to the point.
No we are not bacteria, but out DNA is composed of the exact same nucleotides and operates according to the same principles. The reason so many studies are done with bacteria is because of their short generation time of only twenty minutes; it sure beats having to wait twenty years or so for some larger vertebrates! Anyway, before I go into a more detailed response, I want to make sure I understand what I’m responding too, so here’s two questions for you:quote AFJ:
What do you mean by "up the evolutionary scale"? Are you applying some sort of medieval theory of biology here, the ladder of life or chain of being? How do you define "up" and why would bacteria be expected to move in that direction?quote AFJ:
Why would they be anything else? The entire point of natural selection is survival and reproduction. If they can do those two things just fine being bacteria, why change a good thing?
May 27, 2009 at 2:14 am #90921
Have to go to bed. But quickly. Yes the entire Bible was compiled at different times. But authorship of writings was held over centuries by the Jewish scribes, and their reverence for the scripture was something that we don’t understand today. That is why in Psalm 1 and God’s command to Joshua in Joshua 1 it is a blessing to meditate in the law of God "day and night." The Jews passed it down from generation to generation. You may be correct that parts of Genesis were written by others, but they would have no doubt had to be respected prophets or scribes, their bar was high for authorship–couldn’t just be Joe down the street. Must be a proven prophet. But traditionally, it has always been accepted that Genesis was mostly penned by Moses, or perhaps God on the mount. It is sure that he recieved the law and instructions of the priesthood and the building of the tabernacle on the mount, because Exodus is contexted that way.
I feel safe though Alex trusting in the scripture and Him who wrote it. Because "holy men of old spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost." This is from the one of the epistles of Peter (don’t have time to cite). And "All scripture is given by inspiration of God ("God breathed" in the Greek) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped unto every good work." Paul’s epistle to Timothy (I Timothy 3:16 I believe). Jesus said, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word shall never pass away."
I don’t know if you read my post where I said that if you read Paul’s letter to the early Roman Christians (Rom. ch. 3–8), you’ ll see that he taught sin came from Adam, and that Jesus Christ through his atonement on the cross and his resurrection sets us free from the power of sin. It’s very important to understand that Jesus did not come from the Adamic line–hence the virgin birth. His blood was not tainted by the sinful nature that we receive from Adam. He is called the second Adam in I Corinthians, because he had a sinless nature, like Adam did before he was beguiled by the serpent.
I’m not catholic but doesn’t your church teach the original sin? Original sin and the fall of man was part of catholic teaching I thought.
May 27, 2009 at 2:19 am #90922
Actually Adam was persuaded by his wife, Eve was fooled by Satan.
May 27, 2009 at 3:38 am #90923quote AFJ:
There’s a difference between trusting in Scripture and trusting only in Scripture (sola scriptura, as Martin Luther called it). The Bible makes it clear that not all truth is contained with its texts.quote AFJ:
Yes I read it but it still doesn’t bring me much closer to understanding your position. Are you going to take me up on my offer for an e-mail discussion?quote AFJ:
Yes, this is one of the biggest reasons many Protestants take issues with Catholicism because this doctrine is often used as a justification for the practice of infant baptism. Apparently you don’t seem to belong to that crowd of Protestantism, though, with as much as you keep talking about original sin.
May 27, 2009 at 5:48 am #90924quote AFJ:
Good point. And you go on in later posts to point out scripture in the "history" portion that claims everything in the Bible is the word of God. Being an agnostic; I don’t believe any of it’s literally true, but I think you’re giving Alex a run for his money ;). Keep it up (in email).
May 28, 2009 at 1:38 am #90928quote :
Truth will not contradict itself. If there is other truth, and the scripture is truth, they will agree and/or support each other. Otherwise one or both is not truth. Otherwise truth is not truth. This is simple philosophical logic.
SO it comes down to what you decide to believe. Even for agnostics Mr. Arastus. You believe in God or you believe in no god, but you believe something–maybe you believe you’re just another species, but you believe something. It is quite interesting that we even ask the question of origin–where does that come from? Genes? I doubt that.
I don’t want to get into doctrinal discussions here my friend. SInce It is a science website. I think some God talk is in order since evolution is about our origins, but denom doctrine is purely religious. You can contact me at email@example.com.
May 28, 2009 at 5:29 am #90930
Is that your way of asking me to send you an e-mail instead of you taking me up on my offer to send me one? 😉
May 29, 2009 at 2:09 pm #90935
Oh hang on… i must have missed something.quote :
When did i say the human race was smart? Since civilization has begun has intelligence ever helped people pass on their genes? No, in fact its probably reduced their probability of passing on their genes. And we can prove that we are not smart by the fact that a few thousand years ago we thought a whole race of people originated from two people.quote :
No Alex, not how do I know what Adam and Eves race was, how the writers of genesis knew what their race was, they knew they were white, i know (and sorry if i seem a bit one-sided with this comment)that it is impossible for a whole race of people to have originated from two people–Many more problems than low genetic variation. Even so i don’t need to know what race they were, by the fact that we actually have several seperate races it proves the Adam and Eve wrong. (off topic a bit, just a quick question i have: if Adam and Eve only had sons who did they reproduce with to produce more people?)quote :
A lot. if Christians do not believe in the mutation of new genes then how do they suppose a new race came into play. Believers in such scriptures it seems are always adding a bit more to their books as the evidence overwhelms their arguments and they will continue to, because they need religion to guide their life and have someone to talk to when they feel down and religion needs them to exist, so they defend it.
This argument is way more complex than it should be, if a scientific journal said that Twisties killed 200 people every day or that one in three elephants had eight heads(providing no evidence obviously), what would you think of this journal? This is my view of the bible. So many on this site make out that they are thinking outside the square by believing in such blatent rubbish-the world is 5000 years old, magic is real, blah blah, its so outwardly obvious. Sure its a great story but please don’t use it as a backing for your conclusions.quote :
Wait minute… then why are we debating? The original question i posted referred to any arguments with natural selection and other forms of evolution. If the bibles are now accepting that their god had already thought of natural selection and was the creator of it but they had not yet derived the symbolism in their scriptures to let them know this(as is usually the case)… then what is this argument about?
Sorry if there is a lot of errors as it is late and im sleepy.
May 29, 2009 at 7:09 pm #90936quote futurezoologist:
 Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi
Colloquium Paper: Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes
PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; published online before print April 25, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
May 30, 2009 at 12:55 am #90938
Sorry Gary your going to have to be a bit more specific on that, there’s about 30 pages there and i don’t have time to read it all at the moment, if you are referring to the population starting from a few individuals at a cellular level then this is not what I’m referring to, I’m referring to the theory that 2 humans(as we know them now) were plonked onto the planet 5000 years ago.
May 30, 2009 at 12:57 am #90939
I’m prettttty sure the bible never talks about Adam and Eve’s skin color. In fact, so far as I know, the only book that mentions skin color is Psalms, poetically describing body parts.
Cultural norms have probably shaped the idea for many that biblical characters shared european traits.
My understanding of white-skin origin is that after diverging from african populations, northern populations lost pigment in a selective response to vitamin deficiency. ??
It is also my understanding that "black" people are also a divergence from the evolutionary predecessors, who were more brown-skinned.
PS: FZ I think your sig is more disturbing than mine. Well done!
May 30, 2009 at 1:46 am #90940quote :
Because FZ. NS and evolution are not necessarily synonymous. NS has been observed but it has been seen to be temporary –that is when stressful environmental factors take place the population of a species may exhibit certain traits more dominantly. This is because certain traits may not enable certain organisms to survive under certain conditions. When less stressful factors return so do the original variety of traits. I would have to do some hunting to find the research, but I have read it. It had to do with bird beaks and it was couple who had actually done the research for quite a number of years. Forgive my vagueness.quote :
Perhaps I confused you with someone else. I thought you had said Jesus was a magician and toward the end of the post you said that humans were getting too smart for magic.
May 30, 2009 at 2:36 am #90941
“The Hemoglobin number,”– that is the number of different ways you can arrange the molecules that form Hemoglobin. There are more ways to arrange them than there are atoms in the universe, but there are only 5 ways that work! What are the odds that evolution happened? Not a chance!
From Dr. David Menton PhD
Dr. Menton was awarded "Professor of the Year" in 1998 while associate professor of anatomy at the respected Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis—now a professor emeritus (he holds a PhD in cell biology from an Ivy League school, Brown University).
Never have figured out how evolutionists can ignore probability. Hemoglobin is formed by the coded mRNA and the ribosome, with the tRNA molecules which bring the proper amino acids which will match the nuecleotides in the mRNA. But mRNA gets its instructions from DNA. Point being that if the improbability of chance in hemoglobin is high, how much more for the DNA which is a much longer molecule?!
Here’s another. Evolution is built on billions of years because it has to be. Take it out of the equation and it’s over.
Im not a nuclear physicist so I’m asking. How much hydrogen would it take for the sun to burn for 4.5 billion years? I know this goes against theory but it seems like if the sun were really that old it would have had to be much bigger at on time —just for the simple fact of the amount of hydrogen it would take if it has burnt that long. But even though measurements do show the sun to be shrinking, it is supposed to expand until about 10 billion years and become a red giant. Inconceivable.
On the other hand, it is much more logical that complex systems or objects of any kind show design and therefore are designed and therefore have a designer.
May 30, 2009 at 5:24 am #90942quote futurezoologist:
To reduce it down to its basics here is the K-12 explanation I have so far of the speciation mechanism(s). Natural selection is not mentioned because speciation would still occur without it.quote :
At this point in time a "Chromosomal" Adam and Eve exists in science. A few might disagree with the 6 or so million year date but that is just a detail when the one and only Adam and Eve are now taking their place in our origin story. And it’s not expected to be some hairy apish looking couple. It appears that reproductive problems from the fusion would require many generations of 48/47’s before there were even 46’s so we were already way different from the original 48 that put the fusion into genetic memory. I might also be able to conclude they had to be "human" enough to consider human to be able to survive the human chromosome structure. Where to place them in the fossil evidence will depend on what is learned from reconstructing them from phylogenetic data, but that’s a challenge for the future.
The creation story found in Islam and Christianity and almost all others know about anyway, is where science is now heading. Includes the dust/clay work from Harvard but the easiest way to understand that is read the theory blog then see papers in references.
With all said, detail that Genesis does not include now has science to support the story. The fruit tree Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat from for some reason, could here have been the fruit fly food for the fruit fly Adam and Eve and all their grandchildren. It’s a little funny to have to conclude that, but there you go. A little entertainment to go with your science, like the Creator has a good sense of humor or something.
I know it’s not the plonking of two humans here 5000 years ago. Would need to be more like 6 million years, and from chromosomal speciation but scripture still works. And Creationists are well motivated towards somehow getting their Adam and Eve based world-view into science so this happening is no less than a "miracle" for them to have science they can do and not get in real trouble. It will no doubt replace the thinking we are the product of the same slow 48 ape to 48 ape speciation process we see at the zoo. Only humans have the signature 46 chromosome structure with all at once massive fusion event. And I think there is a scripture somewhere that adds detail where Adam and Eve’s children found partners outside the family, as would here be possible.
All eventually makes sense in the light of science. Even Genesis. Which is why you need to understand what the long paper is explaining to know why origin of life science kinda already went the way of scripture.
May 30, 2009 at 4:30 pm #90946quote :
But this would take vast amounts of time also, as your theory says. Being that evolution would take so much time it seems that the populations would get so large that there would be evidence of it in our crust, seeing they would overpopulate and then regulate through lack of resources, catastophe, or disease. Most of the crust is silicon and oxygen, with of course all the other elements and compounds.
WHERE ARE THE VAST AMOUNTS OF CALCIUM THAT WOULD HAVE COME FROM THE BONES OF THOSE ANIMALS WHO DID NOT FOSSILIZE?
BECAUSE IT ALLEGEDLY TOOK SO MUCH TIME TO SPECIATE, WHY WOULD CALCIUM NOT BE DISPERSED EVENLY IN THE CRUST, BECAUSE THE ANIMAL POPULATIONS WOULD HAVE OVERPOPULATED, COVERED THE EARTH AND THEN REGULATED THE POPULATIONS? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE CRUST OF THIS.
And how did immobile plants seperate? They happened to somehow seperate and then mutate and then their transitions become dust–no trace.quote :
Yes completely true within designed kinds.The genetic material between certain species will not do this though–it produces nothing. And preferential instinct keeps this from happening also. Hippos will not mate with an alligator even tough they are in the same habitat.
You mean like blue green algae for on example. Supposedly the oldest living fossils or fossils period. A bit out of the subject at hand but evolutionary theory compares apples to oranges, comparing asexual to sexual, microorganisms to complex multicellular creatures who have entire immune systems, and do not rely on plasmids to adapt and survive.
And yes, my thoughts exactly, evolution would predict no living fossils in bacteria, because of the cloning between parent and daughter. How would they speciate and be seperate species. Once they changed their genetic material it should have remained and the old would have died off quickly. Cyanobacteria are still here after supposedly 2.8 billion years.
May 31, 2009 at 1:23 am #90947quote futurezoologist:
Wrong; the Bible never once indicates what Adam and Eve’s race might have been.quote futurezoologist:
According to Genesis, Adam and Eve also had daughters.quote futurezoologist:
Okay I see your point now. Although I would like to point out that the majority of Christianity (mainly Catholic and Orthodox denominations) have never had anything against evolutionary theory; it is only within the last five hundred years or so that a very vocal minority of Christian churches has tried to enforce a more literal interpretation of the Biblical creation stories. As far as we know, there is no evidence that the early Christians or even Christ Himself subscribed to such literalist ideologies.quote futurezoologist:
I agree with you here; there is no reason a Christian cannot accept both God and evolution. In fact, for the past two thousand years, the majority of Christian churches have done exactly that.quote futurezoologist:
If you’ll forgive me saying so, it would appear from some of your posts that you have a very poor knowledge of the Bible. Might I suggest that you refrain from judging a book you haven’t read?quote AstusAleator:
Very true; artists have traditionally painted Biblical figures to look like their own race. It is by no means universal to depict Biblical characters as European, however; if you examine African Christian art, for example, many African artists paint Biblical characters to be black. If I absolutely had to identify a race or ethnicity for any Biblical figures, I would say Hebrew for most of them.quote AFJ:
You’re right that natural selection and evolution are not synonymous, but it is not correct to say that natural selection has been observed. Evolution is what has been observed; natural selection is simply a theory attempting to explain how the phenomenon of evolution works.quote AFJ:
So you admit that you’re not an astrophysicist, and go on to claim that the proposed life cycle of a star must be impossible because you are unable to understand it? I’m not astrophysicist either (If I was I would try to answer your question.), so I’d just like to point out that this sounds a lot like saying that I’m not an auto mechanic, so I don’t understand how the engine in my car runs, and because I don’t understand it, it must be impossible for my car to operate. Hm, wonder how I’m able to drive it then?quote AFJ:
Wait a minute . . . How do you know that a species would overpopulate the entire earth before it would be able to evolve? This makes absolutely no sense. There are plenty of natural factors at work here (such as predation and disease) that work to help keep a species’s population levels down.quote AFJ:
You still haven’t answered my question as to why they should be anything else.
May 31, 2009 at 1:36 am #90950quote alextemplet:
I would like to add one thought real quick, and my apologies if this isn’t really relevant. I’d just like to say that this is one of the biggest reasons why I have never been able to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis. Incest like that would’ve killed humanity off pretty quickly. Don’t believe me? Just take a trip to Mississippi. 😉
May 31, 2009 at 8:01 am #90952
Two good books:
The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner (NS and adaptation in Finches)
The Island of the Colorblind by Oliver Sacks (founder effect, genetic drift)quote alextemplet:
NS and Evolution have been observed… NS is a process not a theory. There is a theory "Theory of Natural Selection" that attempts to explain the process. Lets not mangle words here. It’s bad enough we’re into religion, lets not start playing with semantics.
May 31, 2009 at 8:55 am #90954quote :
Yes alex your right, in our current day and age the bible wouldn’t dare do such a thing, funny thing is though is that the bible can have its meanings miraculously changed when it is getting ‘translated’ from language to language, especially if it were beneficial to the ones who translated it…quote :
Well you have got me on the back foot there as i may not have actually read the bible myself, but i have grown up with teachers and others telling me of how Jesus made wine, healed people, walked on water, came back from the dead etc. etc. and unless they were all lying then does my judgment not stand? Could making wine from water not be related to elephants with eight heads?quote :
Yes. they return to their original state when the stress is alleviated because the trait which helped them survive at the time of environmental stress may have been a burden on them, therefore less chance of survival/pass genes so the trait slowly diminishes. What is the problem here, i do not understand?quote :
BAH, Here we go again with logic. ITS NOT MORE LOGICAL, its just easier to understand.quote :
Google it before you make such outrageous comments, larger volume does not mean larger mass, it is quite conceivable.quote :
There is infact a chance, one that is much greater than you say (see attached picture of a hemoglobin molecule) i could not fit enough zeros on this page to account for the number of atoms in my body(slight exaggeration) and you are saying that this molecule could be arranged as many times as there are atoms in the universe? 90% of arrangements would not work because of electrostatic attraction and repulsion so your left with say 10% of the arrangements and all the time in the world… Also on googling "the hemoglobin number" the only website i found that referred to it was "blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/"… another genesis site.
PS one quick question, how do you make the quoter’s name appear at the top of the quote?
May 31, 2009 at 8:35 pm #90958quote :
Alex, I do have to say I appreciate your dedication to evolutionary theory, even though you have never seen bacteria or archaens or protists go through the process of becoming man. You keep speaking of evolution as though the entire process has been observed before your eyes.
There is no way to test events of the past which have been presented in numerous hypotheses that came from speculative "put forwards." The rest of it comes from the interpretations of the evidence by people who have been completely indoctrinated in the theory since 4th grade– with no rebuttal whatsoever. Just remember the first side always seems right–Proverbs even says that.
Darwin took adaptation principles that God put in his creatures for survival and credited his theory with this discovery.
The biggest problem with evolution is the vast time, yet you need it. The cambrian explosion, the sun having burnt for 4.5 billion years i.e. the quantity of H, and the world population are all arguments against an old earth and/or evolution. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4&feature=related
May 31, 2009 at 9:30 pm #90959quote :
FZ, I’m not sure what you are asking, or perhaps you took the statement ambiguously. Are you understanding this as if Dr. Menton was saying there are a vast number of ways to arrange the atoms and hemoglobin still be functional?
No. He was saying they could be arranged randomly that number in primary structure, not secondarily, nor tertiarily, nor quaternarily as hemoglobin does. He was simply saying that primarily if you took the single atoms out of their amino acid arrangements, they could bond a vast number of ways, I mean it’s all H, C, O, N, and S, the last 4 having alot of valency.
By the way, I’m not sure if you have the entire molecule in your diagram. It is made up of 4 different alpha helices. At any rate it is vastly oversimplified and does not show the secondary or quaternary structure of hemoglobin.
May 31, 2009 at 10:36 pm #90960quote AstusAleator:
You’ve got me a little confused here, because I’ve always understood evolution to be the process and natural selection to be the theory. I’m not quite sure how natural selection differs from "theory of natural selection." I’m inclined to take your word because you’ve got the degree and I’m still an undergrad, but perhaps you’d like to expand on this?quote futurezoologist:
All I’m saying is that, if you want people to take your posts seriously, you should make sure to check your facts first. Makings statements that are obviously false, such as your claim that the Bible claims Adam and Eve were white, only makes you look ignorant. Even a quick search on Google or Wikipedia should give you a decent background knowledge to avoid such wildly innaccurate statements.quote AFJ:
So once again you are suggesting that all law enforcement agencies should be disbanded, because if there’s no way to tell for sure what happened in the past, then detectives and historians and anyone else involved in studying the past are all just blowing smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but this is just plain false.quote AFJ:
I think you might want to read up on what exactly evolution is, because it basically comes down to species adapting to their environment. If you admit that God has given organisms the ability to adapt to their environment, then you have already admitted that He has given them the ability to evolve.quote AFJ:
Yet we already know that the universe is old enough; otherwise we wouldn’t be able to see stars at night.quote AFJ:
The cambrian explosion question has been answered before, and I am not sure how the sun’s age or the world population have anything to do with this. Perhaps you could explain your questions in a bit more detail?quote AFJ:
That’s true but you have to consider how many different ways atoms bond naturally. You can’t just randomly mix two chemicals and expect to get a certain product; there’s all sorts of limitations on how atoms and molecules react with one another. After all, if there weren’t, I’d expect my last course in organic chem would’ve been much simpler!quote AFJ:
I’m going to assume you don’t know what "valency" means, because hydrogen does not have a lot of valency! It can only bond to one other atom. Oxygen and sulfur can each bond to two other atoms, nitrogen to three, and carbon to four. These numbers all have to do with the number of valence electrons each atom has, and they put an absolute limit on the number of different ways a molecule can be arranged.
June 1, 2009 at 12:35 am #90961quote :
A vast number of ways yes, but i think that you think it is much more than it is, you haven’t taken into account polar bonds(of which there are a lot in hemoglobin due to H, N, O), the stress put on any random structure from this imbalance alone would cancel at least half of the possibilities. Also you have to remember in the early atmosphere-lots of heat from volcanism,lots of lightning.Also solubility would limit the number of combinations, many of the combinations would be soluble in water so they would not bond.quote :
Yes sorry about that but it is really that simple, once a helix gets started it will only attract ions which fit into its pattern, and if say a Na(despite it being soluble when bonded to almost anything) fits in where a H should have it will soon cause too much stress on the structure and break.quote :
I didn’t claim the bible said that…you are relying on the current bible(and Wikipedia for that matter) being untainted through their years of change, when the bible was put together there were no printers… each copy had to be rewritten with a quill, and then there are different versions, and as i said before, translators, there is very rarely and exact match between words in a language for example the word fish in one language may may only have a translation in another language that means sea creatures. All of these are mechanisms for mistakes, misinterpretations and changing documents for the betterment of the religion.
In the time of Jesus blacks were seen as slaves and had been for the last thousand years, correct me if I’m wrong but did they even see blacks as having souls? Why then would they give a black the title of being the first or second person on earth?
June 1, 2009 at 12:49 am #90962quote futurezoologist:
Given that a very good record of primary sources exists going all the way back to at least the Babylonian exile, we can be very certain that the Scriptures that exists today are the same as they were over two thousand years ago. You are right that some translations are more accurate than others, but this is why any respectable Church bases its doctrines on the original language. Anyway, your claim:quote futurezoologist:
is wrong, because you did claim exactly that:quote :
You did make this claim, and it is false. This is why I suggested you make sure to do a little research before posting.quote futurezoologist:
The wide-spread enslavement of Africans by Europeans didn’t begin until at least the 16th century; in the time of Jesus, most slaves were the same race as their owners. I am also unaware of any statement that blacks did not have souls; in fact I would find that highly doubtful considering that there is Biblical evidence of Ethiopians (the only mostly-black nation mentioned in the Bible) receiving baptism and other such passages that show a degree of racial equality that did not exist in later centuries. Queen Sheba, for example, whom the Bible praises for her wisdom, was almost certainly black. Can you cite a source for this supposed racial disparity?
June 1, 2009 at 1:23 am #90963quote :
By polar bonds you are I believe referring to dipole-dipole bonds. Most amino acids are made of hydrogen bonds, with one end being acid H+ and the other basic OH-. This why they bond through dehydration synthesis–the H+ and the OH- bond to make H2O and making the carboxl and the ammonium ends to bond.
However if in a random structure dipole-dipole would come into play. I don’t know who did the numbers on this, all I can say is Dr. Menton who made the quote is a PhD in cell biology. There have been articles on the odds of evolution happening, though. This is just one illustration.quote :
Lots of heat because there was so much CO2 from the volcanoes, I believe methane, N and water vapor predominately. The O2 allegedly didn’t come into being until blue green algae produced it. My question is how did the water vapor ever condense with all that greenhouse effect. We are worried about global warming now with less than 1% CO2 in the atmosphere. Venus is a good example –the atmosphere is mostly CO2 and N and the avg temp is 467 C!!
