Creation and Evolution - Deconstruction Analysis

[prowler]

Anti-intellectualism right there. The dark ages are coming again, thanks to people like you.

31643

[Eternal Enigma]

And I have lost all faith in the US educational system

You and me both...


We won't evolve because we have removed ourselves from the system. We're no longer ruled by natural selection. (the weak and the strong both survive to reproduce)

A big muscular man with lots of money has more chances of obtaining a mate than a skinny low income computer nerd.

We're no longer ruled by natural selection? I guess you're right... humans don't really have to fight for survival anymore.

I guess that's why football players can make 80 million dollars per year and fight to evade taxes, but children can starve to death in Africa.

Humanity still deals with survival of the fittest. If you aren't educated enough and lack proper funding you aren't going to be able to compete in this world.

The proper logic would suggest any further evolution in humans will be in the amount of information our brains are able to store. In the future we should see differences in how our brains look because they should continue to change and this could result in our skulls expanding more. Also because we no longer need to fight/hunt our bodies will continue to change if evolution is correct. The truth will be realized in the future when and if these changes do or do not take place. This applies across the board with animals and plants alike. My guess will be that any new discoveries of "new" species will be something that has existed all along we just haven't found it yet. We do not have every species cataloged on Earth.


Evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Natural selection has nothing to do with the scientific definition of evolution, which is a genetic change in an animal or plant over time. The base model for evolution does not allow for diversification, but since we do have diversification evolution absolutely cannot be true.

For humans - evolution suggests that sometime in the history of primates a gene mutated and caused new types of primates to develop, which over time became us. What the model fails to show is what happens during this process. Over the millions of years it takes for this change to happen you would see monkey (type A - original species) gradually turn into monkey (type B - new species) and at the end of this process monkey (type A - original species) would no longer exist because they would now be a completely new species. That means only one type of monkey would ever exist based on the model of evolution. Due to the fact that we do have many species of primates, many types of reptiles, birds, and fish (among other animals) that proves the base model or theory of evolution is incorrect. Reality is not reflective of the theory of evolution so it proves itself wrong.

That does not, however, have any indication that creation is correct. It only means that evolution as is defined by scientists is wrong. Evolution would create the opposite of diversification and essentially the opposite of reality.

I believe each type of animal that exists today existed just the same way originally. Natural selection is why they're here. Species that were unable to adapt to changing climates and other conditions such as loss of habitat or limited food sources died out. Those that were able to adapt to these changes survived and we see them today. Those that were unable to survive we see as fossils.

I'm not like other people you've dealt with on this topic. I think for myself. I take the scientific information available and draw my own conclusion not the conclusions of others. Some people you've spoken with before may get their beliefs from places all over the web and try to argue with you based on someone else's belief and they may have the inability to run the formula in their mind. I'm not them. I can take evolution and crumble it to dust.

The "evidence" behind all of these findings has been found under overly controlled conditions where scientists are only conducting tests (DNA/genetic mapping) between us and primates, which is why I refer to that evidence as being ill-established. They aren't testing to see if they're able to find the same results elsewhere because before they even begin they already have their mind made up. Scientists believe in evolution and they base their entire life on it so why would they try to disprove it? To them there's no reason to investigate further because in their minds they already have the answer and it's stupid to try to answer something that already has an answer. Unless of course, the answer is incorrect.

Besides, you're forgetting to factor in a weakness in our method. Science is limited by money. Scientists obtain their funding through government grants and donations so they're hard pressed to provide results or they'll run the risk of losing their funding. The funding they receive is not limitless so they can only study something specifically, which restricts their ability to investigate things further. That's the result when you rely on pieces of paper to get stuff done. They already believe evolution is the truth so they aren't going to even try to investigate it any further anyways even if they had unlimited funding. They're wrong and they don't care as long as they have a job and are paid well.

[Kiyom]

What about: we have a species named A who live in a great area where the environmental pressures are different (forest and plains for example). With time, the animals in the forest will evolve in B and those in the plains in C. B and C have evolved so much and so differently that they now form two new distinct species. As for A, it has "disappeared" or more properly evolved into two different species, which doesn't seem impossible and is just what the scientists says.

As for the genetics tests, it would highly surprise me that they're only conducted on human ancestors and relatives and not on other types of animals. I greatly like to see the source of that.

As for your theory of "each type of animals was already here and then they adapt due to natural selection", I would like to know how they were created. I know that in the evolution theory we have the same problem, but I have less difficulties to imagine a monocellular being create itself from complex chemical reactions (it's just a supposition of how life could have been created, I don't claim it nor have any proof) and then reproduce and evolve, rather than a lot of complex pluricellular beings just being here.

Also, your theory means that there is at the beginning an initial number of species. These species can evolve into other species but not separate into two new ones. It means that, as some disappeared over time, the number of species on Earth is continually decreasing and there is now way for this tendency to reverse. And with the current rate of extinction, the Earth will be lifeless in a few millenaries without any hope of healing. Not that it really matters in itself, but I think it's a little sad...

[Ibelieve]

This is very interesting!
Can I just encourage everyone to appreciate that everyone has a valid opinion with some good points; this doesn't have to get personal, as I see it potentially becoming. Remember this is the internet and there is no point getting annoyed/angry over someone that you only know through pixels.
:nsmile:

[_Omaticaya_]

Lets learn about evolution, this is natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth). Natural selection is the tool of evolution, the weak die, and with them, weak traits; Whereas the strong survive, their traits allowing them to thrive, and they pass them on. This is all proven fact, plain and simple. Humans however, are no longer effected by their environment (at least in first world nations) which accounts for our declining physical condition. Now in say... Africa, they're still affected by natural selection, weak children die long before they can reproduce, ensuring that undesirable traits are eliminated from the gene pool.

OMFG, dude i've been hearing this sh!t since fukin 1st grade every damn year, I don't give a crap, clear? And i'm tired of you telling me anti intellectual crap and that i'm ignorant, I really. fuking. am. Go eat a banana with your monkeys, what's the deal, you guys just seem to LOVE the fact you come from monkeys so much! Ok then, whats' next? What is so exciting about it? What gives it the right to yall to be acting so superior and making fun of everyone else? WTF, WTF, WTF. And back off, i'm really tired of this crap.
BIBLE=FAITH=UNKNOWN WORD IN YOUR INTELLECTUAL VOCABULARY, EVOLUTION=Y.O.U.R. OPINION
How fuking hard is it to understand! cut it out, who in the damn hell are you or anyone to decide who's 'intellectual' and who's not? You don't know me, you don't know Eternal, or ANYONE, you can't judge a person like that, it's seriously fuked up, I'd so much, love to see all people like you, all tied to your books, in the real life, out in the wild, how about some real abilities there? Is education just books to you? how about experience? Empiricism, Ever heard of that Mr.wise one? To learn stuff you gotta live it out, not just read a damn book! You wouldnt survive 12 hours in the wild you'd be there sitting reading how 'strong prey on the weak', trying to grow a pair. so pathetic...

[HufweMakto]

OMFG, dude i've been hearing this sh!t since fukin 1st grade every damn year, I don't give a crap, clear? And i'm tired of you telling me anti intellectual crap and that i'm ignorant, I really. fuking. am. Go eat a banana with your monkeys, what's the deal, you guys just seem to LOVE the fact you come from monkeys so much! Ok then, whats' next? What is so exciting about it? What gives it the right to yall to be acting so superior and making fun of everyone else? WTF, WTF, WTF. And back off, i'm really tired of this crap.
BIBLE=FAITH=UNKNOWN WORD IN YOUR INTELLECTUAL VOCABULARY, EVOLUTION=Y.O.U.R. OPINION
How fuking hard is it to understand! cut it out, who in the damn hell are you or anyone to decide who's 'intellectual' and who's not? You don't know me, you don't know Eternal, or ANYONE, you can't judge a person like that, it's seriously fuked up, I'd so much, love to see all people like you, all tied to your books, in the real life, out in the wild, how about some real abilities there? Is education just books to you? how about experience? Empiricism, Ever heard of that Mr.wise one? To learn stuff you gotta live it out, not just read a damn book! You wouldnt survive 12 hours in the wild you'd be there sitting reading how 'strong prey on the weak', trying to grow a pair. so pathetic...

It's not opinion if it's true, anyways it's not survival of the fittest, it more of survival of the smartest... In other worlds how you use your skills. It's happens everyday, like how certain finches will use cactus needles to obtain grubs.

Evolution is real, and being an intellectular you seem to hate, I find that disturbing, almost on the level that I cannot well describe.

And btw, ignorance ain't bliss.

[HufweMakto]

What about: we have a species named A who live in a great area where the environmental pressures are different (forest and plains for example). With time, the animals in the forest will evolve in B and those in the plains in C. B and C have evolved so much and so differently that they now form two new distinct species. As for A, it has "disappeared" or more properly evolved into two different species, which doesn't seem impossible and is just what the scientists says.

As for the genetics tests, it would highly surprise me that they're only conducted on human ancestors and relatives and not on other types of animals. I greatly like to see the source of that.

As for your theory of "each type of animals was already here and then they adapt due to natural selection", I would like to know how they were created. I know that in the evolution theory we have the same problem, but I have less difficulties to imagine a monocellular being create itself from complex chemical reactions (it's just a supposition of how life could have been created, I don't claim it nor have any proof) and then reproduce and evolve, rather than a lot of complex pluricellular beings just being here.

Also, your theory means that there is at the beginning an initial number of species. These species can evolve into other species but not separate into two new ones. It means that, as some disappeared over time, the number of species on Earth is continually decreasing and there is now way for this tendency to reverse. And with the current rate of extinction, the Earth will be lifeless in a few millenaries without any hope of healing. Not that it really matters in itself, but I think it's a little sad...

Actually I believe they have done genome mapping of other animals, namely mice and a few of the great apes, if that's what you mean.

[Aihwa]

The proper logic would suggest any further evolution in humans will be in the amount of information our brains are able to store. In the future we should see differences in how our brains look because they should continue to change and this could result in our skulls expanding more. Also because we no longer need to fight/hunt our bodies will continue to change if evolution is correct. The truth will be realized in the future when and if these changes do or do not take place. This applies across the board with animals and plants alike. My guess will be that any new discoveries of "new" species will be something that has existed all along we just haven't found it yet. We do not have every species cataloged on Earth.



Natural selection has nothing to do with the scientific definition of evolution, which is a genetic change in an animal or plant over time. The base model for evolution does not allow for diversification, but since we do have diversification evolution absolutely cannot be true.

For humans - evolution suggests that sometime in the history of primates a gene mutated and caused new types of primates to develop, which over time became us. What the model fails to show is what happens during this process. Over the millions of years it takes for this change to happen you would see monkey (type A - original species) gradually turn into monkey (type B - new species) and at the end of this process monkey (type A - original species) would no longer exist because they would now be a completely new species. That means only one type of monkey would ever exist based on the model of evolution. Due to the fact that we do have many species of primates, many types of reptiles, birds, and fish (among other animals) that proves the base model or theory of evolution is incorrect. Reality is not reflective of the theory of evolution so it proves itself wrong.



http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/374.jpg

Yes. It is correct.

As I said before, we're not debating, I'm correcting misinformation and lies, while you're desperately trying to hold onto a worldview your parents gave you. Come back with real evidence, and we'll talk. Actually, don't come back with evidence, take your evidence to the greater scientific community and present your findings. If your findings are valid, they will redistribute them and accept them as facts, this is why I have evidence and you have these sham attempts at logical maneuvering.






And btw, ignorance ain't bliss.

There are many things I pretend that I've never seen. Terrible things.

[transcend]

(which means physics as a science has just been killed) lol.. thats a great line.. actually a lot of things go faster then the speed of light.. it depends on your point of view.. relative to the earths own rotation about its axis distant galaxies are moving faster then light.. this is rotational speed and not liner speed which is never discussed in basic relativity.. but quantum entanglment blows that out of the water in speed by saying some signals are instantaneous.. meaning they comunicate in a hyperspace type fashion.. this is true.. and mind bloggling as well.. quantum uncetianty also means there must be an observer.. it implies that mind and matter are not so seperate.. this is why i said that schoders cat decides the course of evolution.. it means physics has to be information based and that there has to be a feed back loop ..this happens on the quantum level and influences biology through quantum bioloigy.. so you have two realms.. the classical with billard balls and entropy and the quantum realm which acts like a hologram.. as things get bigger you move into molecular structures.. carbon and a water ion are a basic computer chip.. there are microscopic organisms 2 miles down in the earth under extreme heat and pressure that are so close to being on the threshold of live and 'non' life that there is a debate about it.. but the question will always be the same wont it.. is it divine? there is nature and also super nature.. when you look at only a small part of nature it seems lowly and mundane.. when you look at the big picture it is magical and wonderous~! I believe we need to honor our inner connection to our mother nature and father sky


i know i've posted this video before but i like it <3

http://youtu.be/VjLC3GjFMv0

[transcend]

a poem in defense of monkeys.. usual disclaimer.. lol.. author is unknown:
Darwin's Mistake
Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they're said to be;
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two
There's a certain rumor that can't be true
That man descended from our noble race;
The very idea is a big disgrace.
No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life;
And you've never known a mother-monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another
Till they scarcely know who was their mother;
And another thing you'll never see,
A monk building a fence around a coconut tree
And let the coconuts go to waste
Forbidding all other monks to taste;
Why, if I'd put a fence round the tree
Starvation would force you to steal from me;
Here's another thing a monk won't do
Go out at night and get on the stew
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey's life;
Yes, man descended — with all his fuss,
But, brothers, he didn't descend from us!"

[Eternal Enigma]

What about: we have a species named A who live in a great area where the environmental pressures are different (forest and plains for example). With time, the animals in the forest will evolve in B and those in the plains in C. B and C have evolved so much and so differently that they now form two new distinct species. As for A, it has "disappeared" or more properly evolved into two different species, which doesn't seem impossible and is just what the scientists says.

As for the genetics tests, it would highly surprise me that they're only conducted on human ancestors and relatives and not on other types of animals. I greatly like to see the source of that.

As for your theory of "each type of animals was already here and then they adapt due to natural selection", I would like to know how they were created. I know that in the evolution theory we have the same problem, but I have less difficulties to imagine a monocellular being create itself from complex chemical reactions (it's just a supposition of how life could have been created, I don't claim it nor have any proof) and then reproduce and evolve, rather than a lot of complex pluricellular beings just being here.

Also, your theory means that there is at the beginning an initial number of species. These species can evolve into other species but not separate into two new ones. It means that, as some disappeared over time, the number of species on Earth is continually decreasing and there is now way for this tendency to reverse. And with the current rate of extinction, the Earth will be lifeless in a few millenaries without any hope of healing. Not that it really matters in itself, but I think it's a little sad...


If species A is the common ancestor to species B, C, D, and E and they all came from A then evolution does not work as scientists suggest.

Over the period of millions of years as species A begins to transform into species B (due to a genetic mutation) through the process of mating and passing on that genetic difference species A will slowly be absorbed by its new type B, which in the end would cause species A to no longer exist because it evolved. If another genetic mutation occurs within species B and it begins to transform into species C through the process of mating over millions of years as this change is taking place those mutated genes are being passed to the offspring and slowly as species C emerges species B will no longer exist and it would follow this same pattern to species E and any species there after.

This does not allow for multiple types of the same species to exist as they really do in reality so the base model of evolution as is defined by scientists is incorrect.

If life did come about due to a chemical reaction logic tells me if it can happen and create one type of species once then it could happen again with variation in the method of creation (temperature difference, air pressure, levels of sunlight, ect) and could be the answer to how we have animals of the same species, but of different types existing at the same time. With that model diversity is possible, but with evolution as the base model you would never have multiple types of the same species and they would never exist at the same time. You would only have one type of each animal or plant. Reality proves evolution wrong.

In the theory of evolution you would not have one species splitting into two separate species unless you believe separation is instant. It is not, it takes place over millions of years. The way evolutionists suggest evolution works is suddenly a monkey gives birth to a human being. What happens is the genetic mutation changes turning that primate into a human over millions of years. As that primate changes into a human through the process of mating and passing on that genetic mutation the original species would be absorbed and no longer exist.