If there was enough water vapor there to fill the oceans then it would have added to the greenhouse gases. No condensation, no water and lots of heat–no life unless you say archaens (extremeophiles) were first–but bacteria fossils are supposedly oldest. And I believe even archaens are found in watery environments. You can study alot of this stuff on the Berkley website under geologic timescale.
This is another theory repetitively taught in the schools as though there is no dispute, but you can see the problems.
June 1, 2009 at 1:35 am #90964quote AFJ:
This is why sea levels were probably much lower back then.quote AFJ:
Archaeans are found in a wide variety of habitats, not all of them underwater. Also, plenty of bacteria are extremophiles, too. As for distinguishing between the two in microscopic fossils, I’m not quite sure how to go about this; perhaps someone else can answer that question better than I can.quote AFJ:
There are always problems with every theory; those that are taught in schools are taught because they fit the available evidence better than anything else we can come up with. When new theories are discovered, old ones are set aside. This is how science works.
June 1, 2009 at 1:41 am #90965quote :
Thats why I said the last 4 have more valency–I did not include hydrogen. It might comfort you to know that I do my homework (lol). I can read a diagram and see the # of bonds each element has and I also know why they do without looking in my chemistry book Alex. Because of the rule of 8 or octave rule on the elemental table, most elements want to fill up their orbitals. O and S are an "octave" apart and have two places left on their p orbitals. How did I do? I have alot to learn but I know the fundamentals.
June 1, 2009 at 1:54 am #90966
Okay, I see where I made my mistake; I see that you mentioned "last 4" which would not include hydrogen. Somehow I had thought the number 4 was a reference to carbon, which has a valence number of 4. What I deserve for posting when I really should be sleeping. My apologies.
June 1, 2009 at 6:13 am #90967quote :
Where in that sentence did i say that it was written in the bible?Just because it doesn’t appear in the modern day bible doesn’t mean that that was not the notion in the heads of the writers or in fact what they originally wrote. Although i do see your point in that it was suggestive of that.quote :
The key word there is Queen, it seems to be a general trend in history that leaders get praised.quote :
Well that’s one point to you. I’m not going to argue with that authoritative tone heh.quote :
Wow there’s a point for me.quote :
Several infact, and since you have actually read the bible im sure you could quote a few more, jesus made several racist comments actually. Heres the typical one:
"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.""quote :
Bibles do not provide evidence.quote :
Dejavu, water vapor is being continually pumped out of volcanoes, air becomes saturated, even with high temperatures if the air is saturated and more water vapor is continually pouring out of volcanoes the water has ‘no choice’ but to condense, as it condensed carbon dioxide dissolves in it (and reacted with to form carbonic acid) and we have a slow cycle which over the thousands of years evens its self out. Of course- these are theories but all evidence points towards them.quote :
Besides the point that i can’t see any devastating problems with it–if we are not to teach the future generations our theories then what are we to teach them? By your reasoning we shouldn’t teach them anything.
Sorry for some of my short unexplained answers as im in a rush.
June 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm #90982quote futurezoologist:
I find it hard to see how your statement could’ve been interpreted any other way, but I’ll take your word for it if you say that wasn’t your intention. Although I would like to again point out that your distinction between modern-day and latter-day Bibles is a false distinction.quote futurezoologist:
One of the biggest reasons Jesus was criticized by the prevailing religious leaders of His day was for not being racist enough; He was remarkably egalitarian for that time period. Hence He drank from the same well as a Samaritan woman and praised a Roman centurion for having greater faith than anyone in Israel; these are just two examples but there are more. This was also a common criticism levelled against the early Christian Church: being too inclusive. One of the biggest reasons Christianity split from Judaism was because the Christian Church was not trying to force traditional Jewish laws (circumcision, dietary regulations, etc) on their Gentile converts. The Christian mentality of "Us vs the Heathens" wouldn’t develop until centuries later, after the European Christians (and it was mostly only European Christians) gained some real political power and let it go to their heads.quote futurezoologist:
False; any historical document provides evidence into how the culture that produced it lived, thought, and developed.
Anyway we seem to be drifting way off the point here; perhaps we should just agree to disagree and get back to some real science?
June 2, 2009 at 1:19 am #90989quote :
Structure of Hemoglobin
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/Molbio/MolStudents/spring2005/Heiner/hemoglobin.html Quoted from the website above–great images!
"Hemoglobin is a tetramer composed of 4 globin molecules; 2 alpha globins and 2 beta globins. The alpha globin chain is composed of 141 amino acids and the beta globin chain is composed of 146 amino acids (Perutz, 1978). Both alpha and beta globin proteins share similar secondary and tertiary structures, each with 8 helical segments (labeled helix A-G) (Keates, 2004). Each globin chain also contains one heme molecule."
FZ you have a diagram of the heme molecule. I knew it was way too small. There are 4 of them in each hemoglobin molecule. A total of 287 amino acids plus the 4 heme molecules. Glycine is one of the smallest organic aa’s and it has 10 atoms. So it’s conceivable that hemeglobin has 3000 atoms.
Even with if all the atoms were like CO2 which is polar and strait all the atoms could bond with each other in a straight line with H bonded on the side of carbon or nitrogen.
The point is that even if you took the 287 amino acids and tried to combine them without guidance the odds of getting it right so that the polar bonds caused the secondary and tertiary, and then even a quaternary structure would be off the chart!
To think that the DNA, RNA and ribosomes could get this right with no intelligent design is not intelligent! 😉
June 2, 2009 at 1:25 am #90990
Just a note for the proceeding. This is a hypothetical illustration. I realize that when you change the sequence you may have breaks or secondary bonding through London or polar forces. i understand your points Alex and FZ, but those consequences are only in FAVOR of the design argument.
June 2, 2009 at 9:45 am #90994quote :
Yes sorry about that, i have not done much study on hemoglobin but it was my understanding that this was the site of oxygen transfer and so(if i am correct) would this not be the crucial site of which the "5 combinations" that Dr Menton referred to?(please correct me if I’m wrong) , i wasn’t trying to be persuasive.quote :
Arranging these 287 amino acids through randomness in 1000 years seems quite unlikely, 10,000 years – seeming possible, 100,000 years increasingly possible, 1,000,000 years-possible, and considering they had a few hundred million years i think it seems quite possible.quote :
You have done it for me.(see below)quote :quote :
No my friend that is false, it provides a representation of that culture and this representation is dependent on the context of the writer, a different context means a different representation, for example a historical account of written by a slave will differ hugely when compared to an upper class citizen even though they live in the same society.
I do agree we are going off topic a bit, but i had to refute as i think you’ll agree its hard to leave your arguments in a state of loss.
June 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm #91000
Futurezoologist, I’m not sure I follow your point, or more specifically I’m not sure how it differs from my own. Obviously different people may write from different perspectives, but the writings still reveals a window into the mindset of that writer. Consider, for example, how some chapters of 1 Samuel advance arguments in favor of a Hebrew kingship while other chapters in the very same book argue in favor of keeping the decentralized government the Hebrews had had previously. It is generally agreed that these different parts of 1 Samuel were written by different authors, and may never have been meant to be published together as part of the same book, but the Bible is full of such cases. Together, this gives an indication of a society that was in the midst of a serious political debate as to how it should be governed. Thus to claim that the Bible does not provide evidence into how people lived during that time is just plain silly.
But I should probably be addressing the hemoglobin question. I haven’t done the math myself, but it would not surprise me if the number of ways to arrange the atoms in hemoglobin did turn out to be more than the number of particles in the known universe. Heck, the number of ways to put together an octane with forty atoms of carbon is greater than the particles in the known universe, so hemoglobin with even more atoms should be as well. The problem with this thinking is that it doesn’t prove anything, because there are limits to how living cells put things together. The question of valency was mentioned previously, and this in itself should allow a large percentage of those "possibilities" to be thrown out the window. Then take into account that cells do not just arrange atoms randomly even within the limits of valency; cells work on the level of amino acids, not atoms. Thus any "possibility" that does not involve the whole amino acids, rather than just individual atoms, can also be thrown out. This means only a tiny percentage of those "possibilities" are actually possible in the real world. Factor in the time that futurezoologist was talking about, and the fact that only those arrangements which actually worked would survive to be passed on, and I don’t think it sounds all that impossible at all.
June 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm #91005
No functional protein in any organism ever arose by a random association of its parts. No functional protein in any organism ever arose by translation from a chance association of nucleotides.
June 2, 2009 at 11:54 pm #91008quote :
Ahh we are talking about different types of evidence now. When i made that picky remark i was referring to the fact that scientific evidence cannot be taken from such sources due to their their biasness(if that is a word) whereas you are talking of evidence like they use in crime scenes etc.
Besides our ongoing blabling at each other i think this topic is just about worn out.
June 3, 2009 at 12:10 am #91009quote futurezoologist:
Okay, I see where we misunderstood each other. And yes you’re right that the Bible is not the place to go for scientific evidence. I was speaking more about understanding the culture, which literature (even pure fiction) is very good for. So now that we’ve reached an understanding, you’re right that it is pretty much worn out.
June 3, 2009 at 12:15 am #91010quote :
Were not just talking about hemoglobin here, but entire systems of organic macro-molecules and processes that evolution can not account for.
1. Transcription--DNA does not copy to RNA with a photocopier–it is done enzymatically! That means just to get the plans for the hemoglobin enzymes are involved in sync with the RNA polymerase to produce a COMPLEMENTARY messenger RNA. How many amino acids are in the DNA and RNA for the hemoglobin? How many amino acids are in the enzymes which transcribe the mRNA?
2. The RNA journey–Then the mRNA leaves the nucleus like a snake and meets with a ribosome. How many amino acids are in the ribosome?
3. Translation— Then the mRNA and ribosome lock together like material going through a sewing machine. The ribosome translates the mRNA genetic code one nucleotide at a time into a string of amino acids that will become a protein.
4. tRNA—One of the most unexplainable things I have ever seen is tRNA–transfer RNA. As you know it brings each corresponding amino acid at the proper time and in the proper sequence. No one can explain how–it just does! THIS IS EVIDENCE OF THE UNSEEN. Something is guiding it as though it has intelligence and brings the proper amino acids at the proper time and in the proper sequence to match the mRNA strand.
5. Just one mistake in any of this process and there will serious problems or even death. And before you say that there are many mistakes–just remember that…
The Fall of Man and Death
ROMANS 5:12–Therefore, just as sin entered the world [u]through one man[/u], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
June 3, 2009 at 12:39 am #91011quote AFJ:
I am having a hard time understanding how you are able to argue that because we do not currently understand something means that it is forever inexplicable. It could just mean that it is perfectly explicable and we simply haven’t been able to figure it out yet. What you are saying is not only a logical fallacy but also a sign of weak faith. You sound as if you will no longer be able to believe in God if everything can be explained. I cannot understand how anyone can think this way.quote AFJ:
I fail to see your point with this. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
June 3, 2009 at 1:19 am #91012
Alex, my faith is in God AND his word. We are instructed to stay in sound doctrine. Did you read Rom. 5:12. Death came through one man because of sin. One of the reasonings of evolution is that not all things are DESIGNED perfectly that there are mistakes, giving an argument for unguided mutation.
The Apostle Paul taught that death had entered into the world because of sin, so it is to be expected that things will not perfect. You can see things breaking down everywhere. Even our cells have programmed death.
Death came into the world through Adam, not an amoeba 3 billion years ago. This is a scriptural doctrine from the beginning to the end and it has everything to do with salvation, justification, sanctification, redemption, the atonement, and entire plan of God. I can give you scripture after scripture.
June 3, 2009 at 1:32 am #91013
What I don’t understand is why you feel the need to come here and bolster your faith with logical fallacies claimed as evidence for a Creator. Is your faith not strong enough to stand on its own without such support? Or if it isn’t, and you need some evidence of God’s existence, then such evidence exists, but you’re looking in the wrong place. I’d be happy to elaborate on that in private, if you choose to e-mail me. I noticed you have yet to respond to the e-mail I sent you a few days ago. Are you going to take me up on the offer of a private discussion or not?
June 3, 2009 at 1:35 am #91014quote :
Alex, first of all who are you to judge me, and my faith. How is it that because I believe in the unseen hand of God in the cell that my faith is weak. Even if it is explained further, I still see it as a miracle. It is something that no man can design. But then the people in Jesus day saw miracles and still would not believe.
June 3, 2009 at 1:51 am #91015
And you quantify and qualify my faith, when you don’t even know me. God only knows my heart and faith. Do you think that because you say these things it makes it true?
Alex, at least you have not been able to accuse me of being wrong in my science, because the things I have written, I have researched and can be verified. Maybe you do not agree with my beliefs, but my science has been correct.
I will not judge your faith though, but I will only tell you what the scripture says.
June 3, 2009 at 1:53 am #91016
I am not trying to judge you, although I can see how you might get that meaning. I am trying to understand you. If you feel your faith is secure then why do you feel the need to bolster it with something that can so easily be disproven? That doesn’t look like strong faith to me; it looks like desperation. That is why I am having such a hard time understanding your motive.
I do agree that all of creation can be seen as a miracle. In fact that is one of the biggest reasons I am pursuing a science degree.
You have yet to give me an answer as to whether or not you are willing to pursue a private discussion.
June 3, 2009 at 9:36 am #91022
Alex, my motive is not to bolster my faith. I am a witness that’s all–that’s what we are to do–let our light shine. We live in a nation that started with biblical principles–the Mcuffy reader in public schools which had bible stories in them. The day was started out with prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Now we infer to our children that they are souless products of nature. Just accidents.
And you have disproven nothing to me. I have listened to evolution since 1970 when I first saw it at show and tell in a Time magazine. Radiometric dating is untestable and in doubt by some scientists. It is at best inconsistent, and has been proven to greatly exaggerate ages of known-age rocks. And there is only more and more evidence of water catastrophe. You can watch the History channel and see it. Every other time I watch it there’s another geologist explaining how this or that was formed by massive flooding, ice, landslides. Burial grounds all over with evidence of sudden death and trauma as they were covered quickly with sediment.
I have evidence inside me and there is evidence on earth and in the cell and all you have to do is tune in to the right voice.
June 3, 2009 at 3:06 pm #91026quote AFJ:
If you are speaking of evidence for a deity, then you are indeed correct that there is evidence that such exists; however, I repeat that you are looking in the wrong place. Relying on long-since disproven theories will accomplish nothing but reveal your own ignorance of the scientific method. Science requires a person to have an open mind, to be willing to admit when evidence might prove a person wrong or prove an opposing theory right. I can put the question to you very directly: Are you even willing to consider that evolution might be true, or that your own theory might be wrong? If not, then you are in the wrong place. This is why I suggested we pursue a private discussion through e-mail, and you have yet to even give me an answer as to whether or not you are interested in that route. I have asked you this question many times, and a simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.
June 3, 2009 at 11:46 pm #91035
Back to the original topic… what was the original topic??
June 4, 2009 at 1:15 am #91038quote AstusAleator:
Are there any solid arguments against evolution?
June 4, 2009 at 5:38 am #91043
June 4, 2009 at 8:57 pm #91053
AFJ, you had excellent questions. And also found the following sentence that I am not surprised has a weakness:quote AFJ:
That was added as a bridge to population over time related topics that Evolutionary Theory supports itself with but it’s only one of the types of speciation that would here be out of place dwelling on like it’s the only one. That’s one reason why scientists are in trouble, not all speciation events have "transitional" forms especially paleopolyploidy where there is immediate doubling or more in size.
You are right, especially with it coming before a fruit fly experiment where if that was what we were relying on for speciation then I doubt a one school year would matter. I’ll work on that. Let me know what you think I can do. It might fit in the Behavioral Speciation section that is the only slow one gene at a time speciation type that is even still rapid enough for lab experiments.quote AFJ:
Trilobites were once everywhere, which is why there is a mind-boggling number of different kinds in public and private collections. They could quickly multiply until they run out of food then maybe ate each other until there was more food available. Something happen then they were driven to extinction then something else took over.quote AFJ:
I know that in soil and bedrock is "calcite" that makes cave stalagmites, buffers water and clogs pipes. Large deposits of once living shells and bones are mined for calcium and magnesium. Marble deposits are pressed into stone prehistoric shells which is also hard to tell they were once living things.quote AFJ:
Like in the ocean experiment in the theory, there is water and other "sorting" that carries things to where they collect, are deposited. Where calcite precipitates out of ocean water into basins it can in the far future be mined for lawns and gardens.quote AFJ:
Some transitions happen right away, others in too short a time for there to be fossils. This theory predicts missing transitional forms leaving no trace, because they never existed. Maybe I need to include a little on the missing transitionals in the theory.quote AFJ:
I’m glad you agree, and I like your Cyanobacteria example. It’s a very simple design that works very well. A genome like that can possibly survive until the sun blows up. But one like ours has to rapidly change for something of our complexity to have emerged by now. If our genome was the same way, then we would still probably not be much past bacteria yet. My my theory-driven opinion anyway. 😀
December 8, 2009 at 1:45 am #95699
Okay, I have to admit, I am a Christian. I don’t believe in evolution. But that’s beside the point. Every evolutionist paper and book I’ve read, every teacher I’ve listened to, has said that the world came to be with an explosion of gas. Where did that gas come from? That’s the point many of us try to make. If the world came from some type of gas, who made the gas? This isn’t exactly solid proof, but it’s something to think about.:idea: ❓
December 8, 2009 at 4:10 pm #95712quote AmairahRyder:
You have either been taught wrong, or did not learn very well.
1. There was no explosion of gas. It was an expansion of space and time from a singularity. You might even see this as the "creation event" and attribute it to your God, if you wish.
2. Biological Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang Cosmology.
3. Most Christians in the world have no problem accepting evolution. They see evolution as the process by which God creates species.
4. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or electromagnetism. There really is no need for a "belief" in it.
December 15, 2009 at 2:13 pm #96031MrMisteryParticipant
Here’s a question for you to ponder: your god is an extremely complex entity – after all he designed the entire universe right? If you don’t believe in evolution by natural selection then the only way complexity can arise is by being created. Therefore, God cannot have evolved, it must have been created by some other entity that is even more complex. As you apply this reasoning ad infinitum you end up requiring the assumption of an infinitely complex entity, which is very hard to accept. The religious paradigm actually makes such kind of incredibly bold assumptions, even though they lack any kind of empirical evidence for any complexity at all. Even logically, an infinitely complex entity is much more of a handful to assume than a singularity.
December 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm #96096
Here’s a question for you to ponder: your god is an extremely complex entity – after all he designed the entire universe right? If you don’t believe in evolution by natural selection then the only way complexity can arise is by being created. Therefore, God cannot have evolved, it must have been created by some other entity that is even more complex. As you apply this reasoning ad infinitum you end up requiring the assumption of an infinitely complex entity, which is very hard to accept.The religious paradigm actually makes such kind of incredibly bold assumptions, even though they lack any kind of empirical evidence for any complexity at all. Even logically, an infinitely complex entity is much more of a handful to assume than a singularity.[/quote]
Okay, I agreed with you up until this: "As you apply this reasoning ad infinitum you end up requiring the assumption of an infinitely complex entity, which is very hard to accept." What you said is totally true. And yes, that is what we Christians believe.
December 18, 2009 at 9:21 pm #96119
I am a creationists.I truly belive that God created the universe and everything in it.Everyone has there diffrent beliefs so it truly should’nt be an argument.But thats my opinion on the subject.
December 26, 2009 at 8:49 am #96263
Modern Turbellaria, a direct descendant of Vendian Turbellaria, have eyes with lens, brain, etc.
http://translate.google.com/translate?j … l=ru&tl=en
This means that all the complex features were invented once before Vend, and then only slightly structured adaptive morphology and skeleton. Hence, the ascent from the primary broth to the crown of creation was not. Peptide nucleic technology, as well as later – a social technology of multicellularity – is engineering works.
http://translate.google.com/translate?h … ge_id%3D82
December 28, 2009 at 2:41 pm #96291
"I am a creationists.I truly belive that God created the universe and everything in it.Everyone has there diffrent beliefs so it truly should’nt be an argument.But thats my opinion on the subject."
Thank you, [i]somebody [i] undeerstands where I’m coming from. But the only reason we’re having this arguement is because we both (meaning both sides) want to prove that they’re right. There’d be no point in arguing if one had TRUE, CONCLUSIVE EVIVENCE of either God or evolution. This probably won’t count, but so as to continue my arguement :twisted:, in order for Christianity to be real, Jesus must have raised from the dead. If that wasn’t true, how come His body hasn’t been found? ❓ 💡
December 28, 2009 at 2:47 pm #96292quote robsabba:
Wait, hold on robsabba. I dont know where you got the idea that christians are okay with evolution. That completely destroys the purpose for Creation! and Evolution is not a fact. if it’s so true, why are we still sitting here like idiots arguing over it?! 🙄
December 29, 2009 at 3:10 am #96302carbonbasedlifeformParticipant
I can sum up creationists’ main point in one sentence haha.
"God is too complex to understand, so we just believe that he exists because it’s too hard to think outside the box."
Evolution stands stronger in other words, by a long shot.
December 30, 2009 at 6:15 pm #96325quote AmairahRyder:
Most Christian denominations do not have an issue with evolution, including Catholicism. It is mainly in the United States where you have many more Independent Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians and an anti-intellectual culture that creationism prospers. Evolution describes how species were created, not by whom, or where the first life came from. The reason we are still arguing about this is because creationists cannot be persuaded by rational arguments. This is because they did not arrive at their entrenched dogma by rational means in the first place.
December 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm #96326
i still completely agree with Amairahryder 😀
December 30, 2009 at 11:00 pm #96328quote kaylajean:
Well, of course you do. Don’t let the fact that Amairahryder is wrong about almost everything he has posted sway you to the contrary! Like I said… you cannot use a rational argument to persuade someone who’s position was arrived at in a non-rational manner.
December 30, 2009 at 11:08 pm #96329quote robsabba:
What proof is there that he is wrong? (Not trying to argue…. just trying to figure out the truth.)
December 30, 2009 at 11:35 pm #96330LinnParticipantquote alextemplet:
do you need me 😆
December 31, 2009 at 3:07 pm #96343quote kaylajean:
He was wrong about The Big Bang. He was wrong about even using The Big Bang as an argument against evolution. He was wrong to imply that being a Christian means he cannot accept evolution. That was basically his entire argument and it was all wrong. Why do you "completely agree" with him??
January 1, 2010 at 8:05 pm #96374
well i don’t agree with him about the big bang theory, but i am a christian.I don’t think he is completely correct about Christians don’t believe in evolution at all…i mean we do believe in some of it,but not all of it.
so my mistake i don’t completely agree with him.
January 2, 2010 at 4:45 pm #96398MrMisteryParticipant
you can’t believe some of evolution, but not all of it. For a regular person who doesn’t care to shift through the details, evolution goes down to this: natural selection is the only force that can shape complexity from simplicity and chance organisms over time. Through natural selection organisms can change over time to be as best adapted to their environment as possible. By this I mean that you need to believe that the organisms that exist today are solely the result of less adapted organisms dying and better adapted ones surviving and reproducing.
If you believe that organisms do change over time but through some sort of divine intervention or something like that, then honestly, you have missed the whole point.
I’m not saying you can’t be a christian and believe in evolution. You can. I’m just saying: don’t pretend to believe in evolution if you really don’t. It is something that greatly offends scientists.
January 8, 2010 at 4:03 pm #96530quote robsabba:
Where are you getting this stuff from?!?! 😯 😕
January 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm #96531
"Well, of course you do. Don’t let the fact that Amairahryder is wrong about almost everything he has posted sway you to the contrary! Like I said… you cannot use a rational argument to persuade someone who’s position was arrived at in a non-rational manner."
First of all, im NOT a he. Amairah is a girl’s name. Second, please explain to me why I’m so "wrong about everything"! And I’m perfectly fine with your whole " you cannot use a rational argument to persuade someone who’s position was arrived at in a non-rational manner." Thing, but that doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to say my piece.
January 13, 2010 at 3:48 pm #96639quote Linn:
Sure we need you, Linn. The more opinions the better.
January 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm #96640
What proof is there that he is wrong? (Not trying to argue…. just trying to figure out the truth.)[/quote]
He was wrong about The Big Bang. He was wrong about even using The Big Bang as an argument against evolution. He was wrong to imply that being a Christian means he cannot accept evolution. That was basically his entire argument and it was all wrong. Why do you "completely agree" with him??[/quote]
Okay. I get it. You evolutionists may have a bit more knowledge on the subject than me, but you’re missing my point. All I’m saying is that a bird mas made a bird, a lizard made a lizard, a monkey a monkey and so on and so forth. Of course it’s possible (or completely true) that some birds came from cross-breeds of other birds. I mean, they do that with domestic pets, right? But all I’m saying is that a whole species didn’t come from some other species.
January 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm #96641quote AmairahRyder:
1. Sorry about the gender thing.
2. If you come here and try to make incorrect scientific arguments against evolution, you will be called out on it.
3. Yes, birds give birth to birds, etc. In the case of humans, our ancestors were eukaryotes, animals, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, primates, and apes. We still are all of these. You cannot escape your heredity.
4. Speciation has been observed both in nature and in the lab.
January 18, 2010 at 2:08 am #96777mrblackstockParticipant
Having read through quite a few posts, I am wondering if others share my view, concerning what I believe to be a pretty strong argument against evolution.
From what I have been taught, when an environment changes the creatures evolve to adjust to the changes. Geographically the process was thought to have taken millions of years, either tectonic or climatic. This makes sense. However, much evidence is emerging that geological and climatic changes have in the past occured within a few centuries. This, surely, debunks a portion of evolution theory in that if the environment changes dramatically, the creatures that can, move to another area, denying the need for evolution to take place.
If the creatures live on an island, they have nowhere to go, and therefore must adapt or die, if succesful they might evolve, or will they? Apparently the New Zealand tuatara has not evolved in the last 5 millions years.
So, if change is the greatest motivator of evolution, and change can apparently be very quick(in geological terms), Then how will evolution occur on a large landmass when the creatures affected by change can move elsewhere? No need to evolve here……
I realise it may sound simplistic, maybe someone can illuminate a glaring error in my thought……
January 18, 2010 at 7:43 am #96781
They are changing all the time. We in Czech say something like ‘the prepared are lucky’ and here it’s the same. If they are adaptable, they can survive, if not, they will extinct (or move away, if they have enough time). Take the glacial, that was slow, so animals could go to south and didn’t have to evolve, whereas some volcano eruption is a fast event.
Even if they moved away, there will be Area of Noone and that won’t be left for long time, but some animals, who can live there will move there, because they won’t have concurence. That’s the reason, why isn’t everyone on the equator, although there is probably the best weather (no cold, enough rains, maybe too much:)
January 18, 2010 at 10:01 am #96791mrblackstockParticipant
I think the reason why everyone does not live on the equator is that humans, like all creatures are pragmatists, only acting when nessesary. Throughout the ages no creature, other than humans, has decided to risk the survival of their family unless it was impelled to do so through either territorial conflict, or starvation.
My main argument still remains, without a reason to change, one will not change or evolve. This I believe, includes animals. You state that we are always changing, if this is so, then every creature is changing at a very different rate, there are creatures that seem to have gone through enormous change since the dinosaurs, and others not at all.
Even with something everyone takes for granted, the first organisms that emerged from the ocean to develop lungs and legs, why leave the ocean, if food runs out, the population corrects itself. If the environment changes occur slow enough adaptation takes place, which may include variances between populations of shared hereditary due solely to cross-breeding naturally. but I fail to see any environment in the history of the planet that has been a stable environment long enough for an organism to evolve without it’s existence been wiped completely.
It is these questions, in my mind, that indicate that much in the theory of evolution is taken for granted, that in principle there are very good ideas, but I believe there are very big gaps in the bridge that people behold as a solid, strong bridge spanning the history of the planet.
January 18, 2010 at 10:22 am #96793
Well, I was talking about animals, not people, but IMHO both applies.
You see, that is a good example. Why did our ancestors have to get out of the water? Do you think, there is not enough food? Just look, how many creatures there is nowadays. So why?
Just because that was new, no concurence, piece in soul 😆
January 18, 2010 at 11:14 pm #96807firechildParticipantquote JackBean:
There was a driving force behind the evolution of the transitional species between fish and amphibians. The earth was warming up at this time, meaning oxygen content was decreasing (oxygen saturation being a function of temperature). Some fish evolved methods of breathing air but still being very reliant on an aquatic lifestyle. There are still many extant examples of this including Anabantoids (siamese fighting fish, gouramis, etc), mudskippers and walking catfishes. This led to the evolution of the lungfishes which could survive even longer out of water. Even a slight ability to breathe air was a huge advantage at the time when waterways were drying up and oxygen levels were dropping. By allowing fish to make small moves onto land, the predator evasion and abundant food (insects and worms had made the move to land millions of years earlier) gave these animals a great eveolutionary advantage. Tiktaalik and other intermediates show us the general trend from fish to amphibian.
January 27, 2010 at 7:32 pm #97034
Fish evolved from amphibians through early – before metamorphosis – puberty. Then the ability to genetically metamorphosis was lost and they began to fish. Swim bladder – the remnant of the ancient pulmones
http://translate.google.ru/translate?pr … ory_state0
land-water, apparently, were our ancestors Vendian – turbellarian. Today’s advanced ground turbellarian have eyes and are the land-water.
http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl … %25D0%25B8
January 28, 2010 at 3:22 am #97038firechildParticipant
I don’t understand much of that because of the poor translation provided by google. However, I would ask for some supporting evidence for such wild claims. Fish evolving from amphibians and everything evolved from flying animals? This is not only absurd but completely contradicts the fossil records, the genetic evidence and certainly defies logic.
January 28, 2010 at 5:43 am #97042
You have read about modern land (land-water) Turbellaria, who have eyes with the lens?
http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl … %25D0%25B8 ❗
Here’s another of the jellyfish, also have a chamber of the eye lens:
http://translate.google.com/translate?j … l=ru&tl=en ❗
If taxons that have a complex signs to occur each other, then they are these signs and inherit from each other. Because we conclude that: the eyes do not occur frequently and are not transferred "horizontally" in the viral vectors. This "Occam’s Razor.
Paleontology has a lot of difficulties. Something is found, something – no. Without skeleton residents Venda left very few traces in the shales, which are difficult to study and few of them. Bony skeletons and shells came later.
Ichthyostega and the latimeria, as it now turns out, lived simultaneously in the same waters. But in this case, they could well be larvae of stegocefal at different stages of metamorphosis in ontogenesis. 🙂
Genome of ancient fish and modern amphibians, as well as higher plants three times heavier than a homo sapiens.
The human genome has lost the path of synthesis of "vitamins", "essential amino acids, the absolute regenerationism genes (as in Turbellaria).
So, what is called evolution – it is adaptive devolution loss of universalism.
That’s why there is a suspicion that the theory of evolution – is the invention of creationism, that was easy to criticize far-fetched constructions. 😉
February 4, 2010 at 9:21 pm #97274cjackphilosophiaParticipant
We are all in a computer program. As long as the software does not break down the program can reproduce itself infinitely. Genetics cause us to adapt to our environment to survive. This was programed in along with math, physics, and matter. You are really on another planet on vacation experiencing this life. You will die and wake up to your normal mondaine life and be disappointed.
Not really trying to prove anything, just being interesting.
February 11, 2010 at 6:21 pm #97512brainyParticipant
I have read most of the posts, and have kind of concluded there is a root problem between the Creationists and the Evolutionists. Here it is: Evolutionists say that creationism is only a religion while saying that evolution is fact, while the truth is that they are both legitimate science. I believe that it takes much more faith to believe that we evolved by random chance then to just believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
As a creationist I do believe in evolution…. But only on the micro-evolution level. The problem is that what Darwin saw in the Galapagos islands was micro evolution. What he and scientists do today is simply take micro evolution and build macro evolution around it. Show me the fossil record of the evolution from amoeba to man. You can’t do it because it does not exist.
Also what would be your reasons for not accepting the Bible as credible evidence?
February 12, 2010 at 3:44 pm #97549mithParticipant
why do you believe micro evolution? what’s it’s mechanisms? Compare that to macro evolution.
February 16, 2010 at 4:31 pm #97658JacobGParticipant
If we are evolving from animals, why do we not see anyone in the mid stages of evolution? I (I am against evolution, this is my debate)
February 16, 2010 at 4:41 pm #97663quote brainy:
If creationism is a legitimate science, then what is the testable hypothesis or theory of creationism? What predictions does the hypothesis or theory of creationism make and how do we test them?quote brainy:
That’s nice, but no one is claiming that we evolved by "random chance." Natural Selection is a selective process, hense the "Selection" part.quote brainy:
Please define the terms "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution."quote brainy:
The fossil record supports the inference that we evolved from simpler organisms. It is not the only evidence for common descent, however. Why do you imply that it is?quote brainy:
Credible evidence as what? The Bible is a theology book, not a Biology textbook.
February 16, 2010 at 4:51 pm #97666quote JacobG:
We are animals, so of course we evolved from animals. But what are you expecting to see from teh evolution of humans? Partial wings sprouting out from people at random? Kinda like The X-Men? That’s a comic book, not reality.
Why are you "against evolution?" Are you against gravity as well?
February 16, 2010 at 5:35 pm #97670brainyParticipant
I have a question for you robsabba. Do you believe that Homer’s Iliad is true history?
February 16, 2010 at 5:40 pm #97671quote brainy:
Are you going to answer any of my questions?
February 17, 2010 at 4:42 pm #97696quote firechild:
See, I like firechild. (S)He gets right to the point in what (s)he’s trying to say, and says it correctly. I completely agree with him/her.
February 17, 2010 at 4:43 pm #97697quote brainy:
I identify with you, too. You make a good point.
March 3, 2010 at 10:59 am #98060olivortexParticipant
Creationism is not a science.
The main tactics of creationist is to twist and corrupt any viable scientific information and then say that it is wrong. To criticize the theory of evolution, one must understand it before.
Geology, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, among others, are science.
Research is an essential part of science.
Creationist "scientists" are supposed to do some research but we still await for serious information that would debunk the theory of evolution, wich is more and more confirmed by the research that is ACTUALLY DONE in the real scientific fields by real scientists.
Faith has nothing to do with science, but these two things are compatible.
An exemple of this compatibility is Ken Miller, who involved himself in the debate. Videos can easily be found on youtube.
March 24, 2010 at 10:59 am #98620TheJPParticipantquote brainy:
Evolution and creation can be mutually exclusive. Why is this difficult to comprehend?
Micro/macro evolution — this doesn’t exist. There’s evolution. There’s natural selection (the process) which leads to evolution amongst generations. This is observable. Micro/macro is creationist FUD.
March 24, 2010 at 9:39 pm #98635quote TheJP:
I just wanted to point out that the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are terms used by evolutionary biologists. They have been perverted by creationists, but they are real terms. Microevolution refers to evolution within a species, while macroevolution refers to evolution leading to speciation and the development of higher taxa. There is some discussion about whether there are additional mechanisms responsible for the evolution of higher taxa. Mass extinctions, for example, are implicated in allowing the evolution of new higher taxa by making room for adaptive radiation of surviving groups.
October 13, 2010 at 2:11 am #101796
So…what you are saying is that microevolution is known to be real (is observable) and macroevolution is extrapolated data based on what can be seen of microevolution? I totally agree. Macroevolution cannot be observed without fossil records. There are no fossil records that give conclusive evidence for macroevolution, so you simply cannot observe macroevolution. If you find one and an explanation of why it is conclusive evidence and several valid sources for your find (not outdated sources) and show me that there is absolutely no way to disprove the evidence, I will take back my statement gladly.
Anyhow, here’s a paper written by Dr. Jay Wile, a professor at the University of Rochester who has written several science textbooks, several of which I have gone through (including his biology course).
http://homepage.mac.com/christschurch/B … /enemy.pdf
The article is not so much about the validity of evolution as it is about how evolutionists bend, hide, and lie about data for the sole purpose of "proving" evolution.
The part of his blog related to this discussion:
If you don’t find anything on the first page, don’t worry…there are plenty more pages to look through (just scroll to the bottom and click "previous").
A solid argument against evolution:
Evolutionists state that there are many creatures with similar body parts (ex: human hands, ape hands, bat wings, dolphin fins, etc), and use this as evidence for evolution. However, the DNA that governs these body parts is not similar, therefore, this cannot be used as evidence for evolution and can even be used as evidence against it.
Source: Exploring Creation With Biology by Dr. Jay Wile (his biology textbook. I can’t remember the page numbers)
October 13, 2010 at 8:38 am #101799StevePushParticipantquote AgentBunni:
Your proposition is illogical. Saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying you believe you can fly from Los Angeles to New York, and you believe you can fly from New York to London, but you do not believe you can fly from Los Angeles to London with a connection in New York.quote :
Wrong. "So, we have fine fossil documentation of gradual change, all the way from Lucy, the ‘upright-walking chimp’ of three million years ago, to ourselves today." (Source: Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, New York: Free Press, 2009)quote :
Dr. Wile is entitled to his opinion, but he is not an authority on biology. According to his website, his Ph.D. is in nuclear chemistry. Contrary to your statement, he is not a professor at the University of Rochester (he says he got his doctorate there) and he apparently has had academic appointments only during the years 1990-1995.quote :
Wrong again. An article on the science blog SEEDMAGAZINE.COM explains how differential expression of the same gene, Prx1, directs development of the mouse’s paw and the bat’s wing. (Source: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article … ouses_leg/)
October 13, 2010 at 12:16 pm #101811enareesParticipant
Any solid arguments against UFO?
October 13, 2010 at 11:40 pm #101823quote StevePush:
A bad analogy. If you think it through from the perspective of someone that doesn’t believe there is fossil evidence for evolution, it should be more like "you know you can fly from Los Angeles to San Fransisco, so you believe you can fly from Los Angeles to London." If you had the ability to observe macroevolution, your analogy may be a bit more valid. However, even if we have fossil records we can only use them as proof for evolution if we interpret them in a way that supports evolution. If that doesn’t make sense, then explain logically how my statement is illogical. I can believe an organism can grow 5 inches out of the ground in a day without believing it will continue the pace and become 152 feet tall in a year. Again, extrapolated data is not proven data, just assumed.
Fossils cannot prove evolution. "Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … ssing-link)quote :
I don’t have the money to buy the book, so I can’t really see the rest of what he says there. Which fossils were you speaking of again?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/? … 9s+No+Ladyquote :
Good point. My bad on the "professor at…" business. However, his statements about "non-sequence" and "cytochrome-c" were what I was aiming for. They are still valid and cannot be ignored simply by saying they are his opinions or that he is not a professor in the field of research we speak of.quote :
One experiment? Not several experiments with different species of mice and bats? No confirmation that this is not just a "coincidence" restricted to mice and bats? Where is the credibility in that experiment? I thought experiments had to be repeated to reduce the possibility of error…
@enarees any argument for UFOs? 😉 All the sightings I’ve heard of have been hoaxes and mistakes…or not possible to confirm…
October 14, 2010 at 12:58 am #101826quote AgentBunni:
So the fact that students are not able to recognize what fossils belong to what group in the whooping amount of (at least) 8h is a proof of what exactly?
I am not familiar with human fossil classification, but it seems that this might be a weak argument. I would have a better chance of being convinced if the argument was that no 2 professional paleontologist were able to agree on the sequence, or that new groups were added to fit each fossil. But that is not the case, so professional seem to manage to fit fossils in the existing groups most of the time.
By the way if I were to give a group of student someone’s medical history without any special experience in the medical field. Do you think they would be able (in at least 8h) to establish a correct diagnostic? In my experience, I would not count on that if my life was hanging in the balance (students in 4th microbial disease course have difficulties matching case-studies with disease even when plenty of clues and selected relevant information is provided to match better the books available…).
The cytC data is a bit more perplexing since he does not provide where he gets his data from. I wonder where he got his data, and how he estimated the evolution’s prediction. In his blog he seems to give reference (I give him a big thumbs up for that) but in this quite short pamphlet that you seem to consider relevant, it is interesting to note that beyond quotes (out of context, that can be misleading) the little data presented do not comes with any relevant quotes.
Because of that it is hard to give it too much thought.
October 14, 2010 at 4:26 am #101831quote canalon:
I dunno…looks like a research project to me. The students are asked to give the ages of the fossils based on what evolutionists have said about the ages, but they can’t simply because different evolutionists have said different things. What it is saying is that evolutionists can’t agree on the age of fossils. They aren’t doing the work themselves, they are looking at other people’s work for answers.quote :
I agree. Without sources, it seems to lose much of its credibility. All I have to say is, "good luck finding a source for that one." It’s difficult to find any sources for those things these days :/
October 14, 2010 at 5:33 am #101832enareesParticipantquote AgentBunni:
Pastor Darwin suggested that Adam was red and hairy as Edom.
October 14, 2010 at 8:25 am #101844StevePushParticipantquote AgentBunni:
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is artificial. Both occur by means of the same processes. (See:
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionex … _macro.htm)quote :
Evolution is the only theory so far that provides a coherent explanation of the fossil record. But we need not rely on the fossil record, because speciation has been observed directly. (See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)quote :
I’m sure you could find it at a library. He discusses a set of 3.6 million year old footprints, Lucy, AL 444-2, the Taung Child, Mrs Ples, KNM ER 1813, KMN ER 1470, Twiggy, Java Man, Peking Man, and the Turkana Boy.quote :
Wile’s paper is remarkable for how much misinformation it packs into a few pages. The so-called "non-sequence" argument is refuted by the chapter in the Dawkins book I already mentioned, which documents gradual change form Lucy to us. Contrary to what Wile says, the research on cytochrome c provides strong evidence for common descent (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o … tochrome_c)
For antidotes to some of Wile’s other misinformation, see:
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/10 … -questionsquote :
That’s an interesting comment, given that there are zero experiments supporting the creationist position. But in fact, there are many experiments in the field of evolutionary development. There was an interesting book review on this subject in The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/1 … rbo_books1). The reveiwer noted that "Evo devo’s first big finding is that all animals are built from essentially the same genes."
October 14, 2010 at 9:06 pm #101857quote AgentBunni:
As far as I read it they are given one fossil and asked to identify and map it on the evolutionary tree. But even if you are right, the fact that the complete sequence of the human lineage is not perfectly known (the number of fossils are limited, paleontologist are known for not being very good at sharing their finds) does not mean anything with respect to evolution in general. This experience shows mostly that human paleontology is complicated, changing, maybe that textbook are not great, and maybe the same about those students in an unnamed university/college.quote :
I agree. Without sources, it seems to lose much of its credibility. All I have to say is, "good luck finding a source for that one." It’s difficult to find any sources for those things these days :/[/quote]
The sequences prot and nucleotide should be available in NCBI. Providing the source and how the calculation has been done should not be that complicated. That is why I very much doubt his argument.
October 14, 2010 at 9:16 pm #101859
Should I add that Stevepush made an even better job than I can at destrying Wille’s argument. Thanks.
October 19, 2010 at 5:43 am #101891quote futurezoologist:
I do have a problem with "Evolution Theory".
Why must I presume life, species, animals, cells, etc. all originate from a common source???
This is an invalid suspicion. What makes scientists/philosophers/thinkers believe that all life (or the universe itself) originates from a singularity? This is absolutism and I cannot accept it.
I think the truth is: that, the "best" scientists throughout human history simply do not know the origin of the universe or life itself. So it intellectually is dishonest to put random quantifiers on life, such as: "Life is 4.5 billion years old". This statement is unqualified and superfluous. What magically brought life or the universe into existence?
Or has life AND the universe "always existed"?
These types of questions neither scientists nor biologists can ask or answer.
These types of questions actually are beyond human understanding to know.
Are they not??
October 19, 2010 at 2:11 pm #101909quote Atheaut:
you are hardly the only one, but let’s see if you can bring anything new and/or relevant to the discussion…quote Atheaut:
There is quite a large body of evidence for that, which boils down to the simple fact that all life forms that are observed rely on very similar mechanisms (DNA to store genetic information, RNA intermediates, quasi universal genetic code, ribosomes doing the RNA to protein translation, and many more( that have no particular reason to be universal. They do the job, but other molecules could have done it as well, and there are no compelling reason why that particular set of mechanisms should be the only one. So the simple explanation is that this was the particular set of mechanisms that worked for the ancestor of life as we now know it.
That is based on that that scientist assume that all life originate from one single source. AFAIK many competing life forms based on different chemistry might have existed, but there is only one branch that flourished until now. Would you care to bring anything that would disprove this assumption? Or another equally simple solution that would explain that arbitrary universality of the basic building blocks of life?quote Atheaut:
This is SPARTA
More seriously, this has [b]nothing[b] to do with evolution, and all to do with astrophysics. And that is a bit far from my own field to give you all the accurate answers. However the simple explanation is that in whatever direction the sky is observed, the stars appears to be moving away from us. Which means that if you measure speed, make a few assumptions about the stability of said speed and stability of what is observed* we can estimate the age of the universe and its original size. The model has been refined to explain the current observations, but once again if you can provide an alternative set of explanation that explains the same observations about our physical world without the involvement of sky pixies you can do that and try to convince people that your model (that will I am sure not involve a singularity) is better.quote Atheaut:
Well the exact time of the apparition of life sure is only an estimate, but unlike your assertions it has not been pulled out one scientist a$$ just because (s)he liked big round numbers. There is once again quite a few facts and evidence to back up those numbers (radioactive decay, existence of stromatolites etc…) so those qualifiers are far from random.
And remember that the theory of evolution:
1- Has nothing to say about how life appeared. That is a different question, and people are still studying it, but it is quite hard to find funding for projects that needs an entire planetary surface to be sterile, and might last a few millions if not billion years to get a reasonable chance of success
2- Would be equally valid in its most general form for any form of life that use a physical mechanism to transfer information from one generation to the next (evolution of computer programs can and is studied)quote Atheaut:
You think? I don’t. And I want to have a chance at finding an answer that is why I am in research. But with your outlook on life there is indeed very little chance that we will learn anything.
So in short except your willful ignorance and your convictions that other must be wrong because you either refuse to understand and/or accept scientific evidences you did not bring anything new to this discussion. We have simply added evidence that there is one more scientifically illiterate person on earth. Congratulations, you belong to the majority, but unlike many, there are evidence that the probability is high that it stems more from your own failings to educate yourself with the resources that are available from your computer and the education you received (you have both since you can write better than many and obviously have access to the internet to boast your ignorance for the whole world to see) than from a lack of opportunity to ever get access to education.
*you can deny that there ever was a yesterday, and believe that the world was created 5 minutes ago with all memories etc embedded to make us believe that it was always as we perceive it, but if this is the kind of philosophy that you like to entertain, there is not very much to discuss anyway, is it?
October 19, 2010 at 10:05 pm #101918
Quote me where I stated or hinted that "others are wrong".
You should read what I write, not what you falsely believe I wrote.
Strawman arguments are disgraceful…
October 19, 2010 at 10:07 pm #101919
Evolutionary Theory has a problem:
1. Sexual Selection is determined by "Free Will".
2. Sexual Selection is undetermined.
In other words, do living entities (such as humans) have the "Free Will" to "select" who we breed with?
Can I "choose" to breed with a fat & ugly woman rather than a proportioned & beautiful woman??
Or is there is no "choice" in this matter at all?
October 19, 2010 at 10:11 pm #101920
By the way, nowhere did I "disagree" with Scientific Evidence.
That is another mistake of your own making.
I accept Scientific Evidence as Paradigm.
October 19, 2010 at 10:53 pm #101922quote Atheaut:
There, you just say that the scientifically accepted paradigm is invalid, which in my book is synonymous with wrong.