That means that if primates and humans share a common ancestor one of us would not be here and there certainly would not be many different types of primates and humans either. It would be impossible for both humans and primates to exist at the same time because evolution as is defined by scientists does not allow for that to happen. As one species emerges the other is absorbed and they never split into two types... mating and passing those genes on does not allow that to happen.

The only way they could split into two types is if the mutation was instant and species A gave birth to species B, but that's not what happens. The change is slow so the mother of species A gives birth to species A with the genetic mutation that will turn species A into species B. That gene would then be passed down and as species A slowly turns into species B over millions of years; species A stops existing because all of the offspring over time have passed that genetic mutation down and throughout millions of years it slowly turns them all into species B making species A part of the distant past.

I'd create a picture to help illustrate how evolution doesn't work, but if I post a picture... just like last time someone will remove it. They're trying to silence me or discredit me because they know I've got a damn good point. I'm dangerous to the theory of evolution because I can explain it away.



while you're desperately trying to hold onto a worldview your parents gave you.

Aihwa my parents aren't smart enough to come up with this stuff. As I told you I come to my own conclusions based on the information available on this subject.

LMAO!

Desperately? You make it sound like I'm some frighted school girl or something... I guess you're imagining me shivering in a corner of a cold dark room. That's not the case and couldn't be further from the truth. I'm very confident in my abilities. Evolution as is taught in schools and is defined by scientists could not be true because it does not allow for the multitude of animals to exist as they do in reality. Evolution was created by nonbelievers of God trying to desperately find something that would discredit creation as a possibility. They came up with a model that is not reflective of reality and one day the masses will realize it and the theory of evolution will become part of the past just as other theories have. People long ago thought the world was flat and we now know that isn't true. It would be stupid to continue to teach children that we have a flat world in geography. Reality has a way of getting in the way of fantasy.

Why do you think scientists do not have Q and A sessions? Because if a live broadcast with a scientist and someone like me ever aired it would make them look like fools.

[tm20]

^ it's like this:
-there is a common ancestor that gets distributed to different environments
-each group will evolve differently, according to their environment
-they will become so different that they cant interbreed with each other

the way you think it is NOT wrong, it would be the case if the whole group of common ancestors stuck together and moved around from one place to another, as opposed to distributing itself to different places.

hopefully this explains it well
31667

[Aihwa]

^ it's like this:
-there is a common ancestor that gets distributed to different environments
-each group will evolve differently, according to their environment
-they will become so different that they cant interbreed with each other

the way you think it is NOT wrong, it would be the case if the whole group of common ancestors stuck together and moved around from one place to another, as opposed to distributing itself to different places.

hopefully this explains it well
31667


Exactly right.




Still waiting on that paradigm shifting evidence Eternal.

[tm20]

anyways it's not survival of the fittest, it more of survival of the smartest

Darwin awards lolololol

and im sorry to go off topic but in trying to find videos of darwin awards...i found this and it was too funny to not post :rotfl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHYOheIP07Q

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

This is very interesting!
Can I just encourage everyone to appreciate that everyone has a valid opinion with some good points; this doesn't have to get personal, as I see it potentially becoming. Remember this is the internet and there is no point getting annoyed/angry over someone that you only know through pixels.
:nsmile:


you are exactly right,and well said. here is what i do when i leave this thread......:) cause i love AF too much to squabble over unprovable theories either way.


31668

[Eternal Enigma]

^ it's like this:
-there is a common ancestor that gets distributed to different environments
-each group will evolve differently, according to their environment
-they will become so different that they cant interbreed with each other

the way you think it is NOT wrong, it would be the case if the whole group of common ancestors stuck together and moved around from one place to another, as opposed to distributing itself to different places.

hopefully this explains it well
31667

Thank you for your feedback. ^_^

You gave me some really good stuff to go over.

I completely understand the base model of evolution. I've seen very complex models that show our current model for evolution and how it works. Some of the evolutionary documentaries I've watched have been 3-5 hours long and I've seen hundreds of hours of documentaries or scientific shows on this subject not to forget to include what I learned in school and the books I've read on the subject at my local library. I'll create a graphic to better illustrate a more likely alternate model.

Whenever I say the "base model" for evolution is incorrect I say that because I believe the base model is very unlikely; not because I believe in God, but because there are other possibilities if you include all of the variables. Scientists make it sound seamless because they do not include the variables one minute (to make it work), but the next minute they will. These areas where they've worked around a problem with the story or an area where they have no information is why you guys think evolution works. I'll have to create the model and word it so that it comes across the right way. Kiyom also mentioned something else that I forgot to add so I do have some more points to insert and I'll try to get it up as soon as I can, but I'm not going to work on it tonight.

In science, quite often what they'll do is come up with an answer before they even know what the problem is...

__ + __ = 35

They have the answer so it must be correct... for me I'd like to know the formula first before just jumping to conclusions. Of course, you can backtrack using the answer to try to find the question, but the question that created that answer could be one of a couple of answers. Just like when you play the guitar there is often more than one way to play a particular song and both ways can be correct.

The truth is it is all guess work because we really don't know.

Think about this: If five questions can lead to the same answer; which question does the answer belong to?

[Aihwa]

Still waiting on evidence.

[Eternal Enigma]

I get the feeling if I post an elaborate model it wouldn't be read and any photos attached to help support alternative models would magically disappear.

I'm not going to spend valuable time on something just for it to end up a waste of time. This is just the internet and in the end what you believe doesn't matter.

I have a business to run, a farm to maintain, an aging father to take care of, and my own medical issues to deal with... I do not have time for this.

So I'll end it here.

I would like to thank those of you who actually participated and posted something useful. I wish we could have made a little more progress, but you helped me create an alternative model for evolution that works better than the current one and not only is it more realistic, but it is actually reflective of reality. I could actually take my model for evolution and because it's so much more believable I could submit it and eradicate religion. It's that much better than the current model. Even though I believe in God I am so open minded that I could sit down and go over this stuff and come up with a model that is against my belief. Even though I did that I still do not believe it happened by itself for absolutely no reason at all. How could it? Honestly the mystery of life is still a mystery. Maybe my father is right; maybe we aren't supposed to figure it out.

Believing in God helps get me through the really bad times. When nonbelievers are scared or panicked; my faith in God grants me the ability to face the unknown without fear.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Still waiting on evidence.


oh please...we're still waiting on one shred of evidence of your 'monkeys became men' evolution,LOL. yeah yeah,everyone comes in here and gives small examples of this bird that,this little worm adapted to this tree bark yadda yadda bing boo lol...but give us one small bit of proof that man,you know,upright-walking bipedal humanoid,evolved from the tadpole/platypus/chimpanzee dna string.


this whole thread,creation vs evolution,both quite unprovable in our short lifetimes,is about MANKIND,not the duckbilled platypus or a hummingbird. d'oh!!!:)



31737

[_Omaticaya_]

I get the feeling if I post an elaborate model it wouldn't be read and any photos attached to help support alternative models would magically disappear.

I'm not going to spend valuable time on something just for it to end up a waste of time. This is just the internet and in the end what you believe doesn't matter.

I have a business to run, a farm to maintain, an aging father to take care of, and my own medical issues to deal with... I do not have time for this.

So I'll end it here.

I would like to thank those of you who actually participated and posted something useful. I wish we could have made a little more progress, but you helped me create an alternative model for evolution that works better than the current one and not only is it more realistic, but it is actually reflective of reality. I could actually take my model for evolution and because it's so much more believable I could submit it and eradicate religion. It's that much better than the current model. Even though I believe in God I am so open minded that I could sit down and go over this stuff and come up with a model that is against my belief. Even though I did that I still do not believe it happened by itself for absolutely no reason at all. How could it? Honestly the mystery of life is still a mystery. Maybe my father is right; maybe we aren't supposed to figure it out.

Believing in God helps get me through the really bad times. When nonbelievers are scared or panicked; my faith in God grants me the ability to face the unknown without fear.

:O Can't think of anything else to say brother, than, Oel Ngati Kameie :nwink: Mate, thankyou, for the incredible posts you wrote, I've never seen anyone write so many, and so huge and detailed posts, such a dedication no matter all the friction against all the others trying to put you down... You always kept going, never lost patience, unlike me just getting angry... Your posts were always a pleasure to read. So, from me, thanks, and whatever the others may say, don't bother, at least know, I'm on your side, and so are many others brother, I see you :) Your last sentence in green, is just epic mate, you got it right tsmukan, God bless you your family and farm, and help with your medical issues, Take care man

[Ibelieve]

I want to say three things.

Firstly, there are MANY scientists, at a high level (John Lennox's mate who is literally at the top) that are researching evolution, but still believe in God. I have been stressing this since the start, that evolution does not disprove a creator - because evolution has nothing to do with creation, they are totally different stages in time.

Secondly,
The two theories are just that, theories. There is no substantial evidence on either side. Both Aihwa and Eternal: you both come across quite arrogant, its not open-minded at all. :(
But it has been a good thread, really interesting.

Thirdly,
"Believing in God helps get me through the really bad times. When nonbelievers are scared or panicked; my faith in God grants me the ability to face the unknown without fear."

This is true, God is great.
BUT
This makes it out as though religion is a crutch to lean on when times are bad.
SCREW THE CRUTCH! Jesus is my two dam legs!
We all walk through the valley of the shadow of death. But we never fear, for God will never forsake us.
My favourite chapter in the bible, Psalm 91.

“Because he[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+91&version=NIV#fen-NIV-15410b)] loves me,” says the LORD, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call on me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation.”

Psalm 1:14-16

[Aihwa]

There is no substantial evidence on either side.

False.

[Aihwa]

oh please...we're still waiting on one shred of evidence of your 'monkeys became men' evolution,LOL.


To say "evolution is JUST a theory" appears to convey a misunderstanding of what the term "theory" means in science. In common everyday usage, theory generally means "a hunch or guess", but in science, a theory is "a potentially-falsifiable explanation of a set of related facts for a given phenomenon." In science, a theory is the highest level an explanation can attain, there is no "proof" level in science. Science deals mostly with facts, laws, and theories. Here's an example: An apple falling to the earth, that demonstrates the fact of gravity, the name we give to this force. Matter attracts matter, or every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) of the distance between them; that's the law of gravity (specifically Newton's law of universal gravitation). The theory of gravity attempts to explain how gravity works (for example, Einstein's general relativity), and it can't be proven, only improved or discarded for a new, better theory.

The theory of evolution can't be proven, like all other scientific theories: only supported with evidence (facts and observations), OR the theory itself improved with new understanding, OR the theory discarded and replaced with a better one that is able to explain everything evolution does and at least a little more. Also, the new theory, just like evolution, must have predictive power (more on that later). You can't just attack evolution and think creationism (the other supposed theory, which doesn't qualify as a scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)) triumphs by default; you actually have to show how creationism is a better explanation of the facts than evolution is. Evolution explains thousands of observations, but I'll just list a few here, such as the ridiculous path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve). Understand the basics of tetrapod evolution (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/tetrapods.htm) to see why this is not an intelligent design by any standard.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/335.jpg

See for yourself the extreme detour it takes in the giraffe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cH2bkZfHw4

Evolutionary theory also explains the path of the vas deferens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Route_of_the_vas_defere ns) (study the evolution of mammals (http://www.mnh.si.edu/mammals/pages/how/index.htm) to understand why this is), why human embryos have pharyngeal pouches (http://www.bionalogy.com/pharynx.htm) (explore the history of life (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php), and you'll know why we have what become gill slits in fish). Evolution also explains why we have vestigial organs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_organ) (check out the 5 things humans don't need anymore (like wisdom teeth) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html?full=true), which are baggage from our evolutionary past, exactly why birds are not just descended from maniraptorian theropod dinosaurs, but actually are dinosaurs (http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/webquest/content/dinobirds.shtml), and the occurrence of atavisms (http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/atavism.htm). How would a creationism theory explain atavisms? The evolutionary framework explains these and many other facts without any problems, under maximum parsimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). Take a look at how multiple, independent sets of biological markers are used to retrace ancestry back through time, to show the relatedness of all life on earth, such as through endogenous retrovirus (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses) insertions in genes. It wouldn't take much to disprove the theory of evolution; a fossilized squamate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamate) in the Ediacaran period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran) would shake the biology world to its core, the discoverers would get a lot of media attention and would probably even earn a Nobel Prize.

A possible cladogram for bird evolution:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/336.jpg

Before I go further, let's get the definitions correct. Search "Evolution 101" and you'll find the University of California's Museum of Paleontology exhibit on evolution. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01) Evolution simply means "change over time", but in biology, evolution means this:

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

From the UCMP website again, here's the scope of the theory of evolution:

"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance. The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

This isn't a bird, it was a 4-winged feathered dinosaur, Microraptor (http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030123/full/news030120-7.html). Don't confuse with "Archaeoraptor" (http://www.nature.com/news/2002/021121/full/news021118-6.html)!
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/43.gif

Evolutionary biology is a vast subject, I'm not here to spit out all the evidence for evolution, it is up to the interested observer to investigate the evidence themselves, but let me point out a few pages among tens of thousands of pieces of evidence to look at:

Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063)
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)
Insertion of Telomeric Repeats at Intrachromosomal Break Sites During Primate Evolution (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1704.full)

Check out a list of just some observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).

There are hundreds of books on its various subjects, even on specifics people might think science knows nothing about, like the evolution of the insects (detailed in a 772 page book) (http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5708701/?site_locale=en_GB). No one is forgetting the plants, check out just this one page on the subject of plant evolution (http://mansfield.osu.edu/%7Esabedon/biol3060.htm). Anyone keeping an eye on science news will know that it was none other than the predictive power of evolution (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html) which aided Neil Shubin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZbvKMz2oDQ) and team to discover Tiktaalik roseae (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html) in 2004; the scientists knew exactly what they were looking for before it was even discovered, in rocks 375 million years old (the time of the fish to tetrapod transition). Check out Wikipedia's list of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils) to see plenty more, but before you criticize evolution, you really need to know what evolution is (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) and what transitional features are, I recommend the UMCP Berkeley Evolution 101 website (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01) for the basics.

See how the incus and the malleus (bones in mammalian ears) transitioned from the quadrate and articular bones in reptiles through evolution:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/337.jpg

A lot of people are unaware of just how many "transitional forms" have been uncovered in the recent decades of almost all major vertebrate transformations. Check out the fossils that qualify as important to understanding the sarcopterygian (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html) "fish to tetrapod" (http://darwiniana.org/tetrapods.htm) transition. These genera are not listed in their chronological order; for a glimpse of that, check out this illustration (http://beta.revealedsingularity.net/content/articles/tetrapod_evo/images/digits.png). As fins were adapted for land-dwelling, early tetrapods like Acanthostega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega) (which had lungs and gills) had several more digits than 5.

(Listed from dinosaurs.about.com (http://dinosaurs.about.com/), don't mistake any of them for dinosaurs because they're not even Avemetatarsalians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avemetatarsalian)!)
Acanthostega (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/acanthostega.htm) One of the most famous early tetrapods.
Casineria (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/casineria.htm) Among the first of the five-toed tetrapods.
Crassigyrinus (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/crassigyrinus.htm) This tetrapod looked like a giant tadpole.
Diadectes (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/diadectes.htm) This tetrapod was the biggest land animal of its time.
Elginerpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/Elginerpeton.htm) This ancient tetrapod was discovered in Scotland.
Eucritta (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/eucritta.htm) Better known as the "Creature from the Black Lagoon."
Eusthenopeteron (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/eusthenopteron.htm) This lobe-finned fish was ancestral to the first tetrapods.
Gogonasus (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/gogonasus.htm) Yet another early fish with tetrapod-like characteristics.
Greererpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/greererpeton.htm) This early tetrapod looked like an eel.
Hynerpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/hynerpeton.htm) The only tetrapod to be dug up in Pennsylvania.
Ichthyostega (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/ichthyostega.htm) One of the first tetrapods ever to be identified.
Osteolepis (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/osteolepis.htm) This ancient fish had some latent tetrapod characteristics.
Panderichthys (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/panderichthys.htm) Another Devonian fish with tetrapod leanings.
Pederpes (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/pederpes.htm) This creature fills an important gap in tetrapod evolution.
Tiktaalik (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/tiktaalik.htm) This "fishapod" was halfway between a fish and a tetrapod.
Tulerpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/tulerpeton.htm) One of the first "true" tetrapods.
Ventastega (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/ventastega.htm) An alligator-like tetrapod of the late Devonian.
Whatcheeria (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/whatcheeria.htm) Along with Pederpes, an important missing link in tetrapod evolution.