And you also said in relation with scientifically backed up estimation about the age of life on our earth:quote Atheaut:
So when I read that:quote Atheaut:
I can’t help wondering if you read what you wrote. And I would like to point out the definition of paradigm in the scientific/epistemological sense. Wikipedia will do:
And then I wonder what that means 😕quote Atheaut:
October 19, 2010 at 11:45 pm #101925
Origin to ALL life is superfluous though. To presume that humanity, not unlike shellfish, not unlike bacteria… all "evolved" from a "common source" is superfluous. Why? Because the reasoning is Inductive, not Deductive.
First Scientists would have to donate more definition and proof to Evolutionary Theory.
Here we could go into what force, whether internal/external, "guides" Evolutionary direction.
In this dispute here, that is beside-the-point…
I am not arguing against Evidence at all; I am doubting the presumptions and premises from whence they all arise. I do not believe in "common origin" anymore than "uncommon origin" because I refuse to speculate beyond what I know to become true or false. This is a fact of deductive logic. I cannot prove what I cannot know, understand? With respect to "common origin" of (all) sentient and non-sentient life, I have NO REASON WHATSOEVER to believe a source, commonality, or even a beginning.
I simply can presume that "life always had existed" and "time is infinite".
Therefore is no "beginning" or "end" to life as a phenomenon.
I also have no reason to believe that a skull is ~4.5 billion years old compared to ~3 billion or ~3 million. These ranges of time seem inaccurate. I want specifics, details. I want to know the exact dates, not guesses and estimates. But that is what "Scientific Evidence" is all about, mere guesswork. I want something more "substantial", even better evidence. I also want better theories.
My point was that, I do not see why I should presuppose "common" origin over "uncommon" origin…
Convince me, if you like, I want to hear your reasoning on this too.
I can see the similarities between Great Apes and man. That is too obvious to deny. Humans and Apes share the same form: two arms, two legs, Mammals, opposable thumbs, etc. But similar form still does not address this issue (of Evolution).
It also does not address Common Descent.
October 20, 2010 at 1:26 pm #101935
I see, so what you want are that calendars fossilized with the skull to allow us to date everything exactly. And if those ancestarl bacteria could have worn a watch on their pili that would be good too…
Scientist can only estimate dates in the deep past, because well there were no calendars or watch conveniently available to fossilize, and what was there (isotopes of different atoms) had quite some time to decay in a few billions years, so accuracy is limited, but clear distinctions are made between billions and millions of years. What you want is impossible.
I already addressed the question of why we believe that life as a common origin, find yourself a textbook if you want more details, a forum is not the place to write a book, but resources are available if you are really as interested in the subject as you claim to be.
February 2, 2011 at 5:22 pm #103373JameshanerParticipant
I’m just going to state some basic facts. And I’m 15 years old, so excuse me if I say something incorrect. One strand of DNA would take somewhere around 90 years for a human to construct. In the DNA, Adenine (A) goes to Tymine (T) and Cytosine (C) goes to Guanine (G). If you were to unravel one, single microscopic DNA molecule, it would be 9 feet long. All the DNA in your body from your trillions of cells would stretch out to be approximately 10-20 Billion miles long. One strand of DNA in your body can hold multiple Terabytes of information and is much more complex than an external hardrive, although it is a mere 1/1,000,000,000 of the size. Yet, if someone stuck an external harddrive in front of you and said, "Look what I found fossilized in my backyard", you would never believe them. But DNA Isn’t even what’s the most amazing. It’s the fact that everything around us is only 5% of actual matter. 95% of everything you know is empty space, help together by an invisible force scientists call dark matter. So, every single scientist in the entire world only knows what 5% of everything is. They can’t even begin to wrap their mind around the other 95%. If you had an atom with a nucleus the size of a plum, the entire atom would be the size of a baseball field. And these trillions upon trillions upon trillions of spaced-out atoms make up trillions upon trillions of molecules, which create trillions of cells which contain billions of miles of DNA that hold the information to make those trillions of cells form the organism that is you. Now, you tell me that that is all just random happenstance with no purpose. "Billions of years" is what most people would say. But never once has there been a positive change in DNA. The only existing change in DNA is called mutation.
So there’s the biological side of it, but the part of everything coming into existence is still left up to question. Honestly, no one was there when it happened, so no one can say exactly what happened. The only existing written proof we have of the beginning of existence is in written in religious documentations. Evolution is essentially assertion derived from evidence that people have found in the modern world. And no one can disagree with this, due to the fact that Darwin assembled the theory of evolution in the 1800’s. We have ancient fossils, but none showing evolution actually in process. But, let’s assume for a second that evolution is true. Still, creation and evolution are somewhat co-existable. Even if evolution was real, it still needs a start. People claim that the big bang is what started it all. But this would mean that there had to be that infinite piece of matter sitting there, in a vast space of nothing. No other matter, no light, no laws of physics, and as soon as this piece of matter explodes, everything falls into place. It creates all these things along with planets, stars and galaxies. The chances of this one piece of matter, chaotically exploding and creating matter are beyond miniscule. You could simulate a hundred trillion demolition explosions, but you are simply never going to create a car. You wouldn’t even end up with a sandwich. Much less a functioning universe.
I know that I’m not completely right in all my beliefs, but I don’t believe in Christianity because it feels nice. In fact it can suck watching people with different beliefs have a good time. I went through a time where I really didn’t know what I believed. I could have gone either way, but I looked at the evidence and saw what the truth was. I got into a world view class and established that I knew what I believed. And now, I can personally guarantee myself that Christianity is ultimately infallible. I hear stuff all the time that makes me question what I believe, but I don’t sit and mope. I go look it up and find out for myself where the evidence points.
That’s all I got… Haha
And I know that people are going to excerpt from things I wrote that are untrue, or that they think are wrong. So right now I will just tell you that I don’t think I know everything, so please don’t go attacking or anything. If you question what I believe and state what you believe on the matter, I will do my best to reply. But if I get insults, I can guarantee you that I will not waste my time on you or your pointless, proud ignominy.
February 2, 2011 at 6:11 pm #103374JameshanerParticipant
Wait. I said the only evidence for the beginning is written in religious documents. I realize that most people that are on this forum are atheists so I’m going to re-state that (I don’t want to sound like the typical ignorant Theist 😉 What I meant was that the only written documentation of the beginning is in religious books or writings. This does not mean that I am assuming that these are true. And I am not specifically referring to Christian Bible. I am saying that these things were written as soon as literacy came around. And all of these things refer to a creation by some sort of creative power. Also, I would think that if evolution was true, then not everything would evolve uniformly. I would think that some things would still be inbetween (who knows, maybe some things are). I probably said more assumptions than I realize, but I am not stating any of my beliefs as universal, infallible truth. I meant that my basic belief of Christianity is infallible to ME. And yes, I do believe that evolution is real because micro-evolution is real. Macro-evolution I find harder to believe, due to the fact that there really is no existing evidence.
February 2, 2011 at 8:26 pm #103376
OK, let’s go point by point:
DNA – not relevant
free space – that’s right, but it’s not called dark matter. It’s simply empty, because the electrons are rejected from each other.
you’re right that evolution and creation are actually something totally different.
However, the Big Bang did not create everything as it is now. There was just lot of dust and matter, which later formed into larger pieces forming stars and planets.
and your last point – you know, maybe when you were a kid, you asked your parents how were you born and where does the life come from. And when people didn’t know the answers, they were looking for some explanations. And as people were able to create some simple stuff, they thought that someone created them as well.
February 3, 2011 at 7:15 am #103380
oh yeah, I forgot the point about missing the evolution process around us. That’s definitelly not true. One just has to open his or her eyes 😉
February 11, 2011 at 6:58 am #103490biocomputerParticipant
There have been so many contradicting questions regarding evolution that i come across as i study bio books.
Why rely on carbon dating when it does not give correct results?
Why sometimes lower form of mammals have more genes than higher forms?
Why is everyone trying and trying their best to prove a theory with flaws for such a long time?
If men have evolved from monkeys or apes, then why are they still here? we are more brainy so why does Natural selection still keep them and so many others. Why doesn’t natural selection eradicate the harmful microbes in the society.?
Why are there males and females for reproduction? Why did’nt Natural selection retain the asexual reproduction.
A mutation even as a single base pair deletion or substitution causes major sickness and death , but evolutionist claim that changes in the gene for many years lead to favourable characteristics and gradually a new animal evolved. Right before our eyes we see many genetic diseases due to changes in dna and mutation does not lead to gooness.
When Tsunami came in 2005 December, the animals inthe nearby forests did not die because all the animals beforehand ran away up to the mountains but man did not know about the oncoming danger. why? If man is superior and evolved from lower animals , why are there brains superior at these kinds of times?
There is a dinosaur caving in cambodian temple , that totally disapproves evolution.
What about ghosts? why dow
Science is remarkable , with all its findings and inventions but sometimes as there are thorns in roses there are flaws in science, there are stories in science, the story of evolution.
Evolutionists carefully observed everything and concluded that a super power must have created all these things, and that super power they SAW was ‘nature’ with all its force, magnitude and awesome power.
Creationists saw – some with their own physical eyes, some in their spiritual eyes THE most greatest power, God and so they account all creation to God.
February 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm #103497
-Carbon dating may lack some precision, and good calibration is necessary, but why do you say it does not give correct result?
-So what, why do you assume that the number of genes means?
-Because it works, mostly. And it is useful to understand many things such as diseases transmission, population history and many other thing. Unlike creationism that do not allow to make any predictions.
-Humans and apes have evolved separately and colonized different niches and the divergence do not require that one branch disappears. However, you should be happy, under the careful human stewardship of our planet, apes might disappear soon. And large and brainy is not necessarily that good. At the game of evolution, the winners are and always were bacteria. Human are just a footnote in the history of life that has always been dominated by the prokaryotes.
-Get down your pedestal, humans are just one species of living creatures, they have very little evolutionary importance. In fact from the natural point of view, you could reverse the question and wonder why the prokaryotes haven’t gotten rid of the harmful eukaryotes…
-Why sex? No clue, but once it was there, and probably had some benefits, I guess that reversion was not an option. And natural selection still retain asexual reproduction for many organisms (insects, plant, bacteria,…)
-Mutations are not necessary punctual, full genes even chromosomes can be exchanged and transfer, even between different kingdoms. And mutations are not necessarily deleterious, otherwise considering the error rate of DNA polymerase you would not be there. We might notice the changes that are deleterious, but many are silent, or positive, but I guess that you would not notice them. And remember evolution is random, it does not aim to goodness. But we are still there, so it must have done some things right.
-Evidence of n death among animals? And remember, human are not superior to other creatures, just different, and all creatures are as evolved. Bacteria appear simple, but they are terribly efficient at what they do, what makes you think that you are superior to something that can survive on a nuclear reactor (Deinococcus radiodurans) or at temperatures above 100ºC without light, or at pH close to 14, or in a lake chocfull of arsenic?
-Dinosaur: provide evidence. And even if one had survived, that would not mean anything more than 1 dinosaur had survived. remember evolution act like branches not in a stepwise gradient where one form replace the one before, and will be replaced by the next.
-What about ghosts? They don’t exist…
Science has flaws, and that is why it is constantly improving and changing, and things are modified. That is true. But evolution by natural selection, is one of the great stable results that we have and it allowed us to understand a great deal about the living world. Far from being a failure it is the underlying unifying foundation for all current biology.
Scientist observed the world, and concluded that the laws of probability, chemistry and physics were giving a good framework that explained coherently most of what we observe, and that the rest is fascinating to decipher and observe, and that we explain more and more still without adding any supernatural powers.
Creationist saw the world, concluded that it was too complicated (sorry, that the complexity was irreducible) and decided that it must have been created because ignorance is less demanding than careful observation and reasoning. Believing in creation in gods is an act of defeat and intellectual laziness, nothing more.
February 17, 2011 at 6:04 am #103531kneilandrewParticipant
Can we say that bible is a product of man, so it is exclusive for man. Therefore creation is just an earthly idea and evolution is universal.
February 17, 2011 at 4:40 pm #103535
Well the theory of evolution was written by a male human being too… Does not make it less universal
February 24, 2011 at 10:52 am #103636
Why rely on carbon dating when it does not give correct results?
Generally, carbon dating can be inaccurate, but at the same time it is a viable form of dating something to a certain degree and is one of the only methods we have at the moment. I’m sure they used much less reliable methods until a new one was thought up by some genius.
Why sometimes lower form of mammals have more genes than higher forms?
I’m sure you are aware that the variable genes themselves, the number of them I mean, should not be considered an indicator of a higher form of life. All animals have a number of HOX genes, for example, the number of which increases with the complexity of the animal. I would probably be a more valid estimate of the complexity of an organism (since lower forms of animals have few or even lack them) and not the extra genes themselves, which code for more specialised developments and changes.
Why is everyone trying and trying their best to prove a theory with flaws for such a long time?
Every theory has flaws, that is why it is called a theory and not the Law of Evolution. Everything in science is first based on some kind of theory or idea, and evolution will probably remain as a theory for the duration of human colonisation, for it has become world renowned in such a name.
If men have evolved from monkeys or apes, then why are they still here? we are more brainy so why does Natural selection still keep them and so many others.
The intelligence of man is a very fickle thing. We feel we are the most intelligent and highest form of life because we have this magnificent brain and have shaped the world in the way we wish it to be, but to be honest that is just as easily a load of bull crud. Either way, if evolution worked in such a way, as to eradicate all of the previous branches of the tree, we would not see all of the lower life forms from which we developed, and there would be far less if not no other creatures upon the earth.
The earlier forms of man are adapted to the habitat the found to live in, and therefore have not been iradicated by natural selection.
Why doesn’t natural selection eradicate the harmful microbes in the society?
Natural selection is just that – it removes things that are not adapted to or are unable to live within their chosen environments or even those that are thrust upon it. If you are a pathogenic microbe that thrives in the guts of children and gives them diarrhoea or can infiltrate the T cells of a human and live there in total protection, why would you be wiped out by natural selection? You are obviously very good at what you do.
Why are there males and females for reproduction? Why did’nt Natural selection retain the asexual reproduction.
I assume that the gender split was forced upon multicellular animals when it reached the point of no return – once you have billions of specialised cells all working together to make an organism work, and probably a few stages before this kind of symbiosis too, then asexual reproduction becomes ridiculously unfavourable. You would develop a way to reproduce using some kind of gene-mixing method, and Males and Females is how that occured.
A mutation even as a single base pair deletion or substitution causes major sickness and death , but evolutionist claim that changes in the gene for many years lead to favourable characteristics and gradually a new animal evolved. Right before our eyes we see many genetic diseases due to changes in dna and mutation does not lead to goodness.
The point here being that not every mutation is a good one, but some are very beneficial. Obvious disadvantages in mutations are evident wherever you look in human society, and they often cause severe diseases that can lead to death or terrible ailments and disfigurements, but there are also beneficial ones that are left forgotten because these horrible ones are always making the news. There are people in the world with incredible stamina, longlivity that runs in families that have no disabling illnesses attached, people who can run incredibly fast that set Olympic records and others that have amazing abilities to remember notes and become concert pianists or orchestras.
There are good mutations, you only have to look for them.
When Tsunami came in 2005 December, the animals inthe nearby forests did not die because all the animals beforehand ran away up to the mountains but man did not know about the oncoming danger. why? If man is superior and evolved from lower animals , why are there brains superior at these kinds of times
I once again come back to the point that humans are very intelligent. So intelligent, in fact, that we have reached a point where we try to repress our instincts and sometimes don’t even notice them any more. Put simply, animals are much more in tune with the world and disturbances in normal pressures, temperatures and humidity. They notice when things go wrong, whereas we have lost such senses for cognitive ability.
February 27, 2011 at 8:33 am #103669
You asked for it:Microorganisms remained microorganisms for 3 billion years.Zero evolution here.This is evidence against evolution…
February 27, 2011 at 7:16 pm #103676
That isn’t evidence against evolution. For a while there would be no need to diversity above micro-organism, since there is a vast expanse of water that can be colonised before there is any real need to find other food sources.
On top of the that environment of earth when the first micro-organisms appeared and for many years after going anywhere near the surface of the water, and at the very beginning out of localised spots, was very dangerous because of the extreme environments outside. Larger volumes of oxygen also needed to be developed before an animal could think about becoming one with gills (dissolved oxygen in water was also low) or even lungs.
As a final note, saying there was no evolution in those three billion years is untrue. There are an incredible diversity of micro-organisms, all of which would have come from a single starter. This would involve a large amount of evolution and diversification to achieve.
March 1, 2011 at 10:40 am #103689
I have two problems with evolution
1)I dont believe in any type of Abiogenesis since the evidence that support this theory are insufficient(in fact no type of Abiogenesis has ever been observed).So how this "last common ancestor" emerged is a mystery…
2)Organisms are too well "designed" to be the result of passive evolution.I even think some times that irreducible complexity has some points despite the fact that science reject the term
March 1, 2011 at 1:01 pm #103694quote GnnS:
I will just adress your first point, because you are onto something we both agree, in spite of drawing diametrically opposed conclusion from it 🙂
You require evidence to be convinced of abiogenesis. Great. And yes in spite of the multiple theory offered, there are none that have been generally accepted and demonstrated. However, this is not strictly evolution, as the latter deals with what happens when living organism already exist.
But the main point is, beside evolutionary theory, what theory explains how life as we know it, and fossils, and the the living world as we see it came to be? And what evidence are supporting said theory that would be more convincing than what we have now going for the current theory of evolution? I am very curious.
And old book(s) written by old men without base in facts are not acceptable…
March 1, 2011 at 3:56 pm #103697
That is my problem with religion as an explanation – that all the ‘proof’ anyone has ever given me are books written by men who could easily have made it up or corrupted it for their own purposes.
The problem with studying evolution is that you only every really see the evolutionary steps that worked rather than those that went wrong. The ones that didn’t work either:
1. left so few fossils the probability of finding one is less than winning the lottery
2. many of the evolutions would have caused miscarriages – not developing far enough for a skeleton to be observed or the evolution not observable after the tissues have disintegrated.
The only ‘proof’ evolution can give are the characteristics used to organise animals in taxonomy, which slowly get more advanced and more intricate. To me this is enough to make me believe in evolution.
March 2, 2011 at 1:03 am #103705
Well there is much more proof than that when you look into the genome. The traces of ancient genes, sequence similarity and of course the commonality of most of the basic molecular biology from bacteria to whales are good tell tales of the common origin of life.
March 3, 2011 at 10:50 am #103726
What if DNA means a common creator?
My main problem is that i find it very difficult for this process to have started through Abiogenesis.Because even if i accept a type of Abiogenesis then this piece of life must find a way to survive on a hostile environment.Then it must find a way to replicate asexually and later sexually.All these steps are quite tough.To try to explain how sexual reproduction started is a bit nightmarish.
My other problem is that some organisms show evolution but some others remain static(and this is why punctuated equilibrum theory was made).What if a creator exists who started by building small structures(microorganisms)and then continued with more and more sophisticated structures?What if this creator made plants to have his structures something to eat and made them reproduce in order to have his model survive?
March 17, 2011 at 6:17 pm #103948Jonl1408Participant
Here is one of the top ten best solid arguments against Evolution, that I know, Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." That means that things break down into less complex forms, in time. Evolution says that less complex forms evolved into more complex forms, which breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Another thing I would like to specify, is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was a theory, until scientists proved that it was true, and it then became a Law. People have had trouble with the whole theory and law business before, so I am specifying this time.
March 17, 2011 at 8:47 pm #103958
For the law vs. theory, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
a scientific theory is not what we call a theory in the vernacular language. Please educate your self.
The theory of evolution does not break the second law of thermodynamics. The system is the universe, local reduction is possible if the entropy of the system as whole is the same or increased. Otherwise your fridge would not work. Again, please educate yourself.
March 18, 2011 at 7:59 pm #103986Jonl1408Participantquote :
What exactly do you mean by that?
If evolution states that life forms slowly evolved from less complex forms to more complex forms, then it clearly is in conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If over time things break down into simpler forms, not more complex forms, then how can the Evolution model be correct?
Please try and speak in simple terms, after all I am a teenager, and not a professor.
Also I would please ask that you discontinue using degrading and insulting language, you sound much more professional if you don’t.
March 22, 2011 at 12:27 am #104112quote Jonl1408:
You need me to explain basic thermodynamics in simple layman terms because you are a teenager, not a professor? And yet you can claim with certitude that evolution is breaking the second law of thermodynamics?
If I had any taste to be sarcastic and snarky, I would get a good laugh pointing how surprising that is that someone can make bold affirmations on a subject that he claims cannot understand… But that would be so different from me. In fact, if you were one of the poor unfortunate souls (only in metaphoric sense) that had the opportunity to be one of my student I would chew your head off and make sure that you would not come back into class before you know what you are talking about before trying to make a case for yourself. Ignorance is fine, if it leads to questions and thinking. But it turns to stupidity if it just bring acceptance with blind faith of whatever you are told to believe by some ignorant morons with an agenda to push. And then you end up deserving the scorn rather than just your ideas.
But since I am patient, too tired to breathe fire, and of unusually less malevolent mood I wiil try to explain to you what the second law of thermodynamics mean, and how it relates to fridges and evolution.
I will start by pointing you to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law … modynamics
This is a good start, much better (complete and accurate) than what I could do, I am no physicist. And I will just append a short note to explain the freezer:
Look at the Clausius statement in the Wiki entry (my bold).quote :
And yet this is exactly what your fridge/freezer is doing… inside. Transfering the heat of the air in the fridge to the pump in order to cool it down. How does it do that? simply because in the meantime a pump is working hard to compress the fluid and releasing large amount heat in the atmosphere actually larger than the amount of heat removed from the inside of the fridge. So if you were running a fridge in an isolated box on an autonmous battery using the heat from the pump to recharge itself (an approximation of a closed system) the only result would be an increase of the average temperature of the system, otherwise known as an increase of entropy. Because the mechanisms for cooling and for energy production are and cannot be 100% efficient, they produce waste heat that get lost. So you cannot thus create an infinitely cooling mechanism that would keep entropy at bay (the cold fridge). But it might work for some time depending on the amount of energy in the battery and the efficiency of each convesrion rate.
Same thing for life and chemistry, order of the higher quality such as long complex chemical reactions can be maintained for a long time, but you will need to provide some energy, and when it will be exhausted, the reactions will stop. Life is exactly that, a complex set of chemical reactions that cannot survive without the input of energy that comes from the sun (mostly) and the radoiactive decay of the inside of our planet (deep vent life). So there is plenty of energy around to keep arranging the building block of life, repairing decay and maintaining life. As long as the sun shine.
April 4, 2011 at 7:24 pm #104299quote canalon:
ahh but this can be viewed in differnt ways, common descent or designer, then again if we have a common designer i suppose that is common sense also! We are clearly all related through DNA, its the mechanisms that bother me…its simple we just dont know for sure yet.
April 4, 2011 at 7:40 pm #104300
What facet of evolution do you mean? as you know one can define evolution in many ways. I personally dont know how people dont accept that change happens over time. My gripe is the ease with which people, biologists or not accept the mechanisms by which adaptions and designs in nature took place. From my research I am in no way convinced that the proposed mechanisms could have brought about the design in the natural world, from the molecular level up to the eco system itself.
I have come to the conclusion(subject to change) that evolution(its mechanisms applied to observed adaptions etc) requires just as much faith as a particular deity..
April 4, 2011 at 8:06 pm #104303quote Zenithar66:
And why would s/he use crap DNA? Why would our DNA contain more than 50% of (for us) useless retrotransposones, if created?
April 4, 2011 at 9:18 pm #104307quote JackBean:
I am both shocked and taken aback at this comment for a few reasons, wow..
first i would never presume to know or suggest the identity of a designer(if there was one), or why he/she/ did something.