Evolution doesn't state that a species will change into a fundamentally different kind of anything (like dogs giving birth to cats, those sorts of things would actually be evidence against evolution by common descent; another example of evidence which would disprove the theory), the definition of evolution is above for reference. As paleontology is a historical science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology), there's no way we can prove that, for example, the transitional form Eomaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eomaia) is the ancestor to all later Eutherian mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutheria), but that's not what the definition of a transitional form (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml) is, and the only way we could know for certain would be to go in a time machine and witness the history of life ourselves, which is every paleontologist's dream I would think. This probably will never happen, and restricting evolution in such a way would be similar to having a court case in which the jury is convinced from all the evidence and then the defense lawyer is saying as his final argument "well none of you were there right?! You can't know for sure!". If several transitional forms aren't good enough evidence for you, how about several hundred, listed here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)!

From synapsida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid) evolved the mammals:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/341.jpg

Someone who doesn't understand taxonomy nor evolution will probably say that a Pterosaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur) is a Dinosaur, which is false. Check out the definition of the Dinosauria on UCMPs website (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html), they aren't just "any ol' giant reptile that lived a long time ago", paleontologists have a specific definition of these groups, based on morphology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28biology%29). The fossil record could never be complete nor could ever represent the history of all species that have ever lived on earth, (even Darwin knew this, way back when paleontology was still a very young scientific discipline) but don't let the rarity of fossilization fool you into believing that scientists have "little evidence" of the history of life; science is aware of around 5,000 genera of the diverse Trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobites) alone, and these extinct creatures serve as an index fossil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fossil). Terms like "reptile" shouldn't be used anymore either, since such words are polyphyletic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphyletic). If we modify the definition of reptile to "all diapsids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid) are reptiles", then birds would be "reptiles" too, but turtles wouldn't be. If we're to say that "all amniotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote) are reptiles", then by definition, all mammals would be reptiles too. Living sauropsids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropsid) are represented by the lepidosauria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidosauria), archosauria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur), and anapsida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anapsid); this is, generally speaking, the closest meaning of the term "reptile" under modern taxonomy. So these old terms are good for generalizations, but only groupings that are monophyletic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly) are appropriate for taxonomic classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree). If a single bird, mammal, "reptile", or fish cleavage (embryo) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_cleavage) were to be observed with development of the anus after the mouth, evolutionary theory would be in a crisis, because by the evolutionary model, all vertebrates evolved from (and are still) deuterostomes (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/deuterostomia.html). In turn, we're all bilaterally symmetrical (http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459) coelomates (http://www.occc.edu/biologylabs/Documents/Animals/Coelomate_Animals.htm). To see the most incredible evidence of evolution, study some cladistic phylogenetics (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/phylo.html). It'll give you more evidence of evolution than you will ever be able to sift through, and you will be convinced if you are unbiased and objective.

What a person may or may not believe isn't important. What's most important is what is objectively measurable and testable, because only accurate information can have practical application. Most scientists are religious, and the vast majority of scientists (around 95%) accept the theory of evolution. For example, The Dinosaur Heresies by Robert T. Bakker (http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaur-Heresies-Unlocking-Dinosaurs-Extinction/dp/0821756087), a popular book on hypotheses about endothermy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermy) in dinosaurs, whose author is a not only a world-famous paleontologist, but is also a Christian minister, again shows that many evolution supporters are religious too. The creationism movement is highly dishonest in its representation of evolution, and for many examples of that, check out Kevin Padian's slides and expert testimony (http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html) at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District), a case in 2005 which pitted the theory of evolution against intelligent design (ID) creationism, and ID lost.

Here's an example of the creationists misrepresentation of science in their book Of Pandas and People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People):
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/340.jpg

The judge's eloquent decision of the court (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) sums up the issue, summarizing exactly why creationism isn't science: "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."


Your move.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

False.



no....true. you still haven't shown one damn shred of evolution evidence in M A N K I N D,because that is what we're arguing here. i can't show any evidence for creationism in mankind because there is none,it is an act of faith to believe in that and intelligent design,and i have no faith,sadly. there is no evidence of evolution in mankind,because it allegedly happened millions of years ago...how convenient for you,lol

here we go on the hamster-wheel again........................

31749

[Ibelieve]

tl;dr
if there was substantial evidence, why would we be having this argument? Why would evolution still be a theory?
(hint) because there is no definite, irrefutable evidence to prove it.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

So I'll end it here. Honestly, the mystery of life is still a mystery.



a very good phrase...and mystery adds to the spice of life. if you're out,Enigma,then i am out. it was interesting,to say the least. bye. :)



31750













* it's all yours,aihwa. lol *

[Aihwa]

tl;dr
if there was substantial evidence, why would we be having this argument? Why would evolution still be a theory?
(hint) because there is no definite, irrefutable evidence to prove it.



To say "evolution is JUST a theory" appears to convey a misunderstanding of what the term "theory" means in science. In common everyday usage, theory generally means "a hunch or guess", but in science, a theory is "a potentially-falsifiable explanation of a set of related facts for a given phenomenon." In science, a theory is the highest level an explanation can attain, there is no "proof" level in science. Science deals mostly with facts, laws, and theories. Here's an example: An apple falling to the earth, that demonstrates the fact of gravity, the name we give to this force. Matter attracts matter, or every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them; that's the law of gravity (specifically Newton's law of universal gravitation). The theory of gravity attempts to explain how gravity works (for example, Einstein's general relativity), and it can't be proven, only improved or discarded for a new, better theory.


We're having this argument because Christians refuse to beleive that their book is incorrect.



Evidence has been presented, and ignored. Completely. How you will pass high-school, I have no idea.

[Ibelieve]

We're having this argument because Christians refuse to beleive that their book is incorrect.



Evidence has been presented, and ignored. Completely. How you will pass high-school, I have no idea.

You clearly have no firm grasp on any means of logic. God is eternal - this means He can take his time. Do you think that many christians believe that God made the world in 6 days? Come on... I believe that God was the means of creation (even if that is only the first forms of life). I do not know, but I am very open to the idea of evolution. Nothing in the bible is in direct contradiction with the theory (I do not take Genesis literally), so you're assumption that because man may have descended from a different form of life, has NO repercussions on my faith whatsoever. It is entirely possible that after the initial 'creation' that there is no need for a God to have a hand in evolution, but here we are, having these debates thinking we know it all, when we are nothing but a tiny insignificant speck of dust in a universe so massive that it is totally beyond anyone's comprehension. You think you can ponder the mysteries of the universe?

Think how small you are on this planet.
The Sun is approximately 1 300 000 times bigger than the Earth..

0
0
(If links fail -
http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/earths-size-compared-to-larger-stars.jpg
http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/earths-size-compared-to-massive-stars.jpg

Psalm 33:6 says something about how God breathes stars.
So really, who are we to think we can understand how our universe works?

My question to you Aihwa, is what started evolution?

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

We're having this argument because...yadda yadda.


............







You clearly have no firm grasp on any means of logic.




nice!:)


31765

[_Omaticaya_]

You clearly have no firm grasp on any means of logic. God is eternal - this means He can take his time. Do you think that many christians believe that God made the world in 6 days? Come on... I believe that God was the means of creation (even if that is only the first forms of life). I do not know, but I am very open to the idea of evolution. Nothing in the bible is in direct contradiction with the theory (I do not take Genesis literally), so you're assumption that because man may have descended from a different form of life, has NO repercussions on my faith whatsoever. It is entirely possible that after the initial 'creation' that there is no need for a God to have a hand in evolution, but here we are, having these debates thinking we know it all, when we are nothing but a tiny insignificant speck of dust in a universe so massive that it is totally beyond anyone's comprehension. You think you can ponder the mysteries of the universe?

Think how small you are on this planet.
The Sun is approximately 1 300 000 times bigger than the Earth..

0
0
(If links fail -
http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/earths-size-compared-to-larger-stars.jpg
http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/earths-size-compared-to-massive-stars.jpg

Psalm 33:6 says something about how God breathes stars.
So really, who are we to think we can understand how our universe works?

My question to you Aihwa, is what started evolution?

EXACTLY man :) Dude I see you, fantastic post mate. It's what I wrote too a few pages back, what some people don't ever think of is, if He is GOD, there must be a reason He is called God! And who ever said that we, CREATED BY GOD by the way, could understand His entity, or His capabilities, 'Almighty' has a meaning, and no one ever said we could understand concepts of forgiveness, and Unconditionate Love, that's why God is there for Anyone who wants to believe in Him, to help out a little bit :) It's about being a little humble, you either decide you're not the most intelligent person in the world and believe there is a God created all things and is too Great for us to even imagine, or you keep on your darwinism monkey stuff, well, I'm not having that SH1T, i'm sick and tired of people convinced and telling everyone, we are basically 'intelligent monkeys', NO WAY, screw that!, I'm an english Man, a Human Being, full stop. And that they're my ancestors? Hahaha Only ancestors I got is Adam and Eve. Anyway, I already, WE already know what everyone believes here, so it's pretty pointless going on... Anyway, I see you IBelieve have a good Sunday, take care :nwink:

[Aihwa]

You clearly have no firm grasp on any means of logic. God is eternal - this means He can take his time. Do you think that many christians believe that God made the world in 6 days? Come on... I believe that God was the means of creation (even if that is only the first forms of life). I do not know, but I am very open to the idea of evolution. Nothing in the bible is in direct contradiction with the theory (I do not take Genesis literally), so you're assumption that because man may have descended from a different form of life, has NO repercussions on my faith whatsoever. It is entirely possible that after the initial 'creation' that there is no need for a God to have a hand in evolution, but here we are, having these debates thinking we know it all, when we are nothing but a tiny insignificant speck of dust in a universe so massive that it is totally beyond anyone's comprehension. You think you can ponder the mysteries of the universe?

Think how small you are on this planet.
The Sun is approximately 1 300 000 times bigger than the Earth..

0
0
(If links fail -
http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/earths-size-compared-to-larger-stars.jpg
http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/earths-size-compared-to-massive-stars.jpg

Psalm 33:6 says something about how God breathes stars.
So really, who are we to think we can understand how our universe works?

My question to you Aihwa, is what started evolution?


You just used god and logic in the same breath.

[HufweMakto]

tl;dr
if there was substantial evidence, why would we be having this argument? Why would evolution still be a theory?
(hint) because there is no definite, irrefutable evidence to prove it.

Actually, there is a TON of evidence for evolution. I can't believe people are in favor of such a stupid notion as Creationism, when there's no substainal evidence to those claims. If you're going to say "God did it" it's almost the equilivent of saying "a wizard did it" in terms of a novel/movie/anime/cartoon. IT HAS NO LOGIC, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!

As for evidence for evolution I can make a list. A LONG LIST:

~ Feathers in amber from the age of dinosaurs.
~ The evolution of flight in dinosaurs
~ The early hominid fossils from Africa and parts of Europe and Asia.
~ Extinct species of homind ancestors, ie Sahelanthropus, which shares similarities between modern chimpanzees and humans.
~ The friggin' age of the Earth!
~ PEPPER MOTHS. Google it if you must!
~ The fact that you can observe it TODAY!
~ Oh and btw, you did not evolve from a platypus! Monotermes used to be much more diverse than they are today. Enchidnas and platypuses are all that are left of that line.
~ Feathers on dinosaurs.
~ Geological isolation of species in remote habitats, causing them to mutate.
~ Mutations (not stupid X-Men pseudoscience types) but mutations that favor one trait over another.
~ Co-Evolution in which animals try to outwit other animals with their own mutations, such as resistant to tetrodotoxin in grater snakes so they can eat tetrodotoxin laiden amphibians.
~ Leg bones in whales, showing that they once land-dwelling mammals.
~ Every single kingdom in biological life that there is!
~ The fact that cold and flu viruses mutate every year, thus why you need to get a new shot every year.
~ Variation of species.
~ The dinosaurs!!!
~ Ice Age megafauna!!!
~ The Devonian Age!!!
~ FOSSILS!!!
~ Morphs in animals! See Pepper moth.

I could go on, but doing overly long posts are not my thing. It just seems tedious and time comsuming. Anyways, why is this being discussed at all? Evolution CLEARLY TRUMPS "creationism" at all points. In fact, where's the evidence of "creationism"? And please do not throw a Bible in here, it's not considered evidence.

[transcend]

Eywa is a more logical and kinder solution to the debate then 18th century evolution or 13th century christianity.. we all agree that theories change all the time.. the current state of evolutionary theory as it is taught in schools is a statement to how little we really know about biology.. to deny all of evolution is stupid.. to believe modern science knows everything is just as stupid.. Gaia is a sound scientific theory and belief in mother nature is older then any book religon.. mother nature evolved into the biblical goddess who is the holy spirit and wisdom.. you will find wisdom called a female in proverbs and also that she is the co-creator.. this further evolved into the holy spirit, who is also god.. which according to first century christianity is indeed female.. the birther.. none of this debate should be contray to the other; the truth should build on itself.. the solution is in the middle .. it is in both science and religon.. it is in Gaia and the Goddess.. it is in Eywa..:soap: <3

[akgeff]

Ever notice that the theme of most horror movies like Damien and the Exorcist seems to be: "What if the Catholics are right?"

[Aihwa]

Gaia is a sound scientific theory and belief in mother nature is older then any book religon..


No it is not, and age doesent grant you protection from inquiry.

[Tsyal Makto]

Belief in god and spirituality is not incompatible with science. Creationism is one of the rare occasions it is, but not as a whole. I am highly spiritual (a pantheist/gaianist), but also highly scientific (I also believe in evolution, BTW).

Just putting my $0.02 out there.

[Aihwa]

Belief in god and spirituality is not incompatible with science. Creationism is one of the rare occasions it is, but not as a whole. I am highly spiritual (a pantheist/gaianist), but also highly scientific (I also believe in evolution, BTW).

Just putting my $0.02 out there.

I never said that. I said logic, and god.

[Ibelieve]

There are amazing pinpoint accurate numbers that hold our universe together - in fact there are 6. You should get the book 'Recipe for the universe: Just Six Numbers'. Its all very mathematical and above me, but I take its meaning.
Professor John Lennox's analogy: (He is professor of mathematics at Oxford)
Imagine you find yourself on a beach. It stretches for hundreds of miles, and you start walking. One day, you come across your name written in the sand. 6 letters, Joshua. Of course, there must be some intelligent being around who made that. No way is it possible that by coincidence, the weather, or a creature happened to make this by accident. Now there are six numbers, so large, so perfect, that hold together our universe. Our genetical code, our DNA is (There is debate about this, the point is, its massive) said to be (from one test) 3.4 billion base pairs, another google result said 250 million.. anyway.. if you were to remove a bit of that, we would be totally different, maybe not able to smell, maybe not able to think as deeply as we do, maybe not able to feel happy, sad, or even feel love.

Of course with these astronomical and perfectly designed numbers, it could be totally random? This strikes me as a thought not so deserving of the title 'intellectual'.

[Aihwa]

Our genetical code, our DNA is (There is debate about this, the point is, its massive) said to be (from one test) 3.4 billion base pairs, another google result said 250 million.. anyway.. if you were to remove a bit of that, we would be totally different, maybe not able to smell, maybe not able to think as deeply as we do, maybe not able to feel happy, sad, or even feel love.

Of course with these astronomical and perfectly designed numbers, it could be totally random? This strikes me as a thought not so deserving of the title 'intellectual'.


False. We have millions of pairs that do absolutely nothing, and others that don't apply to us individually (recessive traits). We are not perfect. We are that .000000000(ect)1% chance in a universe with a near unimaginable amount of matter that developed life as we know it. The numbers you're referring to are simply part of the laws that govern our universe, there's no power, or intelligence behind it. It just is.

[transcend]

now you are showing what you do not know aihwa.. sorry.. however, gaia is a sound sientific theory.. ask nasa.. they spent a whole lot more time thinking about it then you have.. and junk dna shows how little your university knows.. junk dna is the code for your immune system.. which you can find out with research if you spend the time.. i have.. and which proves my point about you being told a bunch of fluff to cover up what science doesnt know.. and what do you mean by inquiry? inquire away.. i hope you do.. i can tell you that left brained thinking is only half the story.. and age does prove something.. it proves that alot of smart people have believed is something for a long time.. <3

[Aihwa]

now you are showing what you do not know aihwa.. sorry.. however, gaia is a sound sientific theory.. ask nasa.. they spent a whole lot more time thinking about it then you have.. and junk dna shows how little your university knows.. junk dna is the code for your immune system.. which you can find out with research if you spend the time.. i have.. and which proves my point about you being told a bunch of fluff to cover up what science doesnt know.. and what do you mean by inquiry? inquire away.. i hope you do.. i can tell you that left brained thinking is only half the story.. and age does prove something.. it proves that alot of smart people have believed is something for a long time.. <3


Link or it didn't happen.

[transcend]

lol.. think.. i'm not doing your home work for you <3

junk dna is not junk
Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203730.htm)
Origin of "junk" DNA - The Panda's Thumb (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/origin-of-junk.html)
Functions of Junk DNA (http://www.news-medical.net/health/Functions-of-Junk-DNA.aspx)
Transposable Elements (TEs): Not Junk DNA? | Learn Science at Scitable (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211)
Not 'Junk DNA' After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm)

Gaia is a valid theory
In 2001, a thousand scientists at the European Geophysical Union meeting signed the Declaration of Amsterdam, starting with the statement "The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system with physical, chemical, biological, and human components.
Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#From_hypothesis_to_theory)
Gaia Hypothesis: Could Earth Really be a Single Organism? (http://www.universetoday.com/13939/gaia-hypothesis-could-earth-really-be-a-single-organism/)
BBC Knowledge - The Big Idea: Gaia theory (http://www.bbcknowledge.com/za/liberating/the-big-idea-gaia-theory/)



http://youtu.be/44yiTg7cOVI


now ask yourself.. why did they call it ''junk'' in the first place? rather then say ''mystery dna'' and why is the ''big bang'' not the ''big birth'' ?.. that would be closer to the reality.. :soap: universities are funded by corporations who want science to say it is ok to exploit nature.. and it is true that they push out scientists who challenge their dogma..

[Aihwa]

lol.. think.. i'm not doing your home work for you <3

junk dna is not junk
Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203730.htm)
Origin of "junk" DNA - The Panda's Thumb (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/origin-of-junk.html)
Functions of Junk DNA (http://www.news-medical.net/health/Functions-of-Junk-DNA.aspx)
Transposable Elements (TEs): Not Junk DNA? | Learn Science at Scitable (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211)
Not 'Junk DNA' After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm)


You misrepresented your claim. What these articles are claiming is that certain parts of the garbage dna we carry may influence change. What I said is that most of our DNA is garbage and useless, the only change there would be less of the garbage is actually useless. Again, you didn't do anything to deny the fact that recessive genes serve no purpuse other than existing when they aren't expressed in the current individual. Nice try.




Gaia is a valid theory
In 2001, a thousand scientists at the European Geophysical Union meeting signed the Declaration of Amsterdam, starting with the statement "The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system with physical, chemical, biological, and human components.
Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#From_hypothesis_to_theory)
Gaia Hypothesis: Could Earth Really be a Single Organism? (http://www.universetoday.com/13939/gaia-hypothesis-could-earth-really-be-a-single-organism/)
BBC Knowledge - The Big Idea: Gaia theory (http://www.bbcknowledge.com/za/liberating/the-big-idea-gaia-theory/)



http://youtu.be/44yiTg7cOVI




We call that a biosphere, slapping religious undertones and calling it the "Gaia theory" is silly.




now ask yourself.. why did they call it ''junk'' in the first place? rather then say ''mystery dna'' and why is the ''big bang'' not the ''big birth'' ?.. that would be closer to the reality.. :soap: universities are funded by corporations who want science to say it is ok to exploit nature.. and it is true that they push out scientists who challenge their dogma..

herp derp science disagrees with me must be a conspiracy.

[Ibelieve]

How about Aihwa does some research into DNA so that you actually have a rock to stand on. At the moment you're just pulling crap out of your ***-hole, and expect us to believe it.

[Aihwa]

I deliver.


Examples.


I carry the recessive trait for blond hair. My hair is not blonde. You could remove that gene from my DNA and I would remain the same. It does not affect me, it would affect any offspring I had (they could not inherit blond hair from me)


Biosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere)


Its rather ironic hearing religious persons complain about facts being "pulled out of an ***". Deny facts then demand them, curious train of thought.

[Ibelieve]

what have I denied?
one small trait, hair, eyes... again, provide evidence, a link or something. You said MOST of our DNA. Prove it.

[Aihwa]

Junk DNA - Junk DNA & Evolution (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/JunkDNAGenetics.htm)

[Ibelieve]

uhh...


he function of over 95 percent of our DNA is still a mystery. That is, we have spelled out the code, but have discovered that most of it does not code for proteins. Genes can be separated by a vast desert of noncoding DNA, which is sometimes called “junk” DNA. But is it useless? Probably not, because included among noncoding sequences are the crucial promoter regions which control when genes are turned on or off.

​Thank you for proving my point.

[Aihwa]

At the moment, it does nothing. Inert. Many of the strands can be yanked without harming or changing a living creature.


What you're trying to do is push extreme agnostisism, the fact that there's always room for error means we must assume that we're wrong. This has no point other than to separate yourself form two sides of an argument.

XKCD nailed this argument in regards to atheism vs. christianity.


http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/10/9.png



The defense rests.

[Ibelieve]

At the moment, it does nothing. Inert. Many of the strands can be yanked without harming or changing a living creature.


What you're trying to do is push extreme agnostisism, the fact that there's always room for error means we must assume that we're wrong. This has no point other than to separate yourself form two sides of an argument.

XKCD nailed this argument in regards to atheism vs. christianity.


http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/10/9.png



The defense rests.

That's the worst post yet Aihwa. You're directly contradicting what the article said. We don't know what it does - "Are they [the DNA strands] useless? PROBABLY NOT" So firstly, its saying that it most probably has some function, and secondly, the response suggests that scientists are merely skimming the surface.
And don't tell me what I'm trying to do, I will tell you. I'm trying to show you that science does not disprove religion. So in a way, I am placing myself in a position where I am neither right or wrong, only observant.
Now your arguement is trying to argue what I'm arguing, thats so weak.
Science is so underdeveloped, we have a long way to go if you want to put it up against the big questions [How did we get here? or even more potent - Why are we here?]
In regards to the comic, I'm not sure, but are you saying that I come across as someone who feels superior to others because I have a different opinion? If so, I don't really care. But just for the record - I don't feel that way, and you are in no position to make such comments [if that is what you are implying]

[Aihwa]

That's the worst post yet Aihwa. You're directly contradicting what the article said. We don't know what it does - "Are they [the DNA strands] useless? PROBABLY NOT" So firstly, its saying that it most probably has some function, and secondly, the response suggests that scientists are merely skimming the surface.
And don't tell me what I'm trying to do, I will tell you. I'm trying to show you that science does not disprove religion. So in a way, I am placing myself in a position where I am neither right or wrong, only observant.
Now your arguement is trying to argue what I'm arguing, thats so weak.
Science is so underdeveloped, we have a long way to go if you want to put it up against the big questions [How did we get here? or even more potent - Why are we here?]
In regards to the comic, I'm not sure, but are you saying that I come across as someone who feels superior to others because I have a different opinion? If so, I don't really care. But just for the record - I don't feel that way, and you are in no position to make such comments [if that is what you are implying]


And my point is driven home.

[Ibelieve]

your point being

[Aihwa]

your point being

That you're trying to place yourself in a third "well we just don't know" position. Please refer back to the XKCD.

[Ibelieve]

Well science hasn't answered the big questions, so the truth is we don't know. That is why Christianity is a 'faith' - it can be argued well by either side.
And my position is that Jesus died for me, so I can live for eternity in heaven. Whether God was that spark that led to evolution or simply placed man on the Earth I don't know, and I'm not trying to prove either.
I'm still trying to figure out what you're implying with the XKCD... lols. Some context?

[transcend]

the point was junk dna is not junk.. you'll just have to believe me or do the math.. you sound like a fundamentalist yourself aihwa.. and wasn't it you that said.. ''it just is''' now thats some logic there alright.. why do you want a dead world?.. and why do you think it is dead to begin with? for having Eywa as your user name you certainly don't think about her much.. i could be wrong but it seems to me that your religon is dogma from men just as evil as any oil or pharmacy executive.. your acting like parker now, saying "they are just trees" or is it that you would just rather argue.. darwins evolution is outdated.. period.. and it is not me that thinks airplanes can explode on the lawn and not scorch the grass.. you live in a world of lies.. and avatar is telling us the truth

http://youtu.be/eEep67akIn4

[Aihwa]

Eywa as your user name you certainly don't think about her much.

I have had this username for a DECADE longer than JC.

[Pristerognathus]

On page 18 of this thread I published a highly informative post (http://www.avatar-forums.com/debate/creation-evolution-deconstruction-analysis-16747/18/#post380019), complete with dozens of links to educational resources on the topic of evolution. I forced myself to keep it limited to one page, since I could easily post many pages on the subject. It took me all night to write up (I had a good amount of free time), but I wanted to inject some much-needed facts into the discussion here. I also directed readers to the Berkeley Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml) website, so that those debating may understand the theory of evolution a little better. I also explained what a scientific theory is (http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html) (an explanation of facts, it is not a guess or hypothesis, and it can't be "proven") and that evolution is currently the only scientific framework that explains biodiversity. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Roadblocks/index.shtml) Though I don't have time to correct all the errors I see in this thread, in this post I will hone in on just one particular misconception from Eternal Enigma, quoted below.


If animals, plants, and us do not show signs of further evolution in the future then it will be proven wrong as well. Humans went from being primates to what we are today in the period of a million years and our evolution will continue... but wait, evolutionists say that once something has fully evolved it stops evolving so humans will not evolve anymore... if something fully evolved stops evolving then why did fully evolved primates turn into humans? If primates evolved and turned into us over time... why are they still here? ... They turned into us so they shouldn't exist.

There is no such thing as a "fully evolved" anything.
Primates did not evolve into what we would define as "humans" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans) and then stop being primates, in the exact same way that birds did not "escape their ancestry" and stop being archosaurs (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html). Did you ever wonder why an ant is still an arthropod, or why a whale is still a mammal? A specific lineage of vertebrates (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/vertintro.html) didn't evolve into humans and then stop being vertebrates. If most inhabitants of the United States came from the British, why are there still British? This is exactly why humans are still primates (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/476264/primate) right now, by definition. Specifically, humans are cousins of the Old World Monkeys and belong to the Catarrhini monkey clade (http://tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293), and above that, we're eutherian mammals (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/placental.html) too, in the exact same way that we are also eukaryotes (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eukaryote) and bilaterally symmetrical animals (http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459), all by definition. As an interesting side-note, eukaryotes represent only a fraction of all living things, and even in the human body, there are 10 times more microbes than human cells. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all) Keep in mind that scientists don't use vague definitions when defining their terms. For example, a highly compressed definition of what a primate is, follows:

"Primates" are collectively defined as:
Any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism), metazoic (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/phyla.html) (multi-cellular), nucleic (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Eukaryote), diploid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ploidy#Diploid), bilaterally-symmetrical (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/tol/bilateria.html) (two eyes, two hands, etc), endothermic (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Endothermy) (you generate body heat), digestive (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookDIGEST.html) (not all living things "eat" as they are able to fix carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation), but all primates do; they are heterotrophs (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Heterotroph)), tryploblast (http://www.occc.edu/biologylabs/Documents/Animals_2/Germ_layers.htm) (three germ layers) opisthokont (http://www.multicellgenome.com/Lab/Opisthokonta.html) (primate gamete cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete) have a single posterior flagellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum), this also means that fungi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungi#Reproduction) are our extremely distant cousins), deuterostome (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/deuterostomia.html) (your anus forms before your mouth forms) coelemate (http://www.occc.edu/biologylabs/Documents/Animals/Coelomate_Animals.htm) (you have a body cavity) with a spinal chord (http://www.apparelyzed.com/spinalcord.html) (you're definitely a chordate (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/chordata.html) for sure!) and 12 cranial nerves (http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu/class/bio201/cn/cranial.htm) connecting to a limbic system (http://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/a/aa042205a.htm) (the simplest, most ancient parts of your brain) in an enlarged cerebrial cortex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex) (a snake found with a cerebrial cortex would disprove common ancestry and evolution instantly) with a reduced olfactory region (http://www.leffingwell.com/olfaction.htm) inside a jawed-skull (primates are Gnathostomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnathostomata), and we inherited jaws from fish ancestors).

As a side-note, there were no fish with jaws in the early Ordovician period (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ordovician/ordovician.html) (490-443 mya), and also, since it's interesting, days on Earth were 21 hours long at that time period, not 24 as they are now (http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-16-02.PDF).

In addition, your jawed-skull contains specialized teeth including canines and premolars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_anatomy) (these heterodont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodont) teeth used to chew food prior to swallowing, were inherited from the Therapsids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals#Therapsids), which were proto-mammals) forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_(anatomy)), and a single temporal fenestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull#Temporal_fenestrae) (inherited from the ancient ancestors of mammals, the Pelycosaurs (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/pelycosaurs.html)) -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetraintro.html) (whales and snakes don't have 4 limbs, but they are still tetrapods because of their ancestry) with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist and ankle bones; and having lungs (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/lung.htm) (inherited along with dental enamel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_enamel) from the Sarcopterygian fish (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html)) tear ducts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasolacrimal_duct), body-wide hair follicles (http://www.follicle.com/hair-structure-life-cycle.html), lactal mammaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland) (a defining feature of mammals), opposable thumbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb#Other_animals_with_opposable_digits), and keratinized dermis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratin) with chitinous nails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_(anatomy)) on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote) (the evidence for the history of life (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php) has answered the chicken and egg problem (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/amniota.html)), leading to a placental birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta) (only one taxonomic clade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematics) of mammals have a placenta) and a highly social lifestyle.

So by definition, you are still a primate, right now, and every other human is too.
This is easily demonstrated by listing the diagnostic characteristics of primates. Even if the theory of evolution were disproved tomorrow, humans would still be primates. In fact, humans have been classified as primates since 1735 by Carl Linnaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolus_Linnaeus#Views_on_mankind) (over a hundred years before the theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed).

Scientific theories are created, tested, and refined to explain facts about perceptible reality and the natural world through natural means (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MethodologicalNaturalism.htm). As I mentioned in my post on page 18 (http://www.avatar-forums.com/debate/creation-evolution-deconstruction-analysis-16747/18/#post380019), if you invest some time studying cladistic phylogenetics (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/phylo.html), you'll encounter the most astonishing evidence under maximum parsimony (http://www.icp.ucl.ac.be/~opperd/private/parsimony.html) for our place in the family tree of life on Earth, and of evolution through common ancestry. You'll also learn exactly why the Tuatara is not a lizard (http://www.kcc.org.nz/tuatara), as science adheres to specific definitions. Here is a highly abbreviated but visual and informative poster on the phylogeny of vertebrates (http://www.bestinfographics.info/img/Vertabrate-Evolution.jpg). If you're interested in more evidence for evolution, here are a few examples of evolutionary change occurring easily within the lifespan of a human:

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)
Observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and ways in which speciation occurs (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1aModesSpeciation.shtml)

Bacteria, along with other fast reproducing forms, evolve the fastest. A good example is of HIV (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04), the virus that causes AIDS. Only replicating forms that produce variation with each new generation are able to evolve by natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml), and there are other mechanisms of evolutionary change (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIBMechanismsofchange.shtml) too.