Second you are presuming that becuase we dont know what its function could be that it has none? you see, nature, whether designed or not, does not waste anything, it is so efficient at recycling itself and sucking everylast bit of use from energy that the whole discipline of biomimickry has now taken root wherby engineers use natures designs as inspriation(about time) so from looking at nature we can more safely assume that there is a use for these rather then there is apparetly useless…
3rd, if you have studied DNA or biology even a small amount, and come out with the opinion that DNA is "crap"? Well that is simply too hard for me too get around. This molecule, as well as those enzymes and protines it produces and maintaines is, simply put, miraculous, whether or not it was designed. For me, reading biology is somewhat of a religious experience, its that amazing, in fact if we are going to worship anything I feel it would be more prudent to look to our inner world as opposed to a deity, becuase this stunnig co ordination of systems and molecules, instructions and commands, constructors and deconstructors etc is the life giving force that we can observe, rather then have faith in..
I simply fail to account for the fact that anyone could come to this conclusion about dna, it makes me slighly afraid for where we are headed as a race…I
April 4, 2011 at 9:43 pm #104308
Are you so offensive because I reffered to the designer as "s/he"? Well, I don’t think that the identity matters at all. Nowadays, people are are trying to be that much gender correct, that referring to God or designer, if you will, just as he, seems a little incorrect.
But back to our topic. You probably misunderstood, hopefully miswillingly. I didn’t say, that DNA is crap, I referred to crap DNA, as I forgot the correct vocabulary ‘junk DNA’. And I’m not talking about introns as these are often involved in expression regulation through siRNA, but I’m talking about the repetitive sequences and retrotranspozones. Why did the creator give us the viruses and all this, for which we must waste energy during EVERY cell division? And we have billions of cells only in one human body…
April 4, 2011 at 10:17 pm #104310quote JackBean:
oh, i seem to have misinterprited that whole crap DNA statement, sorry bout that…
but my point still stands, referring to something as pointless or useless simply becuase it is repetitive or becuase we cannot understand it means nothing, its simply conjecture.(nothing wrong with conjecture of course) I predict we will sooner rather then later find a function and i assume there are aready theories out there, my own guess is it could be backup, repeat sequences in codes of computers can be functions that are called again and again, or indeed it may have a totally different fucntion that is not even related soley to chemistry. Repetitive sequences such as we find in DNA aere literally crystalline, and IBM stored information in a hard drive made of crystal in the 90s so who knows what kind of information could be stored there. This is all speculation of course but i can only deduce from my reseach that we will indeed find a function.
Of course to assume that the creator(if there is one) gave us these viruses is just that, an assumption…
and if you are talking about the energy to get rid of viruses then it is surely not a waste…
its all about perspective, if there is design in the universe, then whos to say it a god, and even if it was, whos to assume he’s flawless, after all we are said to be made in his image, and we are certainly flawed!
April 14, 2011 at 1:06 am #104438
I am about to bring the wrath on myself, but…
Why do you think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive???
Below is my “theory”. See if you can disprove it with your arguments!!!
– Once upon a time there was a being, let’s call him/her “God”. God was interested in genetic engineering and observing effects of evolution. His primary purpose of coming to Earth was to conduct a large scale experiment – create a race in his/her likeness but capable of surviving in the conditions present on this planet and observe evolution with his/her own eyes.
God did not mean to create a person capable of complex thinking. Original “people” were a lot more like animals until one of them (Adam or Eve?) accidently made it into “employee only” section and drank (ate?) potion that activated/introduced genes for brain development (the famous apple of knowledge). After the accident God dumped all of his subjects on Earth in fear that next time someone will drink the potion that will introduce genes of longevity into population of his experimental subjects. If that happens, experiment will be ruined. God’s lifespan was many times that of a person.
From time to time God or those of his/her race come to earth to pick up a few people, animals, plants and check progress of the experiment (UFOs/aliens). Sometimes he/she saved some of those subjects from being exterminated by others (see manna machine – http://www.thepansophical.com/node/117) .
Feel free to come up with the rest of the story!
It is known today that most of the lateral gene transfer and natural selection results in elimination of unwanted genes (loss of function in process of evolution). It is at least just as possible that apes and monkeys came from “human” as the other way around (proposed based on sequence similarity). Loss of a few genes that led to ape would be a lot easier to prove in the lab.
Have fun disproving it!!! 😀
April 14, 2011 at 1:21 am #104440quote Cat:
There is no need to disprove it. On the other hand if you want your little mind game to be of any interest you have to provide evidence that:
– It has some predictive value.
– It is based on evidence (presence of aliens or whatever)
– It makes sense
– It is useful (see first line)
Otherwise it is just a nocturnal emission of your brain and should be treated as such.
April 14, 2011 at 2:15 am #104441
– It has some predictive value.
Unite evolutionists and creationist.
– It is based on evidence (presence of aliens or whatever)
Viruses, UV, bacteria, etc. drive molecular evolution via natural genetic engineering.
No apes developed human like characteristics (as far as I know), but plenty of people with apelike characteristics.
Biblical Facts (if you will):
Bibles – all variations can be explained and combined together (from ancient Greek to the Christianity).
– It makes sense
“There is a grain of truth in every tale”
– It is useful (see first line)
It’s just as useful as arguing against fact ("Any SOLID arguments against evolution?") 😀 .
April 14, 2011 at 11:50 am #104448
Yes, Darwin – a great genius. Only if what is evolution? Darwin created the theory of the origin of species through natural selection. And the idea of "Evolution from simple replicators to thinking crown" – stick it to him from evil. It is a stabilizing natural selection has preserved the remains of reasonableness in this brainstem three-race kind of Homo Sapiens throughout more than half-billion years of the paleo-history of vertebrates – since the Middle Cambrian. It is only necessary to understand that no such "evolution", like, from simple replicators to the "crown of the evolutionary creation" was not. "Evolutionary Theory" – is a particular religion, created for the convenience of creationist critique of science. So, for science is complete bullshit. Really should be discussed Devolutionary theory with the main role of Darwin stabilizing selection, which has not yet been created.
(Now, try: http://translate.google.com/translate?h … ge_id%3D82)
The first multicellular in the Proterozoic were far smarter and more perfect than us, they still knew how to sculpt a morphological, functional, genetically inherited invention, using a special interface peptide-nucleic technology of their ancestors
(http://translate.google.com/translate?h … .agro.name) and created the so-called "Complex traits – vision, the brain.
But after a universal humanity Cambrian amphibious vertebrates and amphibious arthropods began to regress. Initially, the stem species of amphibians and ceased to be a metamorphosis began leaking in the egg or the placenta (in vertebrates) or in the egg or cocoon (arthropods). From the central stem of multiracial repeatedly adjourned degradanty blind species, which are very well specialized in their little niche, but it lost the remnants of intelligence and vast strata of the universal gene pool … By the way, the mass of the genome of the ancient "fish" and the modern salamander is three times richer than human, we do not have the metabolic pathways "vitamins", "the essential amino acids, have no electric organs, can not hear and does not pronounce the ultrasound …
So, even retaining the basic of race, people now have not one in the Cambrian … Or in Wende! If it were not for "viral vector civilizations" would long ago have disintegrated into several dead-end specialized primatoids …
(http://translate.google.com/translate?h … ge_id%3D49)
But racism, monoregional theory of the origin considered very specifically lead to this collapse. That the owners of these tools to "divide and conquer" are the main customers of the "theory of evolution" and monoregional theory of races and species. This is it, incidentally, is extremely important to us foist idea that Neanderthal man was "another species of man" and did not interbreed with Cro-Magnon. So, apparently, go down and we are orderly rows along the path of arthropods – the ants and termites will become another relic of the collective …
(http://translate.google.com/translate?j … ge_id%3D32) – if fantastic ancestors aliens not warning in advance and not just settle us a couple of dozen Cambrian mermaids from the strategic reserves:
April 14, 2011 at 2:20 pm #104449quote Cat:
Do you understand what predictive value means?
Because your answer is quite a massive failure to answer. One of the most interesting prediction that the evolution theory made was that if all life is related, all the underlying mechanism of genetics must be closely related and must have derived from a common ancestor. This is a conclusion that can be directly drawn from the basic of evolution long before anyone had any idea what those mechanism were. Yet the universality of said mechanism is now a fact commonly accepted.
And when you go in details, you can see plenty of other similar examples.
Neither the Biblical, nor any other creation myth can provide this kind of useful insight, hence their total useleness. And uniting rationality (science) and irrationality (faith) is as useful as a band aid on a prosthetic limb. 🙄
I wilfully ignore the rest of your answer considering that it failed at the first and most critical hurdle.
April 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm #104450
I don’t know what you are using, but I might be interested if you can ship it over the borders, it looks very potent. And startingly good at allowing to create hallucinations and maintain cognitive dissonance. Would you care to share?
April 14, 2011 at 4:44 pm #104451
Chernobyl unit 4? It is very hard to make. Is that a diplomatic pouch. But this does not need it! Those articles can suffice. Are there any arguments. Especially about the viral vector of civilizations, they say, impressive! 😆
April 18, 2011 at 5:05 am #104499quote canalon:
Sorry Canalon, but you are off on the definition here. Predictive value means that you can predict something based on the said theory. In this particular case, neither theory of evolution nor bible has any predictive value.
I stated before that evolution is more of a fact than a theory. Here is why:
I am talking about molecular evolution, lateral gene transfer, and natural selection when I say evolution. I do not mean that people evolved from microbe. Please, read definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution.
Here is why evolution has no predictive value:
From all observation in regards to natural selection, it follows that all evolutionary changes lead to adaptation to environment. The only problem is, you cannot predict what changes to expect due to a specific change in environment.
Also, according to most evolutionary trees we have prokaryote-> eukaryote-> asexual organisms -> unisex organisms -> sex-changing species -> male/female sex species (roughly).
The problem with that is the fact that Y chromosome is deteriorating in all species that have it. That means that males (as we know them) of all species are in process of being extinct. Sex-changing species are the closest ones in evolution. Doesn’t it mean that we are heading in that direction via evolution?
P.S. I like debate and reasoning outside the box. So, please, give your full criticism and let me know of any logical flaws you can find.
April 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm #104502
I have no problem defending my arguments 🙂
First I have to say that I could not agree more about the inability of the theory of evolution to predict anything about the evolutionary change that will happen in the future. For the exact same reason that you point out. However it allows scientists to make predictions about what is currently unknown based on what we know. For example whenever one isolate a new microorganism, it can be predicted that it will have a DNA, and a short analysis will allow to determine if it is eukaryote or prokaryote, and then use ribosomal genes to have an idea of where it goes in the tree of life. Or you can look at the thumb of a panda and describe how it evolved from the what is know about the ursine family.
And you can probably say safely that whatever will evolve in the future will be based on DNA (unless artificial life is successfuly created in the lab and is able to escape and survive) and work very simlarly to what we know know.
The theory of evolution is also important in understanding how some genes spread in population and are maintained even when the selective pressure is lifted. It might seem trivial, but it is quite useful when you consider things like the spread of antibiotice resistance in a microbial population.
So, in deed the theory of evolution is strongly contingent to historical facts (in a large sense) but it is still much better are predicting what to expect when we study a new organism, or to generalize what we know from one organism to the next. The Bible or any other religious text (including the FSM) do not provide allow any of this sort of insight.
April 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm #104505
What you say is all good and well and I will agree for most part. However, first part of your example “whenever one isolate a new microorganism, it can be predicted that it will have a DNA, and a short analysis will allow to determine if it is eukaryote or prokaryote”- has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
The second part of the same argument:
“then use ribosomal genes to have an idea of where it goes in the tree of life. Or you can look at the thumb of a panda and describe how it evolved from the what is know about the ursine family,”
– stands completely on the ASSUMPTIONS that the “tree of life” is correct and that what you “KNOW about the ursine family,” is in fact true. Remember that at some point we KNEW that the world is flat! Or take a less dramatic example: about 10 years ago almost every text book proclaimed that “ALL enzymes are proteins, but not all proteins are enzymes.” This was the axiom that everyone “knew” to be the truth until the discovery of RNA enzymes…
I also would like to see your views on the Y chromosome problem I mentioned…
April 18, 2011 at 8:25 pm #104508
my point was more general than the example I gave (because they are familiar to me), and what i was trying to explain, is that basically all the organisms that have been found on earth do have genes that are related to another. Because of that the tree of life has been built, and when a new organism is found, it can be added to it relatively easily (very much so when we talk about prokaryotes, damn eukaryotes are bit harder to deal with). And to a large extent ribosomal phylogeny do match other types of inferred phylogenyn (Horzontal Genetic transfer muddling things a bit).
Similarly with the panda’s thumb. The bear family lost the thumb before the panda evolved, and for Panda the ability to grab bamboo shoot is quite useful, and an appendage allowing them to do just that, but that did not come from the long lost thumb was selected for.
As for your question about the Y chromosome, I have absolutely no idea what it is about (I deal with bacteria) and cannot provide any kind of informed answer, so I have to excuse myself and not deal with it.
The wider point being that both thos facts are coherent with what would be expected from an evolutionary point of view, where necessity and chance are the name of the game. On the other hand, if I use a creationist view of the world, I cannot expect one specific behaviour, because everything can be expected. There are no predictions possible, just observations. Add to that the fact that those observations do not show a coherent design scheme (the creator "knew" how to make a thumb, why do the pandas have this weird thing instead?) and the idea of an intelligence behind creation seem to require an incredibly pervert or/and dumb designer.
April 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm #104510
Ahh, out of the two evils you pick the least evil one…
I do NOT believe in everything told in the bible literally. I am willing to realize that it has a grain of truth in it. It got distorted through all the re-writes of various versions and translations etc. Thus, I do NOT believe in any part of “we are exactly the same as we were made by God”.
However, if you allow that the story of creation at least reflects the shadow of what actually happened (after all the idea for the bible did appear from somewhere) and say that god is a “mad scientist” while we are experimental subjects, everything falls in its place…
I know I cannot prove +ve this theory any more than creationists can prove theirs OR any more than evolutionists can prove that our common ancestor with the ape was more ape-like in appearance than human-like. As I said before, evolution from ape-like to human-like appearance presumes appearance of new genes in the gene pool (from where?) that goes against commonly observed disappearance of genes overtime (gene -> pseudogene).
You said you deal with microbes, so… You should know that unless bacteria can pick up genetic material from environment, new genes do not spontaneously appear. However, they can mutate existing genes to survive. Like kan resistance due to mutation in ribosomes. As you also know that too many mutations in any functional gene would lead to loss of fuction…
April 19, 2011 at 11:05 pm #104532
I really think that if there is something true in the bible with respect to creation, it probably was serendipity. Whatever a group of older semitic nomads could gather from the local myth and their own creativity, maybe informed by rough observation of the natural world (which amounts to anecdata). So I seriously doubt that even that shadow can inform us about biology/geology or anything that happened.
Your idea that your god is a mad scientist and that nature as we see it is its experiment, is in fact just a rehash of the god of the gaps hypothesis. And thus as "useful" as the deity hidden where noone can see it. At least the FSM has the elegance to actually use its noodly appendage to prevent detection, rather than hidding deeper and deeper away from science.And from an utilitarist point of view, such deity is as useful as solipsism.
Genes disappear, but also multiply (duplication at the gene or (part of) chromosome level, viral transformation have been documented). And if the level horizontal genetic transfer is higher than that of gene creation, it does not preclude the possibility for genes to be copied and then to evolve independantly. To get money I could go in the north of my country and mine for gold, or get a job close to my home. Te fact that most of us opt for the latter does not prevent the possibility of the former. It is just less frequently witnessed, and generally also less efficient when credit cards offer abounds 🙂
April 27, 2011 at 11:36 pm #104678BioSULTANParticipant
in my point of view, all we need is some kind of replicator and the notion of fallibility. Nothing is perfect and some errors are likely to occur during replication. In addition, resources are unlimited so replicators have varying success. Finally, and for bioinformaticians there can be no better example for evolution than looking at a sequence alignment because the fact that similar genes can be found in different organisms.
May 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm #104823genoveseParticipantquote :
Well – if he’s flawed, then the things said about him like; Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent are incorrect. So why call him a god?
June 19, 2011 at 8:01 am #105347TheLoveLlamaParticipantquote AFJ:
I believe it is pointless trying to argue for/against religion/science by pointing out problems in scientific theory. If you are doing this then you don’t understand the philosophy of the scientific method. The beauty of science (and I say beauty because I do have a bit of a bias due to being able to empathies with the philosophy) is that you can never ‘prove’ anything as being right, all you can do is gather evidence that show alternate theories to be unlikely/wrong, thus increasing the probability that your hypothesis is correct.
Therefore it is quite futile pointing out issues where scientific knowledge may be wrong in order to show religious views as being right. The only way that science progresses is through new ideas, ideas which in most cases contradict old ones. This leads to new scientific concepts/theories.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the debate for or against evolution and religion should concentrate on the philosophy behind science and religious beliefs (or how we perceive reality) rather than on specific scientific theories or the interpretation of religious scripture.
The way I see it most biological scientists would love it if anyone (religious or not) came up with some scientifically legitimate falsifiable hypotheses that may disprove the theory of evolution. If we are on the wrong track I certainly would like to know. However if these people did hold religious beliefs the problem they would then encounter is that only because there was a paradigm shift in biology (see Thomas Kun’s theories) doesn’t mean that science would then recognise religious beliefs as scientific theory.
Until then evolution remains a fascinating and extremely insightful theory that helps us understanding many of the puzzling observations of life. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (Theodosius Dobzansky 1964).
September 2, 2011 at 11:04 am #106158
So, in a fantasy dialogue with the being Vendian – Charnay – who has fallen in our time, I explain the mechanism of the so-called Cambrian Explosion:
***** "- Well, something did you remember? – said Ue Ooi.
– Yes, of course, much more! Many … The main issue – that’s what I remember! Six thousand years of wander and think: – How could it happen that a great nation, commanding all other peoples and the mass of dead-end domesticated species … has now become worm-parasite in the intestines of their former slaves?
Everyone was silent, digesting what was said.
– Uh, yes. So. Our civilization has enjoyed all the benefits that are provided global division of labor between the specially bred for a variety of social and business functions – several dozen species and races – the service-Jobers with much shorter life expectancy. Well, enjoy these benefits, we – "The people of Kings." Although … was believed that all these types – degenerative just of race and breed our own species … But it was a terrible sedition, which is tightly nipped in the bud! Since many of these Jobers just used for food … Well, they were considered irrational types, so …
– Oh! Yes you were cannibals! – Wedged Gerard.
– No more than you do now. You’re eating animals and plants? Drink milk?
– Gerard, hey, let Charney remember!
– Yes. Our villages under water and on land were beautiful, exquisite, special Jobers illuminated at night, warmed and cooled in the cold in the heat. We had an ultrasound and radio communication via special Jobers-signalers. We lived in a blue and green Jobers-plant moved to Jobers-transports, ate delicious food Jobers-cooks who prepared them from regenerating components themselves …
– Brrr … – again could not resist Gerard – That’s because – sybarites!
– And our babies, the larvae were introduced into the body of special Jobers-queens, and where all enjoy the benefits of prenatal. "*****
( http://translate.google.com/translate?s … _id%3D5308)
Cambrian explosion, from this point of view, was an act of devolution – away from universalism! Like all paleo-history of life. So, the concept of "Evolution" should be changed to the term "Devolution" Here’s an argument! 😀
September 29, 2011 at 7:32 pm #106493StanTheNecromancerParticipant
The only thing that is truly unexplainable is the big bang. Saying that everything came from an infinitely dense spec that just randomly explodes is… strange. It’s not much of a solid argument AGAINST evolution per se, but evolution does rely heavily on such a bogus idea.
September 29, 2011 at 8:44 pm #106494arthuriandailyParticipantquote Cat:
October 1, 2011 at 2:22 am #106519arthuriandailyParticipantquote alextemplet:
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."
November 25, 2011 at 10:33 am #108401skikr88Participant
The biggest argument against evolution that I see is found in all DNA. And that is the information that is in fact built into all DNA. Where did the instructions come from? And how are the vast amounts of instructions actually built into the strands themselves. If you can explain to me how evolution or natural selection accounts for the instructions then I might be swayed a little. So which came first? The chicken or the egg.
November 25, 2011 at 3:31 pm #108415
The information in DNA was accumulated incrementally over billions of year. The fact that you cannot figure out (nor apparently educate yourself about) how that could have started is not a proof against evolution. Just a demonstration of your lack of understanding.
A post in a forum is not the right place to teach a full course on molecular biology, and it would be hard to educate you there. However there are plenty of resources on the web But you could start here:
and particularly there:
And the egg was there long before the chicken, dinosaurs were laying calcified eggs long before any chicken walked on the Earth.
January 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm #108937
I have some solids arguments against darwinism, despite the truth of the experimental facts:
- MUTANT BACTERIAS/VIRUS PROOF THE FALSEHOOD OF (THE CONCLUSIONS) OF EVOLUTIONISM
- Assuming that the AIDS virus takes 2 hours to reproduce himself in a chronic patient during 20 years we have about 90.000 generations of the very mutant and dynamic virus… calculus: 12 generations/day x 365 days x 21 years
30.000 generations by the human specie, with a very lower rate of mutations per generation compared with microbes, gives 750.000 years, with about 25 years per generation… According to the science, the human specie changed every 700.000 years… and with a very lower mutation rate per generation (!) So, all (dynamic/ mutant) bacteria and virus must change of specie after 30.000 generations! Why? Because humans do it and with a very lower mutation rate per generation… but this change of specie by the microbes almost doesn’t happen in the nature after 30.000 generations… the case of the AIDS virus is more flagrant: it mutates enormously, it generates 90.000 generations (enough to 2 million years by humans) and it doesn’t change of specie…
So we’re being misled by the science in what concerns evolutionism and dates of the beginning of the creation…
- genetics already say that the mankind derives from a common root: an Adam and an Eve
- the chemical composition of the dust and the man is the same: just to remember, the man, when he dies, he becomes again dust (fertile ground)…
- studying the fossils of the hominids, we conclude that are broken links that cause problems to the continuous evolution theory. If, indeed, God created the different species discretly, one after the other, (at least some of) these missing fossils will never appear, simply because they do not exist.
January 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm #108938
CONCERNING DATES AND EVOLUTION
- an evolutionist can not make evolve a common ancestor of the man (e.g. Australopithecus) into an homo sapiens sapiens in a hazardous, continuous and natural way. The usual answer is : "this process takes millions of years". But in that case, they can not proof; instead, they believe without proofs…
- According to a private message of Jesus, mankind exists only since about 6.000 years ago. So, any dating before the flood is not credible, despite the rigor of the scientific methods. Remember that such datings are logical calculus, and as such, they may be… false… What really happened: ancient dates = f(6days)+f (6000years). For ex. C14 could have changed a lot during the 6 days of the creation and take its normal changing speed during the remaining 6.000 years. The same is valid for the remaining dating procedures (speed of the stars etc.). That’s why present scientifical datings are completely wrong: they forgot 6.000 years ago, during the 6-days creation procedure, the dating elements changed a lot…
January 5, 2012 at 1:00 pm #108939quote christianstrategies:
what’s this for calculations?
who’s saying, that humans are changing every 700 000 years? 🙄quote christianstrategies:
so? What should that proof? Only that humankind is not something special as it should be, if God created us as himself.quote christianstrategies:
really? I thought that God created everything in 6 days.
January 5, 2012 at 6:10 pm #108950quote :
Well, according to scientifical theories, yes we do: From australophytecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo from Neanderthal, Homo Cro Magnon, we have changes of species every 500.000 years… the scientifical dates before the flood are false, of course, but science use them in their evolution theories…
Answer: I really do believe in the 6 days theory. Anyhow if God created all species one after the other or simultaneously during the 6 day period is not relevant for me.