Presented below is the most concise definition of biological evolution I've ever read:

The word "evolution" simply means "change over time", but in the context of science, that word refers to an aspect of biology. Specifically, it is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which – when compiled over successive generations - can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

To disprove the central claim of biological evolution, common descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#common_descent), here are a few of many simple examples of what sort of evidence would work: If you were to find a synapsid (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/synapsida.html) (which includes descendant taxons, like mammals) with feathers, or a squamate (http://www.thebigzoo.com/zoo/Squamata.asp) (such as a lizard) found with nipples, evolution through common descent would be in serious trouble and would be dismantled as a valid scientific theory. Evolution predicts that none of these things could happen if the common ancestry model is correct, and if any of these examples were observed, a new, better theory would have to be formed to explain the new facts and all the other facts evolution previously explained. A new theory has to at least be a little better than the old one, and it must have predictive power (just as evolution does) (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html) to count as a scientific theory.


Basically what evolution suggests is that one type of animal can magically turn into a different type of animal over time.
Evolution must adhere to the laws of phylogenetics (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_01) and population mechanics (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_16). That means evolution never permits one thing to "turn into" another fundamentally different "type" of thing. Evolution at every level is just a series of usually superficial changes compiled atop tiers of fundamental similarities.

Birds (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html) are modified maniraptoran (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/maniraptora.html) dinosaurs (http://www.amazon.com/Dinosauria-Second-David-B-Weishampel/dp/0520254082); the fossil record (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm) does not give paleontologists any indication that birds were specially created. Humans are highly modified tetrapoidal (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetraintro.html) amniotes (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/amniota.html). Through evolution, existing structures are adapted and changed, and sometimes new structures evolve as well. Endogenous retroviruses (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses), atavisms (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/atavism.htm), transitional forms (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges), ontogeny and developmental biology (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny), protein functional redundancy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy), consilience of independent phylogenies (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence), mobile genes (transposons) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#transposons), observed speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations), the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy (http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/geo/research/age/dating.htm), the systematic classification of life via a twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy) and so much more are all peer-reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) and verified evidence positively promoting evolution through common descent over any other explanation of biodiversity, so far. Refer to Berkeley's Evolution 101 website (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01) for additional information.

A simplified view of just a few traits basal amniotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote) acquired through evolution during the Paleozoic (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Paleozoic_paleobiology.htm) and Mesozoic (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Mesozoic_Paleobiology.htm) eras:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/10/15.png

The essence of science is to be skeptical about any claim, but you should also know more than just the fundamentals of the topic before criticizing it. If you think your ideas are supported by the facts, present them to the science journals, or publish them in a book; scientists along with any other objective observers will change their minds if convincing evidence comes in of an alternative theory. Remember that any personal beliefs you might hold along with your emotions should not get in the way when considering matters of fact.

Statements should be demonstrably accurate, and it is up to the writer (and reader) to examine any flaws in their position and to correct them.

I'll end this with a few lines from Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education (http://ncse.com/):

"It is important to recognize that many of our fellow citizens find evolution profoundly disturbing. They have been told or have somehow acquired the belief (sometimes from scientists, unfortunately) that evolution "proves" that there is no purpose to life, that life has no meaning, that they must give up their sense of the divine. Whether God created is of course, not a scientific question, because science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural processes. But science can tell us a great deal about "what happened," and the evidence powerfully leads us to conclude that change has taken place, not that everything appeared in its present form. Evolution is accepted by scientists today because it explains more observations than any alternative. The "Big Idea" is that living things (species) are related to one another through common ancestry from earlier forms that differed from them. Darwin called this "descent with modification". Descent with modification makes biology make sense. We can study and understand the workings of evolution using genes, cells, fossils, ecology, taxonomy; you name the biological subfield, and evolution is there. From the standpoint of philosophy of science, the "facts of evolution" are things like the anatomical structural homologies such as the tetrapod forelimb, or the biogeographical distribution of plants and animals. The "facts of evolution" are observations, confirmed over and over, such as the presence and/or absence of particular fossils in particular strata of the geological column (one never finds mammals in the Devonian, for example.) From these confirmed observations we develop an explanation, an inference, that what explains all of these facts is that species have had histories, and that descent with modification has taken place. Evolution is thus a theory, and one of the most powerful ones in science."

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i know i said i was never coming back in this thread,but this pic was too damn funny for some reason....or maybe it's the redbull,lol :)

33614

[tm20]

^lulz

[Eternal Enigma]

Well, I finally see the error of my ways. I can't believe I've been so irresponsibly careless and uneducated for all of these years. I'm correcting this right now to turn my life around. I just burned my Bible (even the family Bible) and I now believe that the universe came from nothing for no reason and that humans are still monkeys because it makes perfect sense when you have all the answers. How did we confirm these facts? Time travel is the ultimate technological achievement of our time because now we can go back and actually confirm all of these facts that were merely unconfirmed theories (a theory is something that is generally thought to be true, but remains unproven) or rather what were only suggested as being fact through evidence that was collected and interpreted by the scientists (smart apes) of our past. These weren't average apes because unlike the rest of us these types of apes could never be wrong or misinterpret something they found, which is absolutely fascinating.

Thank you so much this changes everything for me.

[Eternal Enigma]

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/11/8.png

[tm20]

what caused this realization? i want to know :D

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Well, I finally see the error of my ways. I can't believe I've been so irresponsibly careless and uneducated for all of these years. I'm correcting this right now to turn my life around. I just burned my Bible (even the family Bible) and I now believe that the universe came from nothing for no reason and that humans are still monkeys because it makes perfect sense when you have all the answers. How did we confirm these facts? Time travel is the ultimate technological achievement of our time because now we can go back and actually confirm all of these facts that were merely unconfirmed theories (a theory is something that is generally thought to be true, but remains unproven) or rather what were only suggested as being fact through evidence that was collected and interpreted by the scientists (smart apes) of our past. These weren't average apes because unlike the rest of us these types of apes could never be wrong or misinterpret something they found, which is absolutely fascinating.

Thank you so much this changes everything for me.


i surely hope you are using some sarcastic license here,sir. :)

33690

[_Omaticaya_]

Are you alright Eternal Enigma ma tsmukan? :nsmile: I'm serious, not just kidding brother, do you mean you don't believe anymore or was it some awesome sarcasm? :) I see you Eternal :nwink:

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i think he's joking....:)

33696

[_Omaticaya_]

I think too... But I hate assuming things so... Guess I'll wait... LoL Eternal never writes anything shallow, so I doubt that would be serious, he's too awesome for that stuff, but anyway I don't know it's up to him :) :nwink:

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

33697

and here comes aihwa...3...2...1....


:)

[Kiyom]

33697



From your picture, I deduce you believe that God created the world in six days, that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun and the entire universe orbit around it.
Conclusion: You live in full medieval obscurantism.

I sincerely hope it is not what you really think, but it's really what your picture suggests!

[Kiyom]

33697



From your picture, I deduce you believe that God created the world in six days, that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun and the entire universe orbit around it.
Conclusion: You live in full medieval obscurantism.

I sincerely hope it is not what you really think, but it's really what your picture suggests!

Edit: Sorry for the double post, there has been an error I didn't quite understand...

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ whoa,mr double-poster,go easy on the chardonnay. lol.


i did NOT evolve from a monkey,tadpole,dino-shark,or a coconut gourd,but that does not necessarily mean i subscribe to creationism either. i am leaving my options open,for the time being.


oh wait,why am i even bothering......


3371433715

[Eternal Enigma]

what caused this realization? i want to know :D

Well, the constant assault on my beliefs led me to question what I believed in... and suddenly I had an epiphany... that we're all just talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through space. ^_^

So I went ahead and burnt my house down too. :P



i surely hope you are using some sarcastic license here,sir.

I knew someone would catch me... how did you know?

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/11/87.jpg

You guys aren't from Texas so maybe that makes it alright.


Are you alright Eternal Enigma ma tsmukan? I'm serious, not just kidding brother, do you mean you don't believe anymore or was it some awesome sarcasm? I see you Eternal

I'm great... yesterday I wasn't feeling well and when I read yet another post with someone questioning my intelligence and knowledge in a subject I've been studying my entire life... I had to get sarcastic.

I have just about zero respect for anyone who suddenly changes their belief.

On 9/11 millions of Americans stopped believing in God. Why? They didn't want to believe a God would allow something so horrible to happen to so many innocent people. That just goes to show how closed off and detached Americans are. Horrible things happen to innocent people all over the world every day, but when it happened to us THAT'S when they stopped believing in God? That's just ridiculous if you think about it.

Many Americans see 9/11 as the ultimate betrayal of God (or proof that there isn't a God). They don't see it as a punishment of our own making. We ignored the threats and warning signs. We made cuts to our military and intelligence, which means they weren't properly financed because Bill Clinton (Democrat) called for those cuts. I'll also include the fact that the World Trade Centers were attacked before in 1993 when Bill Clinton was in office. We knew then that they were serious about coming here to kill us. God allows free will and that means you as an individual person can seek enlightenment or ignore everything. We ignored the threat and didn't take it seriously and you see the results. 3,000 people died on the morning of September 11th, 2001 when they didn't have to.



i did NOT evolve from a monkey,tadpole,dino-shark,or a coconut gourd,but that does not necessarily mean i subscribe to creationism either. i am leaving my options open,for the time being.

I don't know mate, there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise... lol

I don't know why people can't just accept the fact that humans came from humans.

You don't even have to believe in God or creation to consider that as a possibility.

In my model of evolution instead of one species migrating to another area and becoming a completely new species of the same type I go another route completely. The same type of animal developing from genetically similar organisms from different regions that came to be in similar ways, but there were environmental differences like climate for example and that could be how you have one bird of one species and another bird somewhere else in the same class, but a bit different. Instead of the idea that bird A at site A1 migrated to site B1 and over millions of years became bird B. My model suggests bird A and bird B developed similar to one another in different areas possibly at the same time or even at different times in history.

That model accounts for the rapid development of various species in a relatively short period of time where as the current model relies on events of chance. The current model (being taught in schools) suggests that part of a particular species migrates away from their original habitat due to any number of reasons that may or may not take place; but the model forces this migration for this change to happen for every spices that has ever walked the face of the Earth, which is very unlikely if you take into consideration all of the life that has ever existed and include those that have gone extinct and also include the various versions of those creatures. In my model I don't even suggest that just one type of human existed. There could have been many other types that came to be on their own completely apart from us and having absolutely nothing to do with primates. I mean if one 'cell' can suddenly develop in the ocean for no reason it isn't too difficult to believe that a similar 'cell' can develop elsewhere having similarity to the other, but being of its own and not descending from the other.

This means that completely new species of the future are single celled organisms now, which is why I say that time will eventually reveal the truth.

If evolution is true we may actually get to see some evolution in action someday.

[Kiyom]

I don't know why people can't just accept the fact that humans came from humans.

You don't even have to believe in God or creation to consider that as a possibility.

In my model of evolution instead of one species migrating to another area and becoming a completely new species of the same type I go another route completely. The same type of animal developing from genetically similar organisms from different regions that came to be in similar ways, but there were environmental differences like climate for example and that could be how you have one bird of one species and another bird somewhere else in the same class, but a bit different. Instead of the idea that bird A at site A1 migrated to site B1 and over millions of years became bird B. My model suggests bird A and bird B developed similar to one another in different areas possibly at the same time or even at different times in history.

That model accounts for the rapid development of various species in a relatively short period of time where as the current model relies on events of chance. The current model (being taught in schools) suggests that part of a particular species migrates away from their original habitat due to any number of reasons that may or may not take place; but the model forces this migration for this change to happen for every spices that has ever walked the face of the Earth, which is very unlikely if you take into consideration all of the life that has ever existed and include those that have gone extinct and also include the various versions of those creatures. In my model I don't even suggest that just one type of human existed. There could have been many other types that came to be on their own completely apart from us and having absolutely nothing to do with primates. I mean if one 'cell' can suddenly develop in the ocean for no reason it isn't too difficult to believe that a similar 'cell' can develop elsewhere having similarity to the other, but being of its own and not descending from the other.

This means that completely new species of the future are single celled organisms now, which is why I say that time will eventually reveal the truth.

If evolution is true we may actually get to see some evolution in action someday.

You know, I don't know neither why people can't just accept the fact that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. :-)

So, if I understand your model correctly, there are, at the beginning, several micro-organisms and each of them will evolve separately from the others, giving birth to the diversity of plants and animals we see today. So, in a way, you're saying that humans don't share a common ancestor with monkeys, but that they weren't 'human' all the time, since they evolved from a single cell. (If I have misunderstood your theory, I'm sorry and would like a deeper explanation)

These cells then developped and if the environmental conditions are the same, they will evolve into something similar. In the evolution theory, this phenomena exists and is called convergent evolution. But it concerned physical convergence and not genetical one. For example, bats and birds developped wings on their own (this specificity was not shared by their most recent common ancestor). Fishes and cetacea developped fins. But bats' DNA is more related with that of human than with that of birds and cetacea's DNA is closer from that of bats than that of fishes. And your theory doesn't seem to really explain why, whereas the evolution theory, as flawed as it seems to you, does.

Disgression:
I find it a little surprising how, on an avatar fans forum, some people seem to denigrate monkeys (and other animals) and seem to consider themselves as 'higher'. After all, the Na'vi we all admire (just a guess, but I think it's mostly true here) consider other Na'vi, other animals and maybe plants as 'brothers and sisters', which is in fact the deep concept of evolution: all lives are connected, we are a very big family! In my opinion, it is a very beautiful way of thinking.

[_Omaticaya_]

(If I have misunderstood your theory, I'm sorry and would like a deeper explanation)

Hum... Sorry for dropping in this, but dude, apparently you don't know who you're talking to. Eternal Enigma, I swear, has written the DEEPEST, most Accurate and exhaustive, explanations I've ever seen in my life. So why don't you scroll back a few pages on this thread, and other debate threads. And I'm sure you'll find all the answeres you need, this thread is 'going to sleep' now slowly, (*Pheeew*) but dude there's been A LOT of action round here a few weeks ago I can assure you. 2nd thing, I totally disagree with this

[QUOTE]I find it a little surprising how, on an avatar fans forum, some people seem to denigrate monkeys (and other animals) and seem to consider themselves as 'higher'[QUOTE]

What? Who ever said anything about 'superiority'??? Saying we are just humans, and 'come' from humans, has nothing to do with any kind of hierarcy, it's just an opinion people can have, like me for example. I think animals are Way better than us tust me.

[transcend]

who would Jesus bomb i wonder.. in the last 10 years 1 million innocent people have died from our free will.. with 3 million refugees.. and the whole time the christian church's were cheering this war crime on.. I wonder if america had anything to do with them maybe losing faith .. we are in 6 wars now.. i guess because we are so worried about terrorists coming over on the bus.. or maybe you are being lied to.. lets see , on the one hand the motive might be crazy people who hate freedom.. on the other hand the motive might be trillions of dollars.. hmmmm.. thats a tough one..

[Eternal Enigma]

You know, I don't know neither why people can't just accept the fact that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. :-)

People look at monkey ears and hands and they jump to the conclusion that because they similarities to us that we must have come from them or share a common ancestor.

There are many things on Earth that are similar, but are completely unrelated.


So, if I understand your model correctly, there are, at the beginning, several micro-organisms and each of them will evolve separately from the others, giving birth to the diversity of plants and animals we see today. So, in a way, you're saying that humans don't share a common ancestor with monkeys, but that they weren't 'human' all the time, since they evolved from a single cell.

Correct...

One 'cell' developed into what would become human.

Another 'cell' developed and turned into what we see as primates.

This model can be used for all the life on Earth.