January 6, 2012 at 4:47 pm #108962quote :quote :
Answer: MIRACLES DO EXIST: AS SUCH, ADAM COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM THE CLAY OF THE GROUND
- The chemical composition of man and the dust is the same… man, when he dies, he becomes again fertile ground… as such, he can also be created from the clay of the ground by God, through a miracle or similar procedure…
- miracles do exist: we have a few proofs of public and permanent miracles: the incorruptible bodies of some saints, which even smell parfum, under the normal (non) conservation procedures… normally such corpses putrify, e.g. Muhammad, but the corpses of holy persons like Bernadette of Lourdes of Jacinta of Fatima, they don’t… the same for the Holy Blood of Jesus exposed in the chapel of the Holy Blood in Bruges, Flanders
- As we know, Energy= matter + antimatter or (the normal procedure), E= mc^2. Other ways to convert energy or matter into new matter: nuclear and chemical reactions. With a similar technic, God could have created Adam from the clay of the ground… with these formulas we’re able to explain the material miracles
January 7, 2012 at 3:22 pm #108969
Of course we are from the same compounds, since we eat animals, which feed on plants which grow on ground.
The miracle would be, if we were from something else.
January 7, 2012 at 5:40 pm #108972SemisaneParticipantquote christianstrategies:
What a nonsense, this is totally unsubstantiated by any evidence by any standard what so ever. You are making incredible claims here and therefor need incredible evidence to support is. (Because that is what science actually requires)
I am curious how you are going to do that. (And I am talking about scientific evidence to be very clear about the subject)
Apart from that, what is this private message of Jesus that the Earth is 6000 years old? It is sure not in the Bible. The Bible actually never speaks of the age of the Earth. The popular idea of 6000 years came from the Archbishop Ussher who lived in the 16th/17th century and that is done by adding up whatever-mention-of-periods-of-years from the Bible. Nothing about any of the main characters, including Jesus, even suggesting or hinting about the age of the Earth.
And as a side note, thinking the age of the Earth is several thousand years old, instead of the 4.6 billion years puts you off by a factor of about a million, which is -to use Richard Dawkins words- not a trivial error.
January 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm #109003
JESUS EXPLAINS THE HOMINIDS
According to a private message of Jesus, the hominids are the product of the sexual intercourse between one human and one beast (kind of monkey or gorilla, I suppose). Thus, they existed about 6.500 and 4300 years ago, since Jesus confirms the Bible saying that mankind exists only since ~6.000 years ago. By the time, the sin of bestiality was so big that they corrupted the earth (Genesis says mankind was corrupted, but doesn’t give details…). God finished to send they flood, and, of course, the hominids didn’t get in the ark… so they were extinguished.
I think the dinossaurs and mamouths extinguished for similar reasons (they didn’t enter in the Noah’s ark…). Anyhow, it won’t be difficult to unmask the stories of the modern, "very intelligent" man who "loved" the caves during 60.000 years or the theory of the "selective asteroid" who only killed dinossaurs and left elephants and big snakes alive… sources: christianstrategies
January 12, 2012 at 3:40 pm #109005quote Semisane:
1. Age of Earth: watch out: Jesus didn’t say that the Earth is 6.000 years old. Instead, he says that mankind is about 6.000 years old. That confirms the Bible. Also, if we read carefully the creation recite, Gen 1, we understand that "the heavens and the earth" existed before the 6 days, but the earth was empty, because the creation procedure didn’t have started yet…
2. Very ancient scientifical dates: I’m not able to proof it, but remember that ancient scientifical datings are also no proofs/facts (while mutations and fossiles are). A scientifical date is a "number", a conclusion based on a logical reasoning and not a proof. Logic reasoning is not always true. Indeed one fact to be true doesn’t have to be logical (e.g. public miracles: the uncorruptible corpse of St. Bernardette of Lourdes smells parfum and doesn’t perish as it should), but has to be coherent with reality. The corpse of Bernardette defies all scientifical logic, but its existence is coherent with reality (we have even photos). The scientifical dates are not coherent with reality: where’s the time machine to check this coherency with reality?
3. Old dates= function(6days)+function(6000 years). Scientifics discard that events could have happened completely different during the 6 days period. For the speed of the stars, we have already a little proof, that the speed is not limited to the speed of the light. The neutrino’s if energized enough can travel at speeds higher than the speed of the light. Sources: wikipedia, christianstrategies. So, during the first 6 days, when the Big Bang occurred, God could have moved the galaxies at enourmous speeds, and afterwards, they move with their normal speed, the speed of the light. That’s why I contest all very old scientifical dates. Note: I have also a scientifical background, and I defend the science in other domains… Our Lady in NY made declarations that make me conclude the existence of teleportation (the paradise lays after the farthest star in the Universe 3D… source: tldm)
January 13, 2012 at 7:38 am #109015
I see you can be very flexible and up-to-date, if you need to, don’t you? The speed of neutrinos has not been confirmed yet, to my knowledge, but it fits your theory, so why not to use it, right?
January 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm #109135quote JackBean:
Please refer tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly. Of course these results are disputed, because they challenge the Big Bang and all before the flood swelled dates.
January 22, 2012 at 5:07 pm #109136
LOL, this has nothing to do with Big Bang or flood, but with theory of relativity. And it’s not disputed, because scientists wanted to shut up someone saying something else, but because they must be 100% sure, before they will knock down our current knowledge. That doesn’t mean it cannot happend, but it didn’t yet.
January 23, 2012 at 12:06 pm #109150animartcoParticipantquote futurezoologist:
Hi Futurezoologist. You say man has become way too good at surviving. But I would say homo sapiens is the least likely species to survive. We are a very young species to start with, and we have been busy making ourselves weaker and weaker physically throughout our history. I couldn’t survive out in the garden with my chickens, even wrapped up as warm as their feathers; on a night at -4 or -5, and even an olympic athlete would probably not survive three or four nights. We have become so dependent on technology that the minute it fails we will all die.
January 23, 2012 at 12:13 pm #109151
yep, and the minute crab looses his shell will die
January 25, 2012 at 8:48 pm #109213quote JackBean:
1. There’s already 2 experiences in the same sense that testify that the neutrino’s can travel at speeds higher than the light. How many experiences are still required? 1000? It is because this concept has strong consequences to dates and starts subtly to unmask the big lies of the very old dates: 14 billion years light doesnot imply any more 14 billions of years… but less time… the truth begins to appear…
2.There’s no limits to speed: it is not because scientists can only measure speeds at 300.000 km/s or slightly higher that it is not possible to travel at speeds almost infinites. Our Lady comes from the paradise, at a distance higher to 14 billions years light outside the limits of the material universe, in less than one second! Sources tldm.org/Bayside/Messages/bm710701.htm, christianstrategies.eu/index.php/Bible-Big-Bang, ‘teleportation’.
January 26, 2012 at 6:51 am #109216quote christianstrategies:
Ya you are correct, but also read this
Which has potential to be used as future distant travel method. and it is suspected that particles from huge distances like 14 billion light years some time pass through such worm holes and reach earth before expected time in space.
Above all this discussion, it may prove arrival of human from distant planet through worm hole OR life seeding on earth but evolution of organisms on earth is pure fact.
January 28, 2012 at 7:31 am #109265quote sachin:
Interesting the question of the wormholes. However I’d like to argue concerning evolution and ETs.quote sachin:
1.THE VIRGIN SAID: THERE’S NO BIOLOGICAL LIFE OUTSIDE THE EARTH
Even if there are conditions for life to exist, there’s no biological life outside our planet, said Our Lady in New York. Indeed, the UFO’s phenomena exist, but not the aliens themselves. This phenomena is created by the demons in the atmosphere: their goal is to occult the phenomena of the "rapture" (of the good believers by Jesus and His angels), to save them from the tribulations of the apocalypse. Thinking that those holy persons were kidnapped by extra terrestrials, the press and the rest of the world shall not even realize that they’re entering in the apocalyptic period, at the given time… Source: Logical Interpretation of the Biblical Apocalyptic Prophecies.pdf under ‘if apocalypse comes, what to do?’
2. Concerning evolution, I don’t contest mutations as a local form of evolution, race changes, but I do contest change of specie evolution in the origin of the biological life on earth. I’m a creationist, and I can even use scientifical arguments to defend the God’s role in the creation of the biological life. In order to avoid repetition, please refer to my posts of page 19 of this forum, specially the one of the mutant microbes as a proof against the conclusions of evolutionism (Source: christianstrategies.eu/index.php/arguments-against-Evolutionism#arguments)
January 30, 2012 at 5:15 pm #109305
I am agree with you… christianstrategies 🙂
What ever you said from page 19 may be right and I respect your belief in theory of special creation. As you strongly believe in this theory, I believe in existence of wormholes and few scientist explained about the same. 8)
Yes evolutionary time line given by paleontologist may not be accurate but still it doesn’t prove evolution fact wrong. 🙄
There is nothing that science can’t explain (Including GOD), It takes time to revile the 100% truth behind every thing. Once people were not ready to accept that solar eclipse are caused by Sun, moon and Earth’s position. They were believing in some evil power that cause eclipse and God saves sun with special power. Which is not at all correct. Few years ago wireless communication was thought to be a special power until unless we invented radio and mobiles. We may or may not survive till we successfully explain Evolution perfectly and God in terms of science but I strongly believe its not impossible. ❗
January 31, 2012 at 1:13 pm #109328quote christianstrategies:
Sure, if some virgin said there is no extraterrestrial life then there is none 🙄
February 1, 2012 at 1:35 am #109346jchriscoParticipant
I see your post is several years old. Did you ever get an answer to your question about evolution?
February 1, 2012 at 9:54 am #109354SHISHKABOBParticipantquote christianstrategies:
Excuse me but the two experiences of which you speak are not testimonies but rather observations each of whose validity has not yet been officially determined by the greater scientific community. Until this happens, it would be unwise to use such information as the basis of any sort of logical proof.
Though it would appear that you are not trying to be logical, so I guess it doesn’t matter.
February 2, 2012 at 7:00 am #109374quote SHISHKABOB:
Agree with you. ❗
February 2, 2012 at 8:31 am #109377
so you agree with all of them? 😆
February 2, 2012 at 11:07 am #109380quote JackBean:
Good for them 💡 …… they will stop fighting 👿 !!!! 😆
February 2, 2012 at 2:42 pm #109395quote sachin:
I have some solids arguments against darwinism, despite the truth of the experimental facts:
MUTANT BACTERIAS/VIRUS PROOF THE FALSEHOOD OF (THE CONCLUSIONS) OF EVOLUTIONISM
– Assuming that the AIDS virus takes 2 hours to reproduce himself in a chronic patient during 20 years we have about 90.000 generations of the very mutant and dynamic virus… calculus: 12 generations/day x 365 days x 21 years
30.000 generations by the human specie, with a very lower rate of mutations per generation compared with microbes, gives 750.000 years, with about 25 years per generation… According to the science, the human specie changed every 700.000 years… and with a very lower mutation rate per generation (!) SO, ALL (DYNAMIC/ MUTANT) BACTERIA AND VIRUS MUST CHANGE OF SPECIE AFTER 30.000 GENERATIONS OR 10 YEARS! Why? Because humans do it and with a very lower mutation rate per generation… but this change of specie by the microbes almost doesn’t happen in the nature after 30.000 generations… the case of the AIDS virus is more flagrant: it mutates enormously, it generates 90.000 generations (enough to 2 million years by humans) and it doesn’t change of specie…
SO WE’RE BEING MISLED BY THE SCIENCE IN WHAT CONCERNS EVOLUTIONISM AND DATES OF THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION…
– genetics already say that the mankind derives from a common root: an Adam and an Eve
– the chemical composition of the dust and the man is the same: just to remember, the man, when he dies, he becomes again dust (fertile ground)…
– studying the fossils of the hominids, we conclude that are broken links that cause problems to the continuous evolution theory. If, indeed, God created the different species discretly, one after the other, (at least some of) these missing fossils will never appear, simply because they do not exist.
February 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm #109396quote SHISHKABOB:
Excuse me: the experiences with the neutrino’s were done in september 2011, 5 months ago. What is the scientifical community waiting for to authenticate the 2 experiences??? Do they not have time to go the CERN and repeat it officially? Are they really good intentioned or do they prefer to let the EXPERIENCE "DIE" and NEVER OFFICIALIZE it?
Sorry to say, the science generally says the truth, but in biblical domains, it goes differently:
1. I sent the strong arguments against evolutionism to the scientifical revues "Science", "Scientifical American" and "Nature" and they prefer to hide the truth or consider it "not relevant" (just to remember: the lies of darwinism were a "bomb" in the scientifical community since the 19 centuries and the lies are taught now in every school)
2. The unexpected Great Warning which precedes the apocalypse: The comet passing very close to the earth with a queue that ressembles another sun: the trajectory of the comet is well known by the scientifical community and the date he will become visible, already very close to the earth: but they do intentionally hide the news of the comet until it will become visible!
Yes, they’re not no inoccent in biblical domains, although generally the science tells the truth.
Kind regards. christianstrategies.
February 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm #109397quote christianstrategies:
As per your explanation Specification is fact and that where the evolution begins. So what ever you said is proof of evolution.
The AIDS virus (any fast growing virus) example can not be compared with any other organism. Its not that AIDS virus is not changing after number of generations (Say 30,000). Just because change in genes are only favored if there is need of such change with changing environment. If you keep conditions constant for years nothing is going to happen to any organism. They are not going to change. The multiplication rate of AIDS virus is so fast that environment where virus grows changes very slowly. So may 90,000 generations of AIDS virus equals to 30,000 generations of other viruses or bacteria where these both change their species.quote :
I have already written that, evolutionary time line given by paleontologist may not be accurate.quote :
So what’s new in that! May be they both were common ancestors of Ponginids and Hominids.quote :
That proves every organism is made up of soil component and has similar origin and so Evolution is fact.quote :
What if these species were existing and never got fossilized?
February 2, 2012 at 10:31 pm #109403SHISHKABOBParticipantquote christianstrategies:
It takes longer than five months for these things to be evaluated. Especially since it is something that is possibly revolutionary in terms of physics. The measurement of the neutrinos has been made official, it’s in a journal. However, the validity of the measurements has not yet been affirmed by the scientific community.
It does take a while. Simply being told that the measurements were 100% correct is not enough to make it official. There needs to be vigorous testing and retesting and evaluations of the situation. Which is exactly what is going on right now.
February 4, 2012 at 7:18 pm #109440quote :
You enter in the domain of the non proofed, like me. What if God have created all species ~6.000 years ago in the 6 day period? Does the Bible tell lies? Imprecisions due to copists, persecutions or the hurry of the authors,it may have, but not lies… if you want, we can have matter for further discussion…
Just to remember: you can not make evolve an australopythecus in a natural, continuous way into a modern man in a labo… does it take too much generations (millions of years)? Try then with microbes: they’re going to contradict you…
February 5, 2012 at 3:47 am #109444
February 5, 2012 at 4:45 am #109445quote christianstrategies:
I’m not student of theology to comment on "Great and Holy Bible". Neither I will like to be one. Just what I can do is keep the respect about other religions and their holy books of inspirations. One need to be sure about oneself that "he/she studied every thing about holy book and understands every corner of it with passion, logic and love about it."
6000 year thing is hard to believe for me. Simply because life span of the virus and bacteria is too short as compared to Human. So the speciation time required for these small creatures is very short and humans will of course take say 3000 generations X 100yrs life span = 300,000 yrs to form new species. Hence cant be compared.quote christianstrategies:
We don’t need to do that in laboratory, just because nature has already done that. 🙂
February 5, 2012 at 5:51 pm #109453quote sachin:
The remaining environment is bigger and,thus, has less generations for the same period of time. But what counts is the number of generations and not the period of time. All mutant microbes (serious mutations: resistence to antibiotica, etc) after 30.000 generations shall change of specie, because, according to darwinism, man was able to do it (30.000 generations x 25 years/generation = 750.000 years for man)… THUS, MUTANT MICROBES CONTRADICT (CONTINUOUS CHANGE OF SPECIE) EVOLUTION, Sorry.
February 5, 2012 at 6:09 pm #109454quote sachin:
No, There’s a common ancester to modern man (only modern man, thus discarding here the hominids), according to genetics. Only dates don’t match with the Bible: the "Adam" would have 60.000 years and "Eve" 140.000 years.quote :
a. No, Evolution is not a fact: You have to proof:
1) creation of life from the dust in a spontaneous way… without divine intervention… try it in a labo… don’t come with excuses of the thousands of generations (= millions of years)… begin creating a virus from the dust spontaneously… 10 years are enough for 30.000 generations…
2) they have to proof changement of specie, for all species of the world, through mutation and hazard only… mutant microbes are there contradicting this theory…
b. MIRACLES DO EXIST: THE UNCORRUPTIBLE BODIES OF THE SAINTS UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS OF (NON) CONSERVATION ARE PUBLIC AND PERMANENT MIRACLES. Ex. Saint Bernardette of Lourdes (even smells parfum, I think) or the anti modernist ideologies,
Saints Padre Pio and Pope Pius X…
TO BE TRUTH, LOGICAL REASONING IS NOT ENOUGH. INSTEAD, COHERENCY WITH REALITY IS A WARRANTY OF TRUTH. It is here where Bible triumphs and easy logic theories as darwinism and islam fail…
AS SUCH, ADAM CAN BE CREATED FROM THE DUST OF THE GROUND…
February 5, 2012 at 6:44 pm #109455quote sachin:
1. Yes, it can be compared: do microbes not mutate a lot? Resistance to antibiotics, Aids mutations? Do you want still more serious mutations? So, 30.000 generations of a microbe during, say, 10 years, correspond to 30.000 x 25 years = 750.000 years to man, or taking your equivalency of 100 years time, 30.000 x100 years= 3.000.000 years time to man… YES, MUTANT MICROBES ARE THERE TO UNMASK THE LIE… IN THE REAL PROOF, THE COHERENCY AGAINST REALITY, DARWINISM (AND ISLAM) FAIL AGAINST THE BIBLE…
2. Do your grand fathers have lost genetic features? Do your grand sons acquire new serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five etc)? Anwser: spontaneously, NO. So, the microbe mutations rate per generation are even higher than by humans…quote sachin:
YES, NATURE PROOFS THAT AFTER 30.000 GENERATIONS (=750.000 YEARS BY MAN) THERE’S NO CHANGE OF SPECIE, EVEN IN HIGH MUTANT MICROBES (Aids, microbes resistant to antibiotica…).
YES, COHERENCY WITH REALITY UNMASKS THE LIE OF THE THEORIES OF DARWINISM…
Logical reasoning of Darwinism or Koran is not enough to be truth. coherency with reality is required instead, and, sometimes, the truth (=coherency with reality) doesn’t match with a given logical reasoning.
February 6, 2012 at 4:00 am #109458
Dear christianstrategies,quote :
I found this thread gathering inter religious comments. Also I find no logic in arguing on this topic with person obsessed with religious values. The discussion can not be healthy enough any further when people starts thinking illogically by giving weightage to one side.
February 6, 2012 at 7:52 am #109464
Just a few relevant points.quote christianstrategies:
This is not a logical criterion; if we "begin creating" something, then by definition, it will not have happened "spontaneously." Could you please clarify?
Similarly – by "dust," do you mean "inorganic matter"? If you want to ask for evidence for something, you have to be specific about what you will actually consider to be evidence.quote christianstrategies:
…Yes? It’s called polydactyly, and it happens in about 1 in 500 live births.
New mutations arise in every person of every generation. I think the average is about seven for each of us.quote :
Again, yes. You can look this up for yourself. Humans are far better at protecting and repairing our DNA than most microbes. Compared to the AIDS virus, the difference is about 1000-fold.
February 6, 2012 at 4:36 pm #109483quote sachin:
OK, no further mention of Koran, not relevant in this forum…
February 6, 2012 at 4:40 pm #109484quote christianstrategies:
yeah, like if Bible would be 🙄
Why don’t you comment the Lenski’s experiment? You’re obviously updated with the neutrinos, but you ignore much older research… One might ask why is that?
February 6, 2012 at 4:57 pm #109485quote AstraSequi:
Yes: (continuous) evolutionism assumes life appeared from inorganic matter, spontaneously (or through electrical storms, it doesn’t really matter), mutation by mutation… an experience thus to be repeated in a lab, to create "spontaneously" life from the dust…
Note: it is already possible to synthethise virus through the une of genetical engineering… but it is not a task of the hasard, but rather a task of high intelligences (God, a computer scientist or, his cousin, the geneticist).quote AstraSequi:
By dust, I mean, fertile ground, clay, in small particules… yes, it is inorganic matter… Adam was created from the dust, and when we die, we become dust, fertile ground…quote AstraSequi:
I don’t mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes…). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five…). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn’t goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know… Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn’t it?
Since the times of Noah, there were no serious mutations… they were men like we are, only they had less knowledge… you can check it yourself with your grand parents or grand children… no, they’re not become Extraterrestrials… unless they have sex with animals (monkeys?)… like it happened before the flood (the hominids…)quote AstraSequi:
One more reason not to believe men evolve into a new specie after each 30.000 generations (=750.000 years to human or 10 years to a virus…)
February 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm #109486quote christianstrategies:
Mix of parental chromosomes is not a mutation. What was Astri talking about is a mutation.
Passage from parent to offspring is not related to speciation.
February 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm #109489quote christianstrategies:
I still don’t think this makes sense. If we try to repeat something in the lab, it will not have happened spontaneously. Similarly, are you saying that if something has not occurred today, then it is impossible for it to occur in the future?
What specific experiment or experiments would convince you? That’s what I mean when I ask for standards of evidence.
Also, what do you mean by "(continuous) evolutionism"? The appearance of life at some time point is an inference from our knowledge of evolution – because life was once much simpler than it was today, and even simpler the further back in time you go, that implies that there was probably a starting point.quote :
That also is contradictory. If land is fertile, it contains huge amounts of bacteria. Similarly, decomposition to "become fertile ground" does not happen without huge amounts of bacteria.
That is to say, "inorganic matter" and "fertile ground" are not the same thing. You cannot define "dust" to be the same thing as both.quote :
I still don’t understand. I think you need to specify what you mean by a "serious mutation," for example. (Otherwise, the qualifier "serious" is inviting the No True Scotsman fallacy to be made. The word "mutation" has a standard definition, but not "serious mutation.") And as Jack pointed out, chromosome mixing is not mutation.
Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle, and that therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That’s the argument that I think you seem to be using.quote :
I apologize – I think I misunderstood you. But then I think I still am – because, are you saying that humans have not changed into a new species in 30,000 generations, therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame?
February 7, 2012 at 4:08 am #109501quote AstraSequi:
Ya, there is nothing like "Normal Mutation" and "Serious Mutation". At the most we can say "Repairable", "Un repairable" and "Lethal" Mutations. 6 finger mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly) or chromosomal aberration called Polydactyly. In the process of speciation the mutations or variations are favoured if it suits the environment, else mostly these are repaired if repairable. If not repairable and not suitable the organism automatically gets deselected in nature.
Yes some of my grand relatives had such mutations but they got deselected by nature and obvious human behavior.
How? Just think what will happen to the polydactyly genes in a person if he doesn’t get married just because of his weirdness which has no advantage.
But if mutation provides one the extra intelligence or physical strength the person has high chances to get selected in nature and transfers genes to next generation. Now this type of speciation can not be realized.
Human body is at such level of perfection according to human’s need that further mutations like complete lifelong baldness and 4 finger in hand will develop and give rise to new species (May be a species). But ofcourse it will take time, as today say if your progeny has dominant gene mutation (not Polygenic inheritance) for 4 fingers in hand it may get transferred to next generation only if
"He gets chance to marry, though he is weird". 😕
February 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm #109509quote JackBean:
Anyhow, I’m not talking about the mix of chromosoms from the parents, but in mutations. Thanks for the correction.
February 7, 2012 at 3:54 pm #109510quote JackBean:
1. What I mean is that all mutant microbes has to change of specie after 30.000 generations.
2. the concept of mutation or serious mutation is quite ambiguous, as we have seen: rather, it is pure convention: it could include the mix of parental chromosoms, but it seems not… pure convention… in the same way, I could qualify the blond daughter of the black race couple in Africa as change of specie…because the physical features changed a lot… but it is not a change of specie, as we know… scientifics have here an important margin of ambiguity, here. But the most important: all mutant microbes have to change of specie after 30.000 generations, because men are able to do it, and with a lot less mutations per generation, isn’t it? Kind regards.
February 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm #109511quote AstraSequi:
I mean: the spontaneous apparition of biological life never happened in the nature: Everything was created by God: that’s why such experience is impossible to be created in a lab… what happened was something completely different, and that is already possible to repeat in a lab: the creation of a synthetic virus or a synthetinc living being, if a superior intelligence, God or a geneticist has the correct genom…quote AstraSequi:
1) To make evolve in a lab (e.g. a ground completely desinfected of life), spontaneously a simple form of life: it can be even used a completely desinfected lake, with complete absence of life and a lot of electrical storms, to try to create the first form of life… this event should be repeatable in order to give coherence to (continuous) evolutionism…
2) to make evolve in a lab an australopythecus into a modern man, spontaneously, hasardously: OK, this is impossible to do, "it takes too much time": so, it is completely non proofed and coherency with reality can not be tested…quote AstraSequi:
Continuously evolutionism= classic darwinism
discrete evolutionism= God’s creation. There’s familiarity among species, but that doesn’t mean one specie derived from the other, mutation by mutation. Rather, both were created by God, ~6.000 years ago, in a way the geneticist/computer scientist makes evolve computer programs: they’re derived, but by "important jumps": e.g. win Xp, win 7…
2. "Life was once much simpler": No, dates are completely wrong. Maybe there’s a difference of a few days in time, that’s all (man was created in the 6th day, and microbes were created a few days before) Please refer to the posts of page 19 and 20, following my post "CONCERNING DATES AND EVOLUTION".
February 7, 2012 at 4:47 pm #109512quote AstraSequi:quote :quote AstraSequi:
You you have problems, you "disinfect" the fertile ground, and there’s no bacteria anymore. Anyhow, dust of the ground may be small particules of fertile ground (disinfected, for this purpose) or small particules of clay…quote :quote AstraSequi:
That’s not relevant. Simply replace "serious mutation" by "mutation", it the context remains the same and according to the scientifical conventions.quote AstraSequi:
Changes of race (color of eyes, purification of race in indians of America…) or small mutations may happen, but since the times of Aristotle, Noah, or Adam, people have 5 fingers per hand and no 6 fingers hand mutation is transmitted from parents to children… I mean, mutations able to trigger a change of specie… no, they didn’t happen… to see the lies of the modern intelligent man that existed since "60.000 years ago", please refer to page 19 of this forum… extraordinary mutation events may happen in modern times, like nuclear war, but even so, there’s no evidence of change of specie in Hiroshima or Tchernobil…quote :quote AstraSequi:
1. According to darwinism, men changed of specie every 30.000 generations, but mutant microbes contradict that. There’s one bacteria that "seemed to change of specie", according to "conventional scientifical criteria", but all other mutant microbes didn’t. And they should, because they suffer important mutations, like resistance to antibiotica. Thus, it can not be generalized, and humans have a mutation rate per generation a lot slower than mutant microbes: for men, taking to comparison the microbes, it only would be possible an hipothetical change of specie after, I would say, 100.000 even 300.000 generations = 2.000.000 to 7.000.000 years for only one change of specie! E.g. Homo Neandertal to modern man…and microbes show it: it was a very particular case and not the general case… it contradicts completely generalizations in evolutionism and evolution dates… conclusion: it was the exception and not the rule and with bigger living beings, the mutation rate decreases, which makes its viability practically impossible…
2. It is possible for men to change of specie quickly, like the mule… please refer to my comment of page 19 "Jesus explains the hominids"
February 7, 2012 at 5:08 pm #109513quote christianstrategies:
Answer for this is already over herequote sachin:
February 7, 2012 at 7:10 pm #109518quote sachin:
That only proofs what I said: since the old times of the modern man, e.g. Aristotle, Touthakamon etc., there’s no serious mutations in the human specie able to trigger a change of specie…
February 7, 2012 at 7:22 pm #109519quote sachin:
1. If it would be Bill Gates, Obama or the King of Saudi Arabia, with 4 fingers in one hand, I’m sure he would be able to get marry… not really an excuse… natural selection by people takes specially into account an important factor: "money"…
2. How many species of bacteria were found able to change of specie? Only one! And how many species of microbes exist all over the world? Millions, I assume… And that change of specie was not from a bacteria into a fungi (what I really call change of specie, for me what happened was simply a mutation phenomena, but it is not me who defines the specie’s criteria…). And we have the powerful Aids virus to contradict permanently it…
3. In order to proof continuous evolutionism, all changes of specie triggered by mutations have to be proofed, sorry… is far from being the case. It is not because one cause works, that the whole set follows that rule…
February 7, 2012 at 9:07 pm #109520
christian: you have serious misunderstanding of evolution. First, human does not change every 30 000 generations. Even if it did, that doesn’t mean anything about any other species. Every species mutates and changes with other speed. Consider some "living fossils", which didn’t change for millions of years, while other species change very often.
February 8, 2012 at 3:38 am #109521quote christianstrategies:
…Again, you can’t "make" something happen "spontaneously." If something happens "spontaneously," then it happened without external cause. The word "make" implies that we are the external cause.
That is, it is not logically possible to meet the requirement. We cannot be the cause of something that happens with no cause.quote :
Even if Australopithecus still existed, I think such an attempt would be unethical…"Cannot be tested" is not equivalent with "false" (or "true," for that matter).quote :
I think you need to provide verifiable evidence for this…I don’t really see any in the reference that you gave.quote :
Soil with no organic matter in it (bacteria, fungi, earthworms, decomposing material, humus) is infertile. Most of the vegetables we eat wouldn’t grow in it. The point is that "fertile ground" and "ground containing no organic matter" are mutually exclusive categories.quote :
But then you used the term "serious mutation" again below that, and also "small mutation" in the next paragraph. I know about certain scientific conventions, but none of them have a "serious/nonserious" designation; I want to know what you mean.
…It is relevant if we do not understand what you mean. If you’re not sure what you mean, then you need to decide, or to stop using the term.quote :
I don’t think you answered the question (it is a "yes" or "no" type question).quote :
Again, I don’t think you answered the question (and again, it is a "yes" or "no" type question).
I think your main argument is something similar to "The world is 6,000 years old, therefore there was not enough time for evolution to happen, therefore evolution did not happen." Is that correct?
February 8, 2012 at 6:32 pm #109528quote AstraSequi:
What I mean is:
1) you start, trigger the experience to restart life, setting the same environment as it happened in the beginning, according to the science. Here there’s an external cause: you’re trying to reproduce a past event
2) afterwards, you let the things go, spontaneously: I mean, you set a sterile ground or lake exposed to the weather and you don’t intervene anymore (but if you’re able to observe the results, through a kind of window, it would be nice…)
2b) alternatively, you can try to simulate a permanent electrical storm in a previously sterilised lake, assuming life was created that way (a good experience to do in a lake in Mars, or in an artificial lake in a spaceship, for example). Yes, here it is not spontaneous because you have to simulate the theoretical conditions of the origin of life. But this experience, because of human intervention is too artificial: normally it should be an initially disinfected lake and atmosphere, exposed to the weather, without no more human intervention, just waiting… and observing the results… the problem is that, afterwards, science would come with a excuse that a permanent electrical storm would be required, "as it happened in the beginning"…
Is it clearer now?
February 8, 2012 at 6:52 pm #109529quote AstraSequi:
1.That’s the point: Darwinism is not an evidence: it is a non proofed theoritical, and the truth, the coherency with reality, per definition, can not be proofed
2. According to Jesus, the hominids are the result of sex between humans and animals (monkeys/gorila’s?). An attempt to reproduce again australopithecus, it would be really non ethical… According to wikipedia, genetics proof that there were interbreeding between (at least) the last 2 or 3 most recent families of homo (e.g. neandertal and modern man). That’s how "evolution" happened: sex at "mule style"…quote AstraSequi:
Yes, dates are also non proofed. But "the million of years" stories are also far from being an evidence. The reliable time machine is not there to test the truth, the coherency with reality. Logical reasoning, (= logical date procedures) means nothing without the test of coherency with reality, which is impossible to do for dates before the Flood…
Anyhow, I hope that you agree that the story of the modern man, able to do doctorats, since 100.000 to 200.000 years ago (dates source: wikipedia), living permanently in caves, because he refused to do a hut in wood or stone, unable to deplace quickly (e.g. with horses), to hunt or to practice agriculture in Africa, or that refused to reproduce as it should , is really a big tale… Just to compare, population in Algeria increased 8 times in the 20th century, in very difficult economical conditions, war and with a terrible climate
February 8, 2012 at 7:03 pm #109530quote christianstrategies:
Could you provide any reference, where did Jesus mention hominids?
February 8, 2012 at 7:36 pm #109531quote AstraSequi:
When I mean disinfected, or sterilized, I mean that all living beings there were previous killed, and not to remove all organic matter. But you have always the alternative to use ground with no death organic matter at all: indeed, may it was so in the beginning, when God created the first form of life…quote :quote AstraSequi:
You could easily deduce it from my previous quoted text below:
serious mutation: able to trigger a change of specie
small mutation: the opposite of serious mutationquote AstraSequi:quote :quote AstraSequi:
You want a "yes" or "no" answer, but you combine two different questions. All can be deduced from the text above…
question 1 " Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle?"
Yes, Aristotle, Tutakamhon had 5 fingers and we keeping having 5 fingers per hand and not 6…
question 2. It is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That’s the argument that I think you seem to be using.
No, small mutations (=mutations that don’t trigger change of specie) are always possible and are en evidence.
Note: question 1 doesn’t imply question 2. However, I contest change of species through mutations, behalve sexual intercourse between closer species (ex. mule, ligre, hominids)quote AstraSequi:quote :quote AstraSequi:
I think your main argument is something similar to "The world is 6,000 years old, therefore there was not enough time for evolution to happen, therefore evolution did not happen." Is that correct?[/quote]
1. Please note that according to Gen 1,1: "in the beginning, God created the earth and heavens", thus the earth and the skies existed before the 6 days of the creation, but not the rest of the universe (galaxies etc.)
2. Even if life existed since "millions of years ago", the experiences with thousands of successive generations are far from proofing continuous evolution (= one specie derived from the other only by mutations, without sexual intercourse with closer species and without "jumps")
3. In Wikipedia, they don’t dare to call the E. Coli experiment as a change of specie of this bacteria. Although conventionally it could be "considered as a very important mutation enough to trigger a change of specie, making the E. Coli closer to Salmonella", in practice:
3a. E. Coli was able, after 50.000 generations and hunderd of millions of mutations(but only 100 to 1000 valid for this experience), to survive in citric acid, which she was not able to do before.
3b. but the survival capacities of the bacteria diminished: extinguishion more probable…
3c. this kind of mutation is similar to those of bacterias resistant afterwards to antibiotica, and which per definition, didn’t change of specie: once again, the scientifical criterias of change of specie may be quite "ambiguous". Just to give a better idea, people with Aids imunity (able to successfully live in case of Aids contamination, thus, in contact with the Aids virus), may be mutant, but they don’t change of specie…
February 8, 2012 at 7:57 pm #109532quote JackBean:
We’re here to argue. Closer species to modern man,according to wikipedia,
– Homo Neandertal existed, since 600.000 years ago. Making 25 years the generation time, it appeared about 600.000/25= 24 000 generations ago
– Homo Heidelberg existed since 300.000 years ago= 12.000 generations ago
– Modern very intelligent man since 100.000 to 200.000 years ago (and of course, he loved the caves for 95% of that period, with the spiders, the humidity, the bats and the rats… ;-)), which gives 4.000 to 8.000 generations ago
Which means, the closer ancestors of (and including )modern man had very strong positive mutation capacity, I mean, able to trigger change of species, a lot bigger than E. Coli, which requires 30.000 generations to become "antibiotica-resistant like". It seems to me that mutant microbes have stronger positive mutation capacity than the modern man ancestors… Or do you think, the man/hominids family have stronger mutation capacities? Do you have evidences? Because since the times of Noah/Adam we keep having 5 fingers and not 6… I would like to have wings also, but we don’t evolve enough (spontaneously) since the last thousands of years (=with written registers).
Note: people suffer a lot of mutations indeed, but they’re almost exclusively negative: cancers etc.quote JackBean:
1. I completely disagree with the "million of years" story/tale. Detailed discussion in pages 19 and 20 of the forum. It is rather non proofed subject.
2. What do you mean by living fossils (discarding dates, of course)?
February 8, 2012 at 8:05 pm #109533quote JackBean:
Yes, in French: "http://forums.lesoir.be/index.php?showtopic=14284&st=820&p=821648&#entry821648"
the original, also in French, shall be found somewhere in the web site http://www.apparitionsmariales.org, the Web site of private messages of Jesus and Mary, including also explanations that touch scientifical domains (evolutionism, hominids, dates etc.). It shall be in the topic "nature et création". I think I should also give a look there in order to increase my knowledge in this domain…
February 9, 2012 at 5:13 am #109535
I’m spending far more time on this than I had intended…quote christianstrategies:
Yes, thank you. Now – if such an experiment was repeated in a laboratory, what would you think had been demonstrated?
Or suppose some different criterion were met instead:
– if the experiment showed that a self-replicating but non-cellular entity had been produced?
– if the experiment showed that all the components found in living organisms could be produced spontaneously?
– if the experiment was run, and it was clear that it would work if it were done enough times, but it would take lots of repetitions (costing enough money to be infeasible to actually carry out)?
Alternatively: what other kinds of evidence would convince you that evolution occurs?quote :
What is "coherency with reality"?
And again, "cannot be tested" (even if that were the case) is not equivalent with either "true" or "false."quote AstraSequi:
Then what evidence would convince you of the age of the earth? You and I both know that time machines are not available, if they are even possible.
I think you may want to talk to the physicists and geologists.quote :
Thank you. So why are you not using the term "change of species"?
The next question is, what would you consider to be a change of species? Please make sure that it applies to both microbes and to larger organisms (and you can supply a different definition for each if you choose).quote :
…It is a single question, asking whether you are making a particular "if…then" statement. I now understand what you mean by "serious mutation" – so you can replace "any change" with "any change of species."
I agree that the conclusion (which you called the "second question") is not implied by the premise. However, you then need to provide different support for your conclusion.quote AstraSequi:
I still don’t think you addressed this question. It’s possible that this is being caused by a language difference across English and French – again, it is a question about whether you are making a particular inference. I’m fairly sure the answer is no, but then I don’t know what argument you are using to try and demonstrate the conclusion.
Or if you want, only answer the main question:quote AstraSequi:
You are operating under some argument that concludes with "therefore, evolution did not happen" (or "therefore, species cannot change into another" or something similar). I don’t really understand what that argument is – at least, I can’t seem to find anything of the form "X is true, Y is true, therefore Z is true."
Your main premise, at last in your last few posts, seems to be "humans have not recently changed into another species" (and possibly, "microbes may have changed into another species in one case"). I don’t think it’s possible to get from this to "species cannot change into another." Am I wrong, or are there premises that I’m missing?
February 9, 2012 at 3:22 pm #109557quote christianstrategies:
Any proof that this is not fake?
February 10, 2012 at 10:53 am #109571quote christianstrategies:
I’m sure, you will find something in English, if Jesus said that, right? (best with direct link to the page) Or better, verse from Bible, because if Jesus said that, it has to be in Bible, has it not?
February 15, 2012 at 9:41 pm #109657quote AstraSequi:
You’re speculating. Science that is proofed is science that works: e.g. the byke is not only to decorate, to speculate, but is indeed able to transport persons… that is not the case of evolutionism: it is non proofed… that’s why we speculate…
as alternative to the experience of creating life from void (without a creator: God or a geneticist), I suggest to make evolve a man from an australopythecus… again, another experience impossible to reproduce: it takes "millions of years"… you see? Darwinism is full of non proofed premises… and contradicts the declarations of God in the French website http://www.apparitionsmariales.org concerning evolutionismquote AstraSequi:
1. cannot be tested = not proofed = we can’t say whether is true or false. You’re right here. Thus, darwinism is not a evidence and an acquired truth and we should not teach such a theory as an "acquired fact" to the children at schools.
2. coherency with reality = truth
"coherency with reality" can be different from "logical reasoning or theory" and contradict some logical reasonings (different logical reasonings may explain the same phenomena, but only one is true: the others, even if logical, are false and reality denies them)
2.1. 1 + 1 = 2 this logic reasoning is coherent with reality. Indeed one orange + one orange equals 2 oranges
2.2. the uncorruptible body of St Padre Pio which hardly fought the modernist ideologies goes against the logic that "corpses, under normal conditions of conservation, shall decompose after some days". Coherence with reality, evidence, shows it: it doesn’t corrupt with time, which goes against the laws of the nature and testifies the holiness of Pater Pio and the legitimity of the doctrines which goes against modernist ideologies (I mean: not to stop science and modernity, but rather to fight the modernist ideologies which goes against the ultra conservative catholic doctrine)quote AstraSequi:
That only shows that dates before the flood are non proofed, and thus, not reliable.
However, I have to become more prudent concerning very ancient dates. According to God The Son in the French web site http://www.apparitionsmariales.org, mankind (=Adam) is only 6.000 years old, but the moon turns around the earth since millions of years:
Hypothesis 1: the 6 days recite is non literal until the 6th day of the creation of Adam
Hypothesis 2: the seer was a lier and Jesus didn’t tell that. Please note that the fact of Adam being 6.000 years old is coherent with Genesis (Jesus didn’t contradict Moses).
February 15, 2012 at 10:18 pm #109659quote AstraSequi:
It is not my task to define what a specie is. It has been done by biologists, it seems to be coherent for macroscopic animals and plants (champignons different from orange trees, horses different from humans). Concerning microbes, such analyse should be rigorously analysed, because the differences are less/not visible.
But to give you an idea:
E.coli which dies in citric acid is a subtype of E. coli bacterias (specie)
E. coli which survives in citric acid is a mutant form of the same E. coli specie.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistent to antibiotics is also a mutant form of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis but didn’t change of specie.
people with Aids immunity belong to the human race and didn’t change of specie
(the fact to survive in persence of a toxic agent, citric acid, antibiotics or the HIV virus may be a result of a mutation but is not synonym of a new specie)quote AstraSequi:
Indeed change of species is possible, but only through sex between closer species (e.g. mule, hominids) or intelligent creation (e.g. a geneticist creates a synthetic virus in labo). What God the Son said in http://www.apparitionsmariales.org is that, through darwinism (the natural mutation mechanism), mutations and adaptations to the environment are possible, but not evolution into a superior specie (australopythecus evolution to human is thus not possible in the nature, only through the natural mutation mechanism). What happened was the opposite, through sex between closer species, man downgraded into australopythecus.
Question 1. Man didn’t evolve in 30.000 generations, so darwinism doesn’t happen. OK, it is also non proofed.
Question 2. however, change/creation of specie is possible in vary particular cases, out of the range of darwinism (bestiality or intelligent creation)quote AstraSequi:
Even if man was millions of years old, evolution (= change of specie) wouldn’t happen. Jesus self says that. Without contesting the mutations mechanism.
correction: E. coli didn’t change of specie. Not even one case of change of specie.
Yes, you got the point. Darwinism is non proofed. The problem is that creationism is also non proofed. But creationism has now a small advantage: is already possible to create synthetic life, e.g. a virus, through intelligent design (a creator: a geneticist).
At least we should tell the truth to the children at schools: darwinism is non proofed, but creationism is mainly also non proofed. Thus, if we teach them darwinism, we shall also give them the biblical anternative and say that both are non proofed.
February 16, 2012 at 3:52 am #109667
February 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm #109679quote sachin:
1. Mostly not. They’re mostly logical and coherent, but it is always possible that a fake message is mixed with 99 good messages. Indeed, since the freemasonry entered inside the Vatican, in the years 1950-60, it became very difficult fo officialize private messages from heaven. Our Lady and Jesus keep appearing in private, but it is always non official, even if it is true. We have to test the messages, to check coherency with the bible and with the previous apparitions, in order to try to identify the true messages. Despite of that, I’ve checked many private messages (apparitions in N. York, Akita, Garabandal, Cairo, Fatima, those of apparitionsmariales, etc.), and they look logical, coherent, and also coherent with reality, when available. However, it is not possible to test everything. Please note that Jesus, Mary or the archangel St Michael are not liers. The risk appears only from the supposed seers, who could "imagine /lie" over such messages. Anyhow, I think these messages shall be taken seriously, even when they cannot be 100 % tested. Something like: "watch out: it is possible that Jesus said (…) and He doesn’t lie…"
2. a few proofs were done, concerning other apparitions (NY or Medjugorje) and these messages from apparitionsmariales.org follow the logic and the coherency with the bible and with those apparitions.
February 16, 2012 at 8:27 pm #109680quote JackBean:
1. Well, I’m translating and correcting my web site, when available, in English, based on the Bible, the declarations in http://www.apparitionsmariales.org ando also from the English web site http://www.tldm.org, over the true but not yet official astonishing declarations of Jesus and Mary (and others) in New York. Maybe with a search in Google we could find something similar in English. But for me is not really necessary, I don’t have problems with French.
2. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t explains/contains everything. The mobil phones are not explicitely mentioned in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is reliable also in scientific domains (good translations required, however), but Jesus and Mary appear sometimes in private and complement the Bible, whenever required. I’m waiting ansiously for a comment from Them over the Big Bang (I mean, more details over the 6 day period). But in a private declaration from apparitionsmariales (translating with Google is always possible), Jesus said that the mankind has only 6.000 years ago, which agrees with the book of Genesis. Jesus or Mary in NY (source: http://www.tldm.org, topics related from link ‘directives from heaven’) said that the first couple were Adam and Eve, created by God, which matches the recite of Genesis. Jesus and Mary in the private apparitions speak many different subjects in the context of the knowledge of our modern times (darwinism, atoms, dinossaurs, hominids, prophecies etc.)
note: a lightly confusing point for me is that Jesus said in apparitionsmariales.org that the moon turns around the earth since ‘millions of years’ ago, thus making believe the first 5 days of creation were not literal. Even so, the word taken to translate into day from the original source, seems to mean ‘a period of time’, rather than ’24 hours’. I had to correct my way of thinking about dates of the beginning because of these declarations. Please refer also to my last comment to sachin.
February 16, 2012 at 8:40 pm #109681quote sachin:
I’ve gave a little look. I can contradict some of the arguments (although we cannot proof everything about God)
1. We can see the face of Jesus. It was painted by Holy Faustina, after a private apparition of God the Son, and it appears at http://www.faustina.ch/obraz/image.htm, and, if you honor Jesus with full trust regarding His picture, you shall be saved (from hell)
2. Yes, we have some proofs about God: coherencies with reality/evidences. There are a few public and permanent miracles: the uncorruptibles bodies of some saints (with antimoderist catholic doctrines) testify their santity as persons of God. Also to become holy, a no refutable and full proofed miracle has to occur: you may check the archives of the Vatican concerning that. One of the last known miracles was the healing of a religious sister of a disease like Parkison, through intercession of Holy John Paul II (through a search with Google, we’ll be able to find documentation about this not scientific healing). Finally, the Holy Blood of Jesus exposed in Bruges, Flanders (Belgium) is a permanent miracle, because it also doesn’t perish with time, as it should. Yes, we can see the blood of God and it is also a public miracle.
Well, I’m able to discuss further concerning God/religion, but then we’re exiting the main subject which is darwinism… what do you think?
February 17, 2012 at 6:05 am #109686
No convincing evidence or even a proof. Miracles (if true) lacks major requirement reproduciblity on demand. So I don’t consider any significance of mentioning God’s creation in discussion of Darwin’s theory (Which at no point comments on God). So we will try to be scientific only, without mentioning anything about God, bible or miracles.
February 17, 2012 at 6:30 pm #109703
If I understand correctly, there are Jesus and Mary living in New York, USA, right now?