For example, bats and birds developped wings on their own (this specificity was not shared by their most recent common ancestor). Fishes and cetacea developped fins. But bats' DNA is more related with that of human than with that of birds and cetacea's DNA is closer from that of bats than that of fishes. And your theory doesn't seem to really explain why, whereas the evolution theory, as flawed as it seems to you, does.

You just proved my point.


Disgression:
I find it a little surprising how, on an avatar fans forum, some people seem to denigrate monkeys (and other animals) and seem to consider themselves as 'higher'. After all, the Na'vi we all admire (just a guess, but I think it's mostly true here) consider other Na'vi, other animals and maybe plants as 'brothers and sisters', which is in fact the deep concept of evolution: all lives are connected, we are a very big family! In my opinion, it is a very beautiful way of thinking.

I consider myself an animal and refer to myself as such, but society forces the teaching and belief that we aren't animals or that animals are somehow inferior to us. This type of ignorance is usually displayed by the same heartless people who kill animals for fun in horrible ways and say "Oh, it's JUST an animal it can't feel pain." In my world animals and people are equals. I can't ignore the fact that we are so different from the rest of the animals on this planet and since we're so out of place I can't just pick an animal with similar features as us and say; "Oh, that's where we came from."

We share 98% of the same genome with primates and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how we came from them.

We also share 97% of the same genome with dolphins and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how we came from them.

In fact, we share a high percentage of the same genome with much of the life on Earth... so trying to find our origin would be inconclusive with so many possibilities and yet we go with primates not because of any actual evidence, but because they have similar ears and opposable thumbs.

What does this mean? We're all made of the same star dust and have the same origin.

[transcend]

actually the bible says the universe was hatched .. the spirit.. (female).. brooded.. (like a chicken).. most people don't have clue as to what the first manuscripts actually say

[Kiyom]

Hum... Sorry for dropping in this, but dude, apparently you don't know who you're talking to. Eternal Enigma, I swear, has written the DEEPEST, most Accurate and exhaustive, explanations I've ever seen in my life. So why don't you scroll back a few pages on this thread, and other debate threads. And I'm sure you'll find all the answeres you need, this thread is 'going to sleep' now slowly, (*Pheeew*) but dude there's been A LOT of action round here a few weeks ago I can assure you. 2nd thing, I totally disagree with this


I find it a little surprising how, on an avatar fans forum, some people seem to denigrate monkeys (and other animals) and seem to consider themselves as 'higher'

What? Who ever said anything about 'superiority'??? Saying we are just humans, and 'come' from humans, has nothing to do with any kind of hierarcy, it's just an opinion people can have, like me for example. I think animals are Way better than us tust me.

I have followed this thread for some time now, and have already posted in it. I know it has gone wrong several times, but I think I was not the cause of it.Please, don't be offended by my remark, I didn't mean to be rude. English is not my mother tongue, and I may lack some subtleties in politeness...

Besides, I didn't quote anyone in particular. It was just an impression I had when reading some people who seemed (from my level in English) outraged by being associated one way or another with monkeys.


To Eternal Enigma, I had another question. I suppose that the cells take a long time to fully evolve into the animal or plant. So what are the transitional stages of this evolution? How does it fit with the fossiles discovered all around the world? Unless the fossiles are just evolved and now disappeared species?

When I talked about convergent evolution, I wonder how it was possible to have very differentiated groups. All cetaceas are very close genetically, and all fishes also but the two groups are very distant. Why have we a frontier like that? We could think that, since every organisms evolve its own way, it should be way more random than that, with an extremely wide range of genetic differentiation, and with creatures 'in between'.

Sorry if may seem a little insistent but I honestly would like to understand how you came to your theory and why it would be more valid than the current one.


We share 98% of the same genome with primates and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how we came from them.

We also share 97% of the same genome with dolphins and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how came from them.

I'm sure you know that it's a huge misconception of the evolution, but I'm really tired of reading it all the time, so I correct:
We share 98% of the same genome with primates and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how we share a common ancestor.
We also share 97% of the same genome with dolphins and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how we share a common ancestor.


I consider myself an animal and refer to myself as such, but society forces the teaching and belief that we aren't animals or that animals are somehow inferior to us. This type of ignorance is usually displayed by the same heartless people who kill animals for fun in horrible ways and say "Oh, it's JUST an animal it can't feel pain." In my world animals and people are equals.


What does this mean? We're all made of the same star dust and have the same origin.

I'm glad that at least we totally agree on that!

[_Omaticaya_]

I have followed this thread for some time now, and have already posted in it. I know it has gone wrong several times, but I think I was not the cause of it.Please, don't be offended by my remark, I didn't mean to be rude. English is not my mother tongue, and I may lack some subtleties in politeness...

Besides, I didn't quote anyone in particular. It was just an impression I had when reading some people who seemed (from my level in English) outraged by being associated one way or another with monkeys.

Hey man pardon :) I swear I wasn't attacking you, and I agree, you weren't the cause of arguments, and neither we're you rude, not at all! Just saying that Eternal has explained billions of times, so thoroughly, yet people always misunderstand him or don't respect him enough in my opinion... Anyway, yeah, I must say too, that some can be outraged for being associated to monkeys, such as me... I don't understand why evolutionists think creationists are so ABSURD, but viceversa seems to be so ridiculously unacceptable and hilarious?! It's such a ' What The FuK' issue! and they are the same ones that talk about 'equalitas' and tolerance and acceptance and stuff... Pfffff F this thread it just leads to arguments...

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

You know, I don't know neither why people can't just accept the fact that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor.


you seem a bit bent that i refuse to accept that 'fact' or that i or others may have a different belief,or that we could give a rat's *** about establishment thought or crap in school or science books. get over it!

33737

[Kiyom]

you seem a bit bent that i refuse to accept that 'fact' or that i or others may have a different belief,or that we could give a rat's *** about establishment thought or crap in school or science books. get over it!

33737

I think you have forgotten to replace that sentence in its context:


I don't know why people can't just accept the fact that humans came from humans.

To what I replied:


You know, I don't know neither why people can't just accept the fact that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. :-)

You will notice the smiley at the end of my sentence that I added to indicate that my own sentence was as pointless as the one of Eternal Enigma. It was just a way of saying it, with, I admit, a little bit of provocation. But I perfectly know that each of us has its own opinion and will very probably stick to it, and though I disagree with some, I respect them. But I like having friendly argument, even if it is pointless!

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

alright,i just want to say that i have no wish to fight or get all bent out of shape myself,lol,i'm just a little testy and irritated over time-change and work intruding on my weekend. but one thing always bothers me in this thread that people fling around the word 'fact' as if what you or i disagree over,is actually fact. there is no way in the blue-blazin' hell you will ever prove men evolved from monkeys anymore than you can prove that some all-powerful figure out there somewhere in the universe,snapped it's fingers/voice,and presto,man and woman were walking naked in some garden.

neither view,opinion,or side can be proven,and i'm tired of these little birdie-adapted to this crap...

the argument here is did man evolve from monkeys,or did a creator make the man from the dust. hummingbirds don't mean squat in the grand scheme of this debate.


unprovable evolution versus unprovable creation....end of story.


33739

[Eternal Enigma]

To Eternal Enigma, I had another question. I suppose that the cells take a long time to fully evolve into the animal or plant. So what are the transitional stages of this evolution? How does it fit with the fossiles discovered all around the world? Unless the fossiles are just evolved and now disappeared species?

I don't know I wasn't there and the fossils that we've found rely on a person looking at them trying to guess its origin or how it fits into the big picture.

When you guess at something there is a chance you can be wrong even when including evidence.

I can guess that your real name is John Smith, but that doesn't mean I'm correct. If you aren't alive or are just unable to tell us your real name and we have no conformable documentation to go by it doesn't matter what we call you because it will most likely be incorrect. If I printed a book called "The Real Name of Kiyom" or create documentaries and I go into great detail about how your name must be John Smith that does not in any way mean that I'm correct.

That's how I feel about science. It's a neat subject that I enjoy, but most of the things we refer to as facts comes down to being a guess. Scientists are very well educated, but they're human and can be wrong just like I can be wrong about your name being John Smith.




When I talked about convergent evolution, I wonder how it was possible to have very differentiated groups. All cetaceas are very close genetically, and all fishes also but the two groups are very distant. Why have we a frontier like that? We could think that, since every organisms evolve its own way, it should be way more random than that, with an extremely wide range of genetic differentiation, and with creatures 'in between'.

Following my model:

I explained this many pages back. If a group of animals go through a change over time then through the process of selective breeding the "in between creatures" are absorbed because the change takes place over the time span of millions of years and the new species absorbs the old. That's how we have fossil records of them, but they no longer exist. In the current model for evolution they do not take the immense time span into consideration. If a group of animals are evolving because they migrate... just imagine how many times they would migrate over the course of a million years. That would make physical changes to a species in one specific habitat impossible. Namely I'm speaking of birds because they're a great contradiction to the model. (Not to mention that if a small group of a specific species goes off and begins to breed no matter where they migrate to the shallow gene pool would eventually cause the animals to become very sick and die off, which would result in the original species being the only species).

In my model because of the similar genome similar counterparts are also able to breed and create new types of a specific animal over time. (Of course; humans not being able to produce offspring with primates contradicts this and if we are so genetically close to them and share an ancestor we actually should be compatible with them to the extent that a human male could impregnate a primate female and a primate male could impregnate a human female... birds, bears, horses, dogs, etc are able to become pregnant by other species of the same type, but humans and primates - supposedly part of a related species - are incompatible because we aren't related and did not share a common ancestor).

Look at the migratory patterns of birds... according to evolution because some of them migrated from site A to site B they changed and you have two separate species of the same type (bird A and bird B - bird B came from bird A), but birds constantly migrate and if you're constantly migrating how does your species evolve specific traits to one region when in fact they migrate, which would disrupt any evolutionary process or physical change based on the environment.

"A rolling stone gathers no moss"

The base model for evolution as is currently taught would create the opposite of diversity. During the process of evolution you wouldn't have thousands of species of birds you would have just one type of bird because through the process of evolution it would have continued to change into new types of birds and the original or "in between creatures" would be absorbed through breeding over millions of years. I am taking into account the fact that birds migrate (not to mention the time span) and science does not take this into consideration. In order to make the current model for evolution work you must ignore reality, which is something I refuse to do.

Instead my model starts with diversity being a natural occurrence by having similar life develop individually in different regions and not descending from an ancestor of another, but developing on its own similar to another and physically different. (genetically similar, but physically different)

Don't try to catch me up in the; "Well, the cell turned into something else and that's evolution."

Before you were conceived you were an egg and one sperm cell... once those cells united cellular division began and thus began to build what would eventually become you. That's not evolution that's just the natural process of growth, which is seen in all life and could conceivably be the natural way life comes to be on a planet with conditions similar to Earth.

How could that work? Egg = waters of the ocean... Sperm = radiation or a chemical reaction caused by a lightning strike to the surface of the water suddenly creating life.

Where does this life come from? Who knows? It's just like the universe I guess it came from nothing for no reason. You either believe in God or you believe in magic.




I'm sure you know that it's a huge misconception of the evolution, but I'm really tired of reading it all the time, so I correct:
We share 98% of the same genome with primates and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how we share a common ancestor.
We also share 97% of the same genome with dolphins and there's an evolutionary theory that exists explaining how we share a common ancestor.

No I don't know. See here's the thing... that's probably a common 'misconception' because that is what is taught in school here and seen in every educational show about evolution.

Aside from obtaining information from science books I've also been known to watch shows on the Discovery Channel and documentaries about evolution that are sometimes 5 hours long and very detailed. NOVA is a great organization to obtain this type of information from so I have watched their programing since I was a child. I know the theory of evolution better than I know my own family.

Whenever I provide information about something like evolution I do not open my mouth unless I see scientists or experts in this area "confirm" a claim. I don't go to Wikipedia and copy/paste stuff. I didn't go and read a quick blog about this and suddenly believe I'm an expert. What I'm doing is using the information about evolution provided by scientists against what they claim to be true.

Example:

Sort of like; if we were in court and a man was asked to recall the events of a particular day between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM and he told them about it, but later when asked to provide more details about what he says he was doing he says that he was at the store at around 10:30 AM when before during interrogations he said that he and his friend went to the store at 5:00 PM. That directly contradicts what the man said earlier and is an indication that he is possibly lying or has things mixed up.

That sort of thing happens all the time with science. The information they provide about something has "facts" with it that contradicts what they say happened.

I see these contradictions or areas that make no sense and I say; "Wait a minute... what?" Instead of being like those who just believe it straight away... "Ah, that explains everything." I question it because I want to make sure it's absolutely true.

The argument isn't pointless because teaching everyone in the world something that is incorrect or not proven beyond all reasonable doubt is unacceptable.

Unprovable evolution versus unprovable creation... end of story. :good:


(I'll correct any errors with this later... dinner has been ready for a while and I'm hungry!)

[Eternal Enigma]

The argument here is did man evolve from monkeys,or did a creator make the man from the dust. hummingbirds don't mean squat in the grand scheme of this debate.

In an example I accidentally got that started by using birds in an example. I think that's been one of the problems... my examples are confusing especially for those who speak English as a second language.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

this thread and it's many arguments,positions,merits,and general missing of the point of creation/evolution debate,makes me both dizzy and hungry,lol. :):):)

the point of this entire thread is not who made cats,birds,flowers,and boa constrictors,lol...it's point is where do we come from,duh. i could give a flying f**k where a duck-billed platypus came from,because in the end,that dumb beast will just be dust in the cosmos,but you and i,no matter if you're a pagan,atheist,creationist,buddist,islamo-terrorist sharia law-shoving maggot,or just a scumbag mormon cultist trying to weasel your way into the White House,we're all going somewhere after this brief journey on this hellhole of a planet....we have an energy essence,a soul,spirit,whatever,that is bound for another destination,unlike the animals that you evolution-pushers always use as a justification for your 'explanation'. i don't believe in evolution,nor do i believe in creationism...neither make any sense nor are believable.


if your adaptation postulation were correct,i should be able to jump off the 30th floor of a building,and by the time i hit ground level,i will have evolved a flying apparatus and adapted to my enviroment. it's the same argument,except yours convienently takes millions of years,thereby absolving you of the need to actually prove any 'fact' or validity of your nonsense. that is all.


evolutionists and creationists are both insanely ignorant and narrow-minded,both fighting over a sinking rowboat in a lake of volcanic acid. my opinion,of course. :)


33741

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

anyone hungry? here,have a slice of agnostic pizza.................:)

33742 33743


have a cookie,too. :)

33744

[Jason6]

I have NO desire to get in debate over this however will just say very strong believer in Evolution. If pick up book(no not the bible lol) and read facts and just look around at nature you can clearly see evolution taking place all the time.. End of story lol.. Posted my opinion and done :P

[Kiyom]

the point of this entire thread is not who made cats,birds,flowers,and boa constrictors,lol...it's point is where do we come from,duh. i could give a flying f**k where a duck-billed platypus came from,because in the end,that dumb beast will just be dust in the cosmos,but you and i,no matter if you're a pagan,atheist,creationist,buddist,islamo-terrorist sharia law-shoving maggot,or just a scumbag mormon cultist trying to weasel your way into the White House,we're all going somewhere after this brief journey on this hellhole of a planet....we have an energy essence,a soul,spirit,whatever,that is bound for another destination,unlike the animals that you evolution-pushers always use as a justification for your 'explanation'. i don't believe in evolution,nor do i believe in creationism...neither make any sense nor are believable.

You're claiming that humans have a soul like it's a "fact" just like you criticize creationism and evolution supporters to claim "facts"...
The existence or not of a soul has never been proven and will maybe never be. We have absolutely no testimony, no evidence of it. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, just like God and other metaphysical and philosophical concepts. And if this "essence" exists, then nothing confirms nor infirms that animals have one or not. We are not in their heads and we cannot know what they think.

I personnally don't believe in a "soul" that go elsewhere when we die, neither for humans nor for animals. But this engages only me, since it is not based on observations or solid "facts". But maybe every living things have one... I don't know. Then again this is a kind of question that just can't be answered with absolute certitude and only personal beliefs play a role here. By the way, that was exactly the disgression I made some posts ago.

And here, I'm not defending evolution as the absolute truth. It is, in my opinion, the best current model to describe life's past, but is still incomplete and contains very probably errors. It is a theory, just as the heliocentrism or the gravitation. A scientific theory is only based on observations that gave birth to a model, which has then been tested with other observations and experiments. But a physical, biological, geological, i.e., a real theory/model can't be "proven", for we would need to experiment all possible cases or to travel through time to do so. The only "true" science is mathematics, by definition... But it doesn't explain anything in itself.

After that, whether one chooses to believe or not in a theory is one's business. I'm not here to judge or criticize anyone. However the "facts" in favor of the evolution of species convince me, just like the "facts" in favor of creationism convince others, and the "facts" in favor of neither convince other others. I'm not an adept of Eternal Enigma's theory for it seems to me (personal opinion here) that it poses as much problems as it solves.

Now you can call me insanely ignorant and narrow-minded if you like, I honestly don't care, but I think it's not really justified.

Have a nice day!

[transcend]

there are 2 things in the universe that are ''facts''.. first that there is symmetry and order, things we call natural law.. then there are random events and chaos.. chaos theory attempts to bridge the two.. and does a pretty good job of it.. this has been used to show the 'fractal' nature of the universe..

it is obvious that random events are not going to fall into making self replicating organisms.. on the other hand a sort of natural selection using random processes is also obvious..

life as we know it needs three types of organisms to exist.. mutual, complimentary and parasite.. that is co-evolution ''must'' exist.. and in fact must be the bigger part of evolution.. darwins evolution explains the last one.. lamarkian evolution explains the first two.. a comprehensive theory of evolution would explain all three..

and about the bigger picture.. there are pictures that show that galaxies birth other galaxies.. that is that smaller galaxies are ejected from bigger, or ''mother'' galaxies.. and a dynamic steady state universe explains things much better then a big bang..

sometimes math is a problem rather then a solution, people make mathematical idols and call them proof of something.. when they in fact prove very little.. godel, a famous mathematian and friend of einstien disproved mathematical infallibility using mathematics.. how's that for a good trick.. ;)

a good ''information'' theory can join all of these things.. that is to say, information is the foundation.. not billiard balls and not isolated events.. there must be feedback loops..

[_Omaticaya_]

godel, a famous mathematian and friend of einstien disproved mathematical infallibility using mathematics.. how's that for a good trick.. ;)

LOL! That is an EPIC Win :nlol: nice example transcend :)

[Aihwa]

This thread is bad and you should all feel bad.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

This thread is bad and you should all feel bad.


33834

[Aihwa]

33834

I find that gif rather ironic considering the subject matter. Wild disregard for the scientific process and all that nonsense getting preached.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

I find that gif rather ironic considering the subject matter. Wild disregard for the scientific process and all that nonsense getting preached.

aw,shucks. lol

33835

[Eternal Enigma]

This thread is bad and you should all feel bad.

This is a thinking thread and there's no reason for anyone to feel bad about tossing ideas around.



Wild disregard for the scientific process and all that nonsense getting preached.

Science is about observation and the interpretation of evidence... you want a creationists example of how this can be wrong?


"Science of the past"

In early history during a storm through observation humans observed lightning and interpreted it as evidence that the gods were unhappy.

The lightning was all the proof they needed and as such was taught as fact. This was all before in-your-face religion came to be as we know it today.

Sometimes proof, evidence, and facts are completely wrong even when it is being taught as absolute fact or absolute truth.

We continually disprove the past just like those in the future will disprove us and the things we believe to be true now.

What I'm doing here is nothing new. It seems to be human nature to continually try to reinvent things or answer questions that have already been answered.

And because people like me who question the "facts" exist we now know lightning is a natural phenomena.

If people hadn't questioned it we would still believe lightning is evidence that the gods are unhappy.

I don't just believe something because the Bible says it's true.

I don't just believe something because a science book says it's true.

I don't just believe something because a preacher says it's true.

I don't just believe something because a scientist says it's true.

I don't just believe something because a politician says it's true either.

Being gullible is something an anti-intellectual would be. I'm going on the premise that we as a people know very little about our world and ourselves.

If the facts for evolution are so solid then tell me... why have the pro-evolutionists continually posted conflicting information? If the facts are so damn solid then everyone should know the same things or at least post information that is reflective of the current model. Posting links to evolutionary theory information from decades ago is inaccurate even I know that and I don't even believe any of it is true. When I refer to evolution I'm speaking of the modern model, which is reflective of scientific findings and presentations made in 2010 - 2011. I take the information scientists provide and find inconsistencies or direct contradictions and I try to make sense of it.

When you try to put evolution and the timeline of ALL the events together it doesn't work. I'm sorry that's the truth, but you can believe what you want to believe.

Me: The dinosaurs went extinct because of an asteroid impact that created a massive dust cloud extinguishing most of the life on Earth.
Pro-evolutionist: No it didn't dinosaurs survived that and after that they turned into birds!

Well alright... at least we know the truth... :good:

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ nice,Enigma! :)

i have one more to add to your list of 'i don't just believe something because.........'


i don't just believe something because an internetz poster/heckler/troll says it's true...or untrue. :)


33842

[_Omaticaya_]

This thread is bad and you should all feel bad.

I felt bad as soon as I saw this post of yours

[Kiyom]

[/COLOR]Me: The dinosaurs went extinct because of an asteroid impact that created a massive dust cloud extinguishing most of the life on Earth.
Pro-evolutionist: No it didn't dinosaurs survived that and after that they turned into birds

These particular facts doesn't seem incompatible to me. During cretaceous, dinosaurs were a very diversified clade with huge and massive creatures as well as small ones, noticeably some feathered dinosaurs which later evolved into our birds.

Of course, when we think of the dinosaurs, we have immediately in mind the images of a tyrannosaurus or a diplodocus, or such animal, because it is popularly associated. And it's right (meaning: according to current research) that this "type" of dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. But the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction (probably caused by an asteroid impact, huge volcanic activity or both) was, according to the current data, far less important than the Cambrian-Ordovician one (in terms of number of extinct species), with the death of "only" 50% of the species. That means that the other 50% were still alive. And it's not unlikely that some small dinosaurs, birds' ancestors, have survived.

The term "extinction of the dinosaurs" is a misuse of language, and means only that most of the dinosaurs died.

And the "paradox" is resolved. Of course, you have the right to not accept this theory, but I do not see any contradiction.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

god,why does everybody throw around the word 'fact' or 'facts'???? you guys drive me crazy....THERE ARE NO FACTS,ONLY THEORIES. geez louise.


dinosaurs existed millions of years ago,and all we have are fossilized bones....we have no 'factual' idea what they looked like,ate,how they hunted,their social structure,etc...all we have are suppositions,computer models,and theories put out by high-minded scientists who would do and say anything to protect their grant money and tenure. death and taxes are a fact,evolution is only a theory,end of story.


that i have loads of fun on AF is clearly a FACT :),and that brontosaurs ate tree leaves is a THEORY and can only be seen in a fantasy(fiction) movie like Jurassic Park.

33846

[transcend]

speaking of fiction, i get a kick out of all the references of 'cave' men running around in skins with big spears chasing woolly mammoths.. when you look more closely at history you can see that civilization began in river valleys on coast lines.. meaning early people were more like a raccoon or a bear rather then wild donkeys.. and ate fish and berries rather then rhino's flesh.


http://youtu.be/pGepwTmhBtA

the invention of music though.. lol..


http://youtu.be/tYBNoFcvcWI

[Eternal Enigma]

This explains everything...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5IkCzvioTc

Evolutionists are the best at articulating the truth.

[transcend]

http://youtu.be/orL05oSAo3g

[_Omaticaya_]

This explains everything...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5IkCzvioTc

Evolutionists are the best at articulating the truth.

Tell me you're being sarcastic again man... This is The Most Stupid video I've ever fuking seen in my life, I wonder how much pot he smoked before editing?

[tm20]

its a joke, but it does a good job of convincing people its legit XD

[_Omaticaya_]

^oook... =__= *Takes Note* 'Don't come back to this thread again' *Hopes to have learnt the lesson, this thread leads to nothing*

[Eternal Enigma]

This is The Most Stupid video I've ever fuking seen in my life, I wonder how much pot he smoked before editing?

That's a creationist making fun of evolutionists by mocking them. I thought it was hilarious because that's how evolutionists sound to me. They'll take a monkey skeleton and stand it next to a human skeleton and make comparisons and then do a lot of double talk or add in details that have absolutely nothing to do with anything. That video was pointless, but my father sent it to me and I thought it was too funny not to post.

Here's one where the humor is a bit more straight forward.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWZ59qIwXGY

[transcend]

i had a professor once who was a pretty nice guy and smart too.. >> and who had a beautiful daughter .. that's the part that really was important.. << ;) lol.. tell me and a class of about 200 students that intelligence was not a survival mechanism.. this is because i asked to him to explain the difference between lamark's evolution and darwin's.. (lamark believed that what organisms learned during their lifetimes caused improvements or changes that could be passed on to their offspring) why would he say that? first, because that is where you cross the line between objective dogma and subjective reality.. because you have brought the mind into the material equation.. second, i am convinced that he said this simply because of having this ingrained in him from the prevailing dogma.. even today people teach lamark was wrong when in fact they now know he was right.. but it's still in a lot of text books.. it's the same with junk dna.. most people have never heard of what it really is.. most people have never heard why the big bang is probably not true.. and some people don't know that the bible is not a science book.. it really shows how very little we truly know

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

evolutionists never have an answer when you ask what caused the spark that started the Big Bang...same as creationists can't answer where God came from.


all these unanswerable questions cause me headaches and a sudden thirst for Crown Royal and Coke....:/


33882

[DeMouse]

Neither of these theories are proven and thus they're neither right or wrong


Except evolution.

Beyond reasonable doubt in any case.

[DeMouse]

evolutionists never have an answer when you ask what caused the spark that started the Big Bang


Thats because evolutionists study evolution and biology, not astrophisics and quantum mechanics.

Ask and astrophisicist next time.

Or better yet I'll link you to a video where an astrophisicist does exactly that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Enjoy.

[Eternal Enigma]

^oook... =__= *Takes Note* 'Don't come back to this thread again' *Hopes to have learnt the lesson, this thread leads to nothing*

Oh no mate... according to astrophysicists something can come from nothing... so if this thread leads to nothing then it most certainly leads to something. :nwink:



Except evolution.

Beyond reasonable doubt in any case.

Wow, that sounds just like something another person here would say. :nwink:

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/11/10.gif



evolutionists never have an answer when you ask what caused the spark that started the Big Bang.

Thats because evolutionists study evolution and biology, not astrophisics and quantum mechanics.

Evolutionists... that means average everyday people too and those people are more likely to believe the idea that "something came from nothing."


Now here's mine:

Creation doesn't have to be the result of an all mighty being. If you're a creationist that just means you believe you were created by intelligent design and did not develop independently like everything else because we are so noticeably different from everything else that exists on Earth. We ourselves seem so out of place and alien to this planet. Being a creationist doesn't have to mean that you believe in a god or that you have to adopt some type of religion. Of course, religion has nothing to do with creation. Religion is nothing more than human interpretation just like science. Religion has about as much to do with creation as it has with a bottle of Pepto-Bismol. Creation could mean that humans are the result of an extraterrestrial science experiment of some sort. Aliens could have stumbled upon Earth and either by mating with or by genetically altering/engineering/combining their DNA with the DNA of the natives (primates) they could have created us. Is that on the list of possibilities? For me yes, but for an evolutionist no. You guys would rather believe suddenly "poof" the universe came from nothing because we've now "proven" (beyond all reasonable doubt no less) that nothing is measurable even if it doesn't exist (wow that doesn't sound crazy). The problem there is that because the universe did not exist... nothing... not even nothing itself existed. I know that's probably well above some people's level of comprehension, but before the universe was born there was absolutely nothing not even nothing itself. So the entire model for that lecture is flawed and is not likely to be correct to any measure of the imagination.

If you wish to go with the "nothing" existed when nothing existed route it could be argued that the "nothing" is God since it makes up most of our universe.

In that video Lawrence Krauss could be talking about something that actually proves the existence of a god... ever thought about that?

You could go on to say that the early universe had a mind and that mind (God) could think and create.... In our brains our thoughts are nothing more than just electrical impulses. It could be that within the nothing enough electrical impulses combined to form a consciousness. That's how it works with us.


Theories...

Theories that are popular now will be proven wrong by scientists of the future just as the theories of the past have been proven wrong by scientists of their immediate futures.

The scientists of today are showing the inaccuracies of projected models from various characters of our past and future scientists will do the same thing to the theories and models of today.

Just like how we've come up with "dark matter" in the future we'll come up with more things and the old term will be viewed as incorrect.

What does this prove? It proves we're no closer to understanding how we came to be than before we even began asking the question of where we came from.



For a rough summary of what I cover from here on: Basically any theory we have for how we came to be sounds like bullsh!t. You either believe in Creation and God or Something comes from nothing and Evolution. Both of them sound like bullsh!t and we have absolutely no way of figuring it out much less actually confirming anything.


Ask and astrophisicist next time.

Or better yet I'll link you to a video where an astrophisicist does exactly that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Enjoy.

That was a very entertaining video by the way and that video provided lots of information... all of which I already knew. All of the evidence that we've "collected" for everything that was covered in that video is not confirmable. I put that in quotes because we're looking at it through a lens or we're writing mathematical equations about other stuff that we know nothing about to come to those conclusions and we aren't going and actually collecting evidence. We're merely taking what we see and fitting this "evidence" into a story that supports a theory.

Lawrence Krauss more or less says that in science if they cannot figure something out they just (make it up) do a "work around," which in my opinion is the wrong way of doing it. He said; "We didn't know the question, but we knew the answer." This sort of slick way of putting it may work with you, but it does not work with me.

The reason they do a work around is because they have a theory and they want to make that theory work (why? I'll get to that in a minute), but when they run into an area that they don't understand instead of stopping and trying to figure it out first they just go ahead and try to finish the theory anyways. Later on when scientists do figure out that area they worked around then it could change the model completely, which means what was taught as "truth" in schools around the world was completely false. That's why you must do the equation as it is and not how you would like for it to be. You can't just change the equation to line it up with your fantasy just because you can't figure it out and then expect to get the real answer to the question.

Simple example:

1,950,352,697 x 3,896,654,122 = ? (without a calculator? oh crap! I don't want to do all that work!)

Well let's say I don't know the answer... oh, let me do a work around... let me make a few adjustments here...

1 x 3,896,654,122 = 3,896,654,122

^_^

There you have it I've brought you the answer. (even though it's completely ****ing wrong in relation to the original question)

I did a good job I did a work around. Nobel Peace Prize here I come! (world recognition, name in the history books forever, fame, and lots of money HELL YEAH!)

That's what scientists, physicists, astrophysicists, or whatever you wish to call them that's what they do. They have a theory they're trying to prove and when they run into a wall they ignore reality and continue on with the theory. That would be like making vanilla ice cream, but leaving out the vanilla and still calling it vanilla ice cream. That would be like reading a book and skipping all the big words because you can't pronounce them or better yet that would be like skipping chapters of a book expecting to understand exactly why John killed Jane. (Jane was killed by John... we don't know the question, but we have the answer). XD

You guys wish to rely on facts so let me tell you a fact... if I make something up I can create evidence that will prove whatever story I make up. We even do this with fiction... I'm not sure if you've ever seen a television show, a movie, or a video game, but we can create a story that isn't real and then we make it real even though it's not real. In life you either believe in God or you don't and people who didn't believe in God were tired of not having an alternative thing to believe in or at least something to bring to the table as an argument so they created something that in earlier history sounded alright.

Just imagine those early arguments; Creationist: "Well if you don't believe in God then where did we come from?" None Believer: "Uhhh... well... you see... well what happened first is... uhh..." That's why things like evolution and the idea that something can suddenly come from nothing was made up. Now if you just make something up does it mean you're correct? In your mind perhaps the answer is yes, but in reality not hardly. In fact, the chances of you being right by doing random guess work when you know nothing to begin with is absolute zero.

People like Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss are fooling you just as magicians fooled people long ago. In today's world we know that David Copperfield has no magical powers, but we still enjoy watching magicians do magic. We're drawn to magic because it's neat when someone is able to pull it off well. The question of "how did he do that?" is what draws us in. Men like Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss and any number of other people draw you in because of their magic. They have the "answers" and people crave the answers especially if the answer validates what they believe in or more importantly opposes what they don't believe in. You don't believe in creation, but you've desperately got to grasp onto something. (Why can't you be like Ja'k? He doesn't believe in either of them...)

Again... in that video Lawrence said; "We don't know the question, but we have the answer."

I want you to think about that for a while and let that sink in.

I want you to give me the answer to a question I haven't asked you. When you give the answer you can conclude that you are correct because you have the answer. Wouldn't it make you look like an ***hole if my question was revealed and you were completely wrong... That's what's going to happen when the scientists of the future "prove" the scientists of today wrong just as they have done since science was born.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

'in today's world we know David Copperfield has no magical powers,but we still enjoy watching magicians do magic.'


this is the best quote i have seen in a long time.....well said,sir.:)

34009

[DeMouse]

Oh no mate... according to astrophysicists something can come from nothing... so if this thread leads to nothing then it most certainly leads to something. :nwink:




Wow, that sounds just like something another person here would say. :nwink:

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/11/10.gif


You're going to have to explain that one to me.






Now here's mine:

Creation doesn't have to be the result of an all mighty being. If you're a creationist that just means you believe you were created by intelligent design and did not develop independently like everything else because we are so noticeably different from everything else that exists on Earth. We ourselves seem so out of place and alien to this planet.



WHAT? how the hell do we seem out of place here? We share specific genetic traits with every other species on earth. Particularly chimps and the other great apes. We can trace the process of the evolution of every aspect of humanity that differs from the other great apes with causal links. We are the only of the great-apes which became plains dwellers and that resulted ina number of changed to affect our stamina (Lower muscle ad bone density), ability to track and find water (Creativity and intellegance) and cool ourselves (loosing our fur, and developing thinner skin).



If you wish to go with the "nothing" existed when nothing existed route it could be argued that the "nothing" is God since it makes up most of our universe.

In that video Lawrence Krauss could be talking about something that actually proves the existence of a god... ever thought about that?

You could go on to say that the early universe had a mind and that mind (God) could think and create.... In our brains our thoughts are nothing more than just electrical impulses. It could be that within the nothing enough electrical impulses combined to form a consciousness. That's how it works with us.





If you start playing fast and loose with definitions you an define anything into existance. I defeine flying as meaning in a plate and monser as beng edible. grats, I just defined the flying spaghetti monster into existance.




Theories...

Theories that are popular now will be proven wrong by scientists of the future just as the theories of the past have been proven wrong by scientists of their immediate futures.

The scientists of today are showing the inaccuracies of projected models from various characters of our past and future scientists will do the same thing to the theories and models of today.

Just like how we've come up with "dark matter" in the future we'll come up with more things and the old term will be viewed as incorrect.

What does this prove? It proves we're no closer to understanding how we came to be than before we even began asking the question of where we came from.


And yet "some intellegent being created us" is more valid?



For a rough summary of what I cover from here on: Basically any theory we have for how we came to be sounds like bullsh!t. You either believe in Creation and God or Something comes from nothing and Evolution. Both of them sound like bullsh!t and we have absolutely no way of figuring it out much less actually confirming anything.


The difference is that the something came form nothing theory is back up by observation and mathematics as opposed to an old book. So you can conclude that we will never know and the question is pointless in which case why are you arguing? Or you can attempt to draw a conclusion from what data we have available. And from the data available Evolution and Somthing coming from nothing are in my opinion far more likely.








this is the best quote i have seen in a long time.....well said,sir.http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/smilies/expressive/exp-act-up.png

34009


Nice to see you continue to offer your valuable insights into these discussions.

[transcend]

sure.. lets pretend


http://youtu.be/Qie1u4H-6RY

[transcend]

i just have to add that a flat universe simply means that the expansion and the contraction are balanced.. which actually disproves the big bang.. think about it.. how can an explosion be so fine tuned that it is expanding and contracting at precisely the same rate.. this can only happen because of extra dimensions.. which are also mathematical solutions to the problem.. and has no need for hypothetical dark matter and energy.. unobserable phenomena.. how convenient.. take a look at super clusters in the larger universe.. the universe is seen to be full of filaments.. there is no explanition for this phenomena provided for by a big bang theory.. your mr physics is a moron telling people just to believe it because he says to.. fail

[DeMouse]

i just have to add that a flat universe simply means that the expansion and the contraction are balanced.. which actually disproves the big bang.. think about it.. how can an explosion be so fine tuned that it is expanding and contracting at precisely the same rate.. this can only happen because of extra dimensions.. which are also mathematical solutions to the problem.. and has no need for hypothetical dark matter and energy.. unobserable phenomena.. how convenient.. take a look at super clusters in the larger universe.. the universe is seen to be full of filaments.. there is no explanition for this phenomena provided for by a big bang theory.. your mr physics is a moron telling people just to believe it because he says to.. fail

Because the big bang wasn't an explosion.

The big bang is simply what they call the starting point for the expansion of the universe.

[DeMouse]

Actually you know what? This thread is over for me. Bringing up the big bang in an evolution discussion should be like making a comparison with hitler. The thread ends as soon as it happens.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

your mr physics is a moron telling people just to believe it because he says to.. fail


^ that!

i could only stomach about a half hour of the video,because the insufferable buffoon kept 'um..yeah'ing so much,was full of himself,and kept bashing on religion,which is ironic because i am not religious,but i can't stand to see the scientific jerkweeds rudely dismissing creationists when they themselves are guessing with theories of ludicrously unprovable statements,most of which are just thrown out there to justify their research grants from my tax dollars. i did skip through the video to certain points,and basically watched a condensed version,and all he ever did was talk in circles....still no proof or answers,and the fool even admits HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE QUESTION. lol....fail.


34035

[_Omaticaya_]

Oh no mate... according to astrophysicists something can come from nothing... so if this thread leads to nothing then it most certainly leads to something.

Sorry mate but to me that just sounds like a child's story... I don't give a crap about astrophysicists or whatever the hell it is, all I know, is there's plenty of people I don't like here, and a lot of things said I don't like here, Hence, I'm getting the **** out of here before someone's talks **** about me again, Hence, I get mad, Hence, I get an infraction from Avatar Forums, punished like a two year old kid sitting in the bad corner, which I Highly dislike. Anyway, You guys can keep going but I think J'ak has the best opinion in the end, none of yall can prove anything, neither can I, and if you mention the word 'Faith' here, you get laughed at, pity I can't punch the pussies in the face when they do that, because I can't see them, and that's what makes me angry about a forum, tough internet people that talk garbage like they're ALL THAT, and Know it all, just hiding behind their monitor. Anyway, cheers Eternal, great post on the other page by the way :nwink:

[Eternal Enigma]

This is no debate and it's far from being an argument.

What I say here is irrelevant to what I personally believe in.

What I am showing here is that we really do not have the answers.



And from the data available Evolution and Somthing coming from nothing are in my opinion far more likely.

Here's a question for evolutionists: We began as simple single celled organisms correct? According to science when did the first biological male and female develop?

Reproduction A sexually is the most effective method of perpetuating a species. Evolution disrupted this by requiring you to find a mate and have sex in order to reproduce.

Early life on Earth would have replicated just like a virus or A sexually.

Then at some point there would have had to have been a fully functional male with sperm and a fully functional female with eggs.

How does evolution explain this? (It doesn't; this is yet another area where scientists did a "work around.")

On the scientific level evolution teaches you that we were single celled organisms and over time we became more complex and eventually developed into the creatures of the world and due to migration of parts of a species to another area through changes over time those species changed due to the environment. Thus explaining how we have a planet with many different types of animals of the same type, but of a different species.

The reason you don't wonder about the details is because you're so dazzled by all of the smoke and mirrors within the theory of evolution.

Evolution in science is the connection of dots from one creature to another through observation... looking at monkey ears or hands and saying we came form them is like me looking at cat eyes and snake eyes and because they're similar concluding that obviously cats came from snakes. That's what scientists do. Cats developing from snakes is just as unlikely as reptiles (dinosaurs) turning into birds.

Evolutionists say one type of animal CAN'T turn into a different kind of animal. They say that you have bird A and some of them migrate to another area away from their natural habitat (for whatever reason - logically they should all go to the same place - "you guys go east we'll go west") and through the process of evolution due to changes in their environment over time they turn into bird B and with that they're still birds, but they're a bird of a different type. So a dog isn't going to suddenly turn into an elephant or anything other than a new breed of dog, but then evolutionists turn around and say dinosaurs turned into birds, which is completely contradictory because that is an example of one type of animal turning into a completely different type... magically no less.

You see how screwed up evolution gets?

Do you see how it has destroyed your ability to reason with reality?

Evolutionist: "Oh no, you are an anti-intellectual and are just uneducated because evolution does not say that one animal 'magically' turns into another animal."

(15 seconds later)

Evolutionist: "Dinosaurs turned into birds... its a scientific fact." (then they post links, charts, and videos about how evolution makes this true)

:|




So you can conclude that we will never know and the question is pointless in which case why are you arguing?

Why talk about it if it's pointless? (I'm not arguing because arguing suggests someone is right)

Teaching it as fact one way or another no matter what you believe is irresponsible because the absolute truth is; we don't know.

None of it can be proven...

Sure a preacher can get up and make long speeches.

Sure a scientist can get up and make long speeches.

It doesn't prove anything and I can't stand society forcefully teaching something that is not and cannot be proven.

The purpose of talking about it the way I'm talking about it is to show people there is no absolute answer so all of these pointless arguments that take place around the world shouldn't be happening.

My purpose here isn't the attempt to prove what I believe in because I believe in God. I'm here to prove that we know nothing and I do a damn good job of it.

Look at me... I believe in God, but I can also step back and look at the possibility of alien intervention as well as come up with my own alternate model for evolution, which actually works better than the current model. An evolutionist believes in just one thing while I believe in many possibilities.




If you start playing fast and loose with definitions you an define anything into existance. I defeine flying as meaning in a plate and monser as beng edible. grats, I just defined the flying spaghetti monster into existance.

Now you understand how I feel about scientists. They make it up and teach it as truth.




And yet "some intellegent being created us" is more valid?

For me it's much better than the "something from nothing because nothing isn't really nothing it's something" idea. :\




WHAT? how the hell do we seem out of place here? We share specific genetic traits with every other species on earth. Particularly chimps and the other great apes. We can trace the process of the evolution of every aspect of humanity that differs from the other great apes with causal links. We are the only of the great-apes which became plains dwellers and that resulted ina number of changed to affect our stamina (Lower muscle ad bone density), ability to track and find water (Creativity and intellegance) and cool ourselves (loosing our fur, and developing thinner skin).

We're nothing like anything else here.

We are absolutely out of place here. There is nothing here even remotely like us. Nothing has the mental capacity or capability of a human and we haven't seen intelligent life develop from anything else on Earth because of evolution as of yet. Why just us?

Also, if we came from great apes and there were many subtypes or "in between" versions on our transition from primate to human how is it that humans exist and something as unintelligent as a chimp exists, but something more intelligent than a chimp like a "caveman" doesn't still exist?

If ancestors of modern primates could make it... then why couldn't the early humans make it?

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/11/175.jpg

Surely if a "caveman" is unable to survive (with the ability to make tools, fire, cook, and wear basic clothing) then a chimp can't either.

Primate ancestors did make it, but early humans with their above primate intelligence and basic "technology" did not.

So what does this say about humans now and our ability to make it if something happened?

Now I know you're going to tell me they all died off due to lack of food or other varying environmental conditions (ape ancestors made it through those same conditions), which is really convenient because this is yet another example of scientists doing a "work around." In fact, the evidence actually supports my model of evolution. Where one type of species evolves into a new type and through the process of mating they breed the old species into extinction or absorb the old species. That lines up perfectly with the evidence. We've found bones of "early humans," but there's the lack of the actual living creature being here... it's just us. Sounds like absorption through breeding the old species out to me.

If something as unintelligent as a chimp can make it along side humans then early humans could make it too and we would still have them. Perhaps this explains why we have multiple races, but that would line up better with convergent evolution, which is a big part of my model. Of course, I created my model for evolution even though I don't believe in evolution.

Evolution did not happen or at least it didn't happen the way scientists are teaching it. I would believe aliens came and genetically altered great apes (creation) mixing in their DNA with the DNA of the natives than evolution. Evolution doesn't explain where the idea of a god came from. Early humans coming into contact with an alien species does. Evolution doesn't explain what ghosts are... and neither do aliens. Unless the aliens are walking around on Earth cloaked and move stuff to mess with us just to run psychological analysis on us. Of course, then you could believe that ghosts are the spirits of people who once lived, which makes life of some sort after death possible and that possibility leads to the chance of God being real.

Now we've gotten into the aspects of Scientology, which is basically a religion for scientists. There are two versions... one is the belief in how science currently defines it and the other is the idea that we are the result of alien intervention.




Because the big bang wasn't an explosion.

The big bang is simply what they call the starting point for the expansion of the universe.

Why do SO MANY people refer to the Big Bang as an explosion?

Most people who currently believe in the Big Bang believe "uneducated" people refer to the Big Bang as an explosion because if its name.

Before the year 2000 the Big Bang was taught as being an explosion trillions and trillions and trillions of times larger than the largest super nova.

In school when watching videos of the Big Bang theory this is what you were shown in schools around the world.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi6OuLJwvYk

(Video courtesy of the Discovery Channel on a lengthy special covering the Big Bang theory 10 years ago - I finally found it)

Someone cropped it so it doesn't show the Discovery Channel logo, but that's it.

This all goes back to teaching something as fact when we don't know. Once you teach it and people learn it one way it's going to take many generations to get the idea of the Big Bang as being an explosion out of people's minds. Everyone 25 years old and older learned IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AROUND THE WORLD that the Big Bang was a sudden explosion and that is why so many refer to it as being an explosion. We wouldn't have referred to it as an explosion if scientists never submitted the idea in the first place, but they did and now they're trying to correct their half-baked theory.

The theory has only in the recent decade began to be taken seriously by some. Why?

Scientists realized people would never believe the idea of empty space filled with nothing suddenly having a catastrophic explosion from no where for no reason so they changed it. In fact, I'm 28 years old and they've drastically changed the theory at least three times since I've been alive. They've changed it two times in the past ten years. People who believe this stuff never seem to notice or care that it has completely changed. Just because they've tweaked it to sound more believable (nothing isn't nothing anymore) doesn't mean they're correct. Those who don't believe it like me have taken note of how much it has changed and when we quote directly out of science text books as it was taught not long ago we're met with believers who say; "That's not how it works you're just uneducated."

That would be like me talking about how cameras worked before they were digital and someone who has never known anything other than digital cameras saying; "Oh no, that's not how it works you're just uneducated." For those of you who may not know digital cameras didn't always exist just like the current theory of the Big Bang didn't always exist and it has changed over the recent years.

Also I'll add that when I was in school and even after I graduated Pluto was a planet... and now it's not, but EVERYONE still views it as a planet because that's what we were taught. The only people who believe Pluto is no longer a planet are the handful of astronomers who made that "ground breaking" discovery. It'll take a hundreds of years to to be bread out of people. Children who make those mini-solar systems for science class... they're still including Pluto. It's round and orbits the sun... it's a planet. Pluto is so far away and we don't know anything about it so they did a "work around" and just stopped including Pluto.

Because of the "work around" we now have the enhanced Big Bang theory where there was no explosion. Before anything there was nothing and from the nothing the universe just suddenly appeared as if by magic and began to expand.

Before that we had the primeval atom, which was an atom that suddenly destabilized and blew up.

Before that we had the old theory that space was huge and empty: Empty space filled with nothing suddenly having a catastrophic