February 19, 2012 at 12:54 am #109734quote christianstrategies:
If you make a prediction, you have to be able to answer for it – what you will conclude if it succeeds or fails, and what you will interpret if any particular result is produced. Speculation is part of science – we make hypotheses, then test them. Failing to do this (making a prediction but refusing to say how it will change your position if you are wrong) implies that you actually won’t change your position, and that as a result, there’s actually no point in talking about evidence.
If you’re right, then you have nothing to worry about, because the evidence to disprove you will not exist.
If you think that "nobody can create life spontaneously" is actually not a prediction made by your position, then retract the prediction, and nobody will think badly of you for it. However, if it is, then you have to agree that falsification will show at least part of the position to be incorrect.
I will add another question: is there any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong, in part or in whole? If not, then your position is unfalsifiable.
Please answer the questions – I will respond to the rest of your points when you do. If you’re not sure about your answers, or anything about the exact prediction that you’re making, take as much time as you need to think about it, and to ask questions yourself – there’s nothing wrong with that.
February 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm #109786quote JackBean:
No: they appeared to Veronika Lueken, New York, between 1968 and 1994 and told many things to her. To proof the truthfullness of these apparitions, despite the non recognition by the Vatican:
1. you may ask to the Holy Ghost in spirit and wait for His answer, as I did (and He confirmed it to me)
2. you can check by yourself in the news (or doing a Google concerning less recent news) about the infiltration of evil elements in the Vatican since the times of the concile Vatican II:
2.1. murder of Pope John Paul I (subit death). OK, we’re not able to proof what really happened to pope Paul VI..
2.2. the supposed murder of pope John Paul II recognized that he was under the command of the nr 2 of the Vatican
2.3. a new plot to kill pope Benedict XVI was discovered recently, according to the news, not so many days ago…
February 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm #109787quote sachin:
1.Not really an evidence? The fact that bloed or a corpse don’t perish under normal conditions of conservation, is not an evidence? You can even find photos… do simply this test: you go to the chapel of the Holy Blood, you check the conditions (blood simply under a closed bottle of parfum, but not in the vacuum), you wait 6 months (the time you will, even 2000 years…), and you go there again… Of course, you won’t be able to reproduce it: it goes against the laws of the nature/physics… if you try to reproduce it, the blood/corpse perish… you can even make your personal photos of the Blood of God, as I did and is available on the web…
2. As you may know, we have evidences of creationism: a scientist geneticist is already able to create synthetic virus in labo… if you remove the creator, is the same as to refute that the creator/the geneticist was not there to create the synthetic virus… really coherent? It seems rather a try to remove God from the procedure of the creation of biologic life, at all price… try to say to the creator/geneticist of the synthetic virus, that such virus was the result of the hasard and spontaneous mutations… you won’t be able to proof it, but the opposite we already able to proof: the scientist will be able to conceive a new synthetic virus in labo… I believe that soon geneticists will be able to create other bigger forms of biological life: a very dangerous power in the hands of geneticist engineers… because such genetic experiments are able to generate new forms of distortions of the nature…
February 21, 2012 at 6:24 pm #109790quote AstraSequi:
Speculation may have its role in non proofed science: the so called not proofed theories: but without the proof of coherency with reality, they risk to be "logical non proofed imagination". I agree that I’m not able to proof everything concerning creationism neither. When we enter into speculation we must accept that we may introduce errors: that’s why sometimes I have to update my religious/scientific web site also.quote AstraSequi:
Yes, but it is not so easy: the mutations phenomena made possible to think that everything was possible through spontan mutations, I mean, mutations without a programmer/creator/geneticist. The Catholic Church and the book of Genesis were right, but the clergy, with less scientifical knowledge, were not able to face the darwinist offensives in the centuries 19 and 20. Only now some better evidences begin to become available (50.000 generations of E. coli etc.)quote AstraSequi:
I defy scientists to try to create life spontaneously… they can try it in a spaceship, in the moon, over a disisnfected space over the earth… Science already recognises the "theory of spontan generation" as false (in the middle ages, they thought it was possible, for instance, that rats would "spontaneously appear" in a home, from "void")quote AstraSequi:
The evidences seem to show that I’m right… but I agree that, from time to time, I have to review my points of view… I trust in the divine messages, but we have to have critical mind and try to test them to check their truthfullness… they don’t say every scientifical details… sometimes, I learn things to oblige me to correct my points of view etc…
1. public and permanent miracles (uncorruptible corpses and blood of Saints) proof that, from time to time, supernatural interventions are possible and that laws of the physics don’t rule the world at 100% (but 99.99% is however possible). It is not enough however to proof that Adam was created from the clay of the ground. It makes it a possibility but not an irrefutable evidence.
2. 50.000 generations of mutant bacteria E. coli are not able to proof change of specie. With generations enough for 1.250.000 years for man, no change of specie… evidence here goes against darwinism… man changes of specie with a lot less positive mutations and generations? Really?
3. we have proofs of creationism through genetic engineering. Creation of synthetic virus in labo through a geneticist is already possible and a fact… but if you want to the same experience without a creator/scientist, you’ll be able to wait a loooooong time… the famous millions of years, isn’t it? Conclusion: creationism: proofed darwinism: non proofedquote AstraSequi:
I confess sometimes I have difficulty to follow your reasonings… but here above goes the answers. If something was not clear, please specify and make it clear also. Thank you.
February 23, 2012 at 3:01 am #109823
These are the questions I was talking about.quote :
Also, when I askquote :
I am not asking for evidence supporting your position. I am asking what evidence, if it existed, would prove your position partially or completely wrong.
For example, it is not enough to predict something like it is impossible to create life (without hybridization, etc). You also have to be able to say how your position will change if your prediction is actually incorrect.
February 23, 2012 at 3:36 am #109826herb386Participant
I tried really hard not to get involved in this debate but there is just one thing I really want to point out….
I had a look at the arguments against evolution on the christianstrategies website and part of the argument seems to come from the fact that reproduction of the AIDS virus or E. coli doesn’t lead to the development of a new species.
There are two points that I want to make about these examples:
1: The definition of a species (although it varies a bit depending on where you look) always requires that members of a species can sexually reproduce with each other but not with members of another species. Have a look at any decent dictionary or encyclopedia for the definitions. Neither bacteria nor viruses reproduce sexually and therefore the definition of a species does not apply to them. People generally refer to strains of bacteria or viruses rather than species as this only requires changes in traits rather than reproductive compatibility.
This means that viruses and bacteria can never produce a new species so stating examples where they have not been shown to speciate cannot be used as evidence that speciation does not occur in sexually reproducing organisms.
2. Speciation is much more likely to occur when individuals of a single species are sexually isolated and experiencing different selective pressures. That means that members of the same species that cannot or do not reproduce with each other are more likely to diverge into different species. Therefore, even if viruses and bacteria could speciate, they would be unlikely to when they are all together in the same environment (e.g. the AIDS virus is in a human body) as in the examples you give on your website.
If you’re interested, there are examples of the evolution within recorded history. One is the myxomatosis virus, which was introduced by humans to cull rabbit populations. This evolved to become less virulent in order to increase its reproductive success before killing the rabbit, an event that has been recorded by scientists. Also, probably the most famous example of evolution is the peppered moth. A quick internet search will give you plenty of information about both of these.
February 23, 2012 at 8:20 am #109830
Christian: you see, you were so sure about the faster-than-light neutrinos you have immediately implemented them into your theories. Now they have been proven wrong (some bad cable). How is your theory doing now?
February 27, 2012 at 8:12 pm #109903quote JackBean:
1. Definitevely, they’re not interested in matter travelling quicker than light speed. The justification is very suspicious: the GPS and the computer card caused an advance in time of ~60 nanoseconds… when normally, they should cause a delay… OK, officcially remains non proofed… but new experiments still have to be done… this conclusion is not yet definitive neither…
2. Our Lady confirms the existence of teleportation: she comes from paradise to earth, Medjugorje in less than one second. Paradise is in the space 3D, after the farthest star, according to her declarations in New York (site http://www.tldm.org). Please note that teleportation is possible also for humans, like us, before the death: it is foresseen that Jesus and His angels shall take some elected (those in grace state) to paradise, through possibly a form of teleportation, to spare them to the tribulations of the apocalypse. The remaining must be tested by trial. The press shall speak, at the time, of "people kidnapped by extra terrestrials", said Our Lady or Jesus in NY.
3. I don’t believe any more all that comes from the scientific world: just to remember, modern man, able to do doctor degrees remained 90.000 to 190.000 years in caves: he really loved it and insisted in not building houses in wood or stone… or he had to wait the return of the ices to start agriculture in Holland… no, in the Nile, in Africa! The return of the ices was not really necessary to start agriculture in the Nile, isn’t it?
4. Jesus in http://www.apparitionsmariales.org confirms the 6.000 years old for mankind, but says also that the moon travels around the earth since "millions of years". If these messages are true (I have some doubts about the million of years), then the timeline during the the first 5 days of the creation, speccially the Big Bang, in the Bible, are not to take literally. I had to correct completely my reasoning about old dates in the Big Bang section of my web site because of these declarations.
5. probably the UFOs that appear near the earth and contain a race of demons (demons with a kind of biological body and must use the bus/UFO to travel), are able to travel also quicker than the speed of the light (sources http://www.tldm.org and http://www.apparitionsmariales.orgà
Conclusion: neutrinos able to travel quicker than the light remain for the moment a non proofed question. But that doesn’t mean that is not possible to travel at speeds higher than the light. Sooner or later Einstein shall be forced to review his relativity equations: it shall come a time when it shall be proofed that it is possible to travel quicker than light without having infinite masses.
February 27, 2012 at 8:31 pm #109904quote herb386:
I agree partially with you. The criteria to distinguish among two species of bacteria (or two types of virus) are quite ambiguous. But concerning the superclasses this reasoning is not valid anymore: a virus is clearly different from a bacteria or from a fungus.
So, you can take my reasoning as:
E. Coli after 50.000 generations didn’t evolve enough to become a fungus
the Aids virus didn’t evolve enough to become a bacteria,
despite the ability of those microbes to suffer favorable mutations (for them) making them able to resist to medicines.quote herb386:
I don’t agree with you. The E. Coli experience and the Aids virus in a patient are the target of selective procedures: E. coli was able to survive after 30.000 generations in citric acid and the Aids virus in people has to fight the antivirus drugs the patients use. They’re thus, under selective pressures, they evolve and mutate. But don’t change of specie.quote herb386:
That kind of evolution doesn’t mean change of specie: they’re examples of genetical mutations of adaptation to the environment. Positive and negative mutations (ex. a cancer) are an evidence. But they don’t trigger changes of specie. Only with a conceiver: God or a genetic engineer.
February 27, 2012 at 8:53 pm #109905quote AstraSequi:
Hello, I’m going to try to answer to your questions, although I find they fall in the absurd. They’re questions of the style:
1. "if you would see yourself the Father Christmas falling in the chimney to put gifts in the socks, would you be definitively convinced he exists and would stop believing in baby Jesus, as the master of Christmas?" I hope you understand what I mean…
2. Even if it would be possible to proof in labo that life could be generated "spontaneously" from void in the earth, we have already the proof that life can always be created alternatively through the intelligence of a creator: geneticist have already proofed they can create synthetic virus in labo (I’m afraid for mankind, if this weapon falls under the hands of Al Qaïda, but that’s another story). Even so, you could not generalize darwinism for the whole nature: what would be proofed would be a local proof: it should be done similar tests for all species in nature.
3. concerning money, you sould not worry: when science and governments want, there’s money: money for searching life in other planets doesn’t miss, despite the declarations that life doesn’t exist in other planets (behalf a race of demons that use UFO’s to travel, near the earth). Implementing such a experience: try to create life from void in a disinfected environment should not be so expensive…quote AstraSequi:
Normally my position in that point doesn’t change, because Jesus Himself confirms that through mutations ("spontaneous" evolution, even in an environment under stress seletive conditions) it is not possible to evolve to a higher specie, although mutations of adaptation to the environment may occur. Even if it would be demonstrated the evolution of a specie into another, that phenomena couldnot eclipse the alternative phenomena of creation of life through a conceiver. Generalisation of evolutionism could not be claimed. Just to give an example, clonage could be considered an alternative way of generation of life: however, this procedure can not be claimed in the origine of life for all species in the nature…
P.S. Jesus contradicted me in the question of the age of the moon or in the question of the dinossaurs, which forced me to change my point of view in such subjects… confirming now the scientific points of view in such matters… sometimes, I, also, have to change my point of view, although there’s a small risk of falsification of the messages of God…
February 28, 2012 at 7:57 pm #109918
February 28, 2012 at 11:43 pm #109922
Just shun it because it is 100%facts-free with a wonderful chery(picked) flavour. Go buy some Cherry Garcia from Ben & Jerry’s, i might hurt you waist ine, but will hurt your brain much less.
March 1, 2012 at 7:11 am #109946quote christianstrategies:
Not really. If the question we were answering is whether Santa exists, then observing him falling down the chimney (or at any other time) would most definitely be a relevant observation. (If you also claimed that Santa and Jesus were mutually exclusive, I suppose that then the observation of one would be evidence against the other, but I don’t see how that’s related.)quote :
So you are saying, if life could be generated, then it would prove nothing about past history, because it could not be generalized?
But even if I agree to that, then why did you claim that not creating life is evidence against evolution? You have just said that the ability to create life can demonstrate nothing. If so, then failing to demonstrate it is inconsequential.
If you say that evidence X is predicted by claim Y, then observing not-X weakens the case for claim Y. If you cannot provide any prediction for which this is the case, the claim is unfalsifiable.quote :
This is the only one of the questions that you tried to answer directly, and your answer was that it wasn’t possible for the situation to occur.
Nobody has an unlimited amount of money. All you have to do is raise the amount of money required – if necessary, until the price is more money than exists on the planet. Nobody is going to spend that level of resources for something that does not directly save lives – I don’t think that I should need to point that out.quote :
I’ve only ever been talking about evolution, not religion…I agree that observing evolution does not prohibit life from being created, but I don’t think that is relevant to whether evolution occurs.
It looks like you essentially said, "Jesus confirms that evolution cannot occur. Even if evolution occurred, that would not prove anything." In other words, your position is unfalsifiable.
Again, if your argument is unfalsifiable, this discussion doesn’t really have a point.
March 3, 2012 at 3:51 pm #109969animartcoParticipant
Hi Futurezooloist and commenter. There is an explanation for the acts of man, but it is a rather disturbing one. A. We have arguably the greatest intelligence in the animal kingdom. B. we have a consensus on what we are doing wrong in the world, and a knowledge of the probable consequences if we continue.
C we are doing nothing immediate about putting things right, despite the obvious necessity for haste.
In evolutionary terms this rather suggests that too much intelligence is a ‘blind alley’, and what happens to species that go up blind alleys?
March 5, 2012 at 8:30 pm #110018quote AstraSequi:
Just go a little bit further in this "fiction", you may assume somebody disguised as Santa Claus, with beard and a red jacket… would proof what? And if you see a hare, than have you the proof the rabbits and the eggs are the masters of Easter and not the ressurection of Jesus, a lot more difficult to proof?quote AstraSequi:
What I’m saying is that, parallel ways of creating life like proofed clonage and non proofed darwinism, in order to be correctly considered as one of the possible ways (among others: creationism of course) to create the whole nature, have to show evidences that:
-they could create all species of the world, one by one. Evolution, I mean, change of specie, in only one specie is not enough to be generalized to whole nature. Darwinism fails both tests here:
1. there’s no evidence of one change of specie through mutations without a conceiver
2. because step one fails, not even imaginable to do the same test for all species in the nature.
However, artificial cloning and creationim with a conceiver(God/ genetic engineer) have the potential to satisfy steps 1. and 2. Concerning artificial cloning, nobody dares to claim this artificial reproduction technic as in the origin of life. Only creationism have the potential to create the whole nature from void. We have already evidences of step 1 (creation of a synthetic virus from void), and with the technological evolution of genetics, the geneticists will be normally able to generalize the technical to create the whole species of the nature.
Just following the claim of the "million of years" of darwinists:
– I’m able to become a superman (have X ray vision, become hyperstrong, to fly), but it takes millions of years… meanwhile, I’m waiting for the mutations to occur… we have to be patient, right? 😉quote AstraSequi:
Don’t come with excuses of money: they have money to build the CERN or to put HUBBLE in the space, right? That’s not really an excuse not to do such a test… it is rather the free mason plot to pollute the brains of the young children at schools with the "logic" of darwinism… when they will, there’s money… not all the money in the world is required to do an experience to try to reproduce on earth life from void in a disinfected environment… they don’t do it, because it is loose of money: I learnt at school that it was proofed that the ancient "theory of spontaneous generation of life" was considered as false in the scientifical environments (note: unless it takes "millions of years" to occur, like me, to become superman).quote AstraSequi:
1. Observing evolution? You/science observe mutations of environmental adaptation, not changes of species… Try to observe the 23 chromossoms of human specie to evolve in 24…(reasoning from Jesus self in http://www.apparitionsmariales.org)
2. creation of life with a conceiver/geneticist proofs, even if it would be possible to create life without a conceiver only by darwinism, that several ways to create life from void would have to be taken into account. Indeed, we have presently three possibilities
2.1. darwinism (theoretical, non proofed): one day, I’ll become superman, within millions of years, with pacience and many mutations…
2.2. artificial cloning (local proofs available)
2.3. creationism with a conceiver (local proofs available)
Finally, yes, I believe in this matter (I mean, darwinism and not big bang), my position is unfalsifiable, beccause I’m sustained not only with some scientific evidences, but also, the bible, and all different apparitions of Jesus and Mary claim creationism as the way the nature was created (by God),in the beginning. It is hard for the science to accept it, they try to find solutions without God/a creator, but afterwards, the incoerences begin to appear (missing links in the fossils, absence of proofs etc.)
March 8, 2012 at 11:25 pm #110041NickTParticipant
I’m a bit of a newb in regards to biology so correct me if I’m wrong but is Lucy not the only link we have found between the current human and other primates? This seems like a gaping hole in the theory.
In case you’re wondering, I do believe in the current scientific theory on evolution. I’m just… playing devil’s advocate for the giggles. 🙂
March 10, 2012 at 7:42 am #110064
NickT: "link" is a vague term, so I can’t really tell what you mean. Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus) ) is a particular Australopithecus skeleton which is unusually complete, and Australopithecus may be a common ancestor of the great apes (including humans – although the common ancestor between humans and chimps was more recent).
There are definitely many hominid fossils, giving us considerable information about our ancestral relationships – for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fossils, and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html – and ancient tool sites have often been found. The problem (and the reason why Lucy and a few other finds are so special) is that human fossils are very difficult to find. This is unsurprising, since early humans did not live in an environment conducive to fossilization.
If you’d like me to answer further questions, I’m happy to help in private messages or in another thread.
Now replying to christianstrategies:quote christianstrategies:
…I thought we were talking about a hypothetical situation in which we observed Santa Claus, not observed someone in a red jacket.
Regardless, the example is irrelevant to the point I was making – that observing evidence for a proposition X implies that X is true. Appropriate evidence could indeed definitively convince me that Santa Claus exists, and actually seeing him and his flying reindeer (under controlled conditions) would probably suffice. Of course, I haven’t observed such evidence, and thus will provisionally assume with reasonable confidence that he does not exist, as per Occam’s Razor.
You can also see that I am very capable of answering your hypothetical question, but you have not directly responded to mine.quote :
I understood that, and I was drawing a logical inference from it and previous things you’ve said. The point is that if failure to create life supports your position, then the creation of life will provide support against your position. This does not require every species to be produced – which, it seems, has only just recently become your standard of evidence, as you were previously only requesting one.quote :
Again, it was a hypothetical question (not an "excuse"), which stipulated that we were unable to afford it. I don’t think you can make an argument against the possibility of this situation unless you say that there is an infinite amount of money in existence.
If you wish, we could replace "suppose we could not afford it" with "suppose it would take too long and we won’t know the answer for 1000 years." The situation is fundamentally the same – the idea is that it could be done but could not be feasibly carried out.quote :
…Then this discussion doesn’t really have a point. I’m not sure whether you understand that "unfalsifiable" is not a good thing.
I’ll reply again if you can answer my questions directly, or supply useful predictions that demonstrate an understanding of falsifiability.
March 10, 2012 at 7:13 pm #110071quote AstraSequi:
Sorry, Australopithecus shall be the result of sex between humans and closer species, and to be dated between 4.300 and 6.000 years ago (existed before the flood).
And fossiles are a proof of creationism and not evolutionism: they only proof that the specie existed, and not continuous evolution.quote AstraSequi:
It seems you like fiction. It seems that you don’t believe in Santa Claus because of lack of evidence: you could also discard darwinism for the same reasons: lack of proofs…quote AstraSequi:
1.There’s only evidence of creationism: creation of synthetic virus in labo… with the technologic progress, sooner it shall be possible to create other species, it is a question of time and I’m not talking of "millions of years". There’s no evidence of creating life from void with darwinism…
2. yes, to proof darwinism you have to proof it to all species in the nature: otherwise can some synthetic virus be created through geneticiens and other species through darwinism… although not even one specie can be created only through mutations without a creator… the lack of proofs as the will to remove God from the procedure is flagrant…quote AstraSequi:
Ah, OK, I’ll become a superman within 1000 years, but until then, I have no proofs…
March 14, 2012 at 6:07 pm #110156DonGobleParticipant
Evolution depends upon incremental mutations which benefit survival. Having the ability to see is clearly beneficial to survival. The problem for me is that before an animal can see there are too many things that need to happen – we need to have eye balls which are connected to the brain which has built into it the ability to interpret the electrical signals it receives. And one little mutation accomplishes all that?
March 14, 2012 at 7:28 pm #110158
Look at that:
March 15, 2012 at 6:32 pm #110164quote DonGoble:quote canalon:
1. I’ve seen the video: pure non proofed bla bla… just to give a better idea of such darwinism, the vision shall still evolve a lot: normally I’ll become a superman, but of course, it shall take another hundreds of millions of years, you know, mutations and selective adaptation to the environment takes too long, we must be patient… but me, as a "darwinist convinced", I really believe in the future development of my ray x capacities within many hundreds of years… of course you as darwinists believe in that too, isn’t it? 😉
No, vision was conceived through a very intelligent creator (God), and possibly in the future (no, I’m not talking of "million of years"), the geneticists will be able to reproduce it in humans, through genetic programming and technics like cloning…quote :
2. Yes, we have stronger evidences of creationism than of darwinism. Intelligent Creators (geneticists or God) are already able to create synthetic virus and even bacterias! Links: http://www.zdnet.com/photos/scientists- … tos/425927 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Synthetic_viruses . Darwinism has no such proofs… can you create a virus or a bacteria from void? Are darwinists able to make evolve a virus into a bacteria? Ah! It takes "million of years" (before I become a superman, I knew that, I must be patient…)…
In order to avoid repetition, I suggest you to see all arguments against continuous evolution without creator since page 19… billions of people are being misled in schools and universities through the logical darwinist pollution…
September 23, 2012 at 8:42 am #112437louisianboyParticipant
I think the real problem of why evolution is not as widely accepted as many other scientific theories, is the many questions that remain unanswered. The fossil record, why isn’t there a broad range of fossils covering the spectrum of evolution instead of thousands of fossils of each species. Behe in his book the edge of evolution, shows that the odds are really against it. If no real answers can be presented we will have to go back to the drawing boards.
September 26, 2012 at 9:38 am #112456
IMHO the main problem is that people think that evolution is incompatible with creation (just look on scottie) and thus they must fight against it to defend their god/creator.
September 26, 2012 at 11:57 am #112466
Here is the definition of "life" leads to a rejection of the "theory" of evolution from the primary replicators to man and others. Life: the active situational model on the cell membrane, equipped with a polypeptide-nucleic technology. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … =1&theater
September 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm #112467quote LeoPol:
Bad definitions can reject anything.
September 28, 2012 at 3:40 pm #112493quote JackBean:
Completely agree. Evolution says nothing about how life was created, just how it developed and changed afterwards…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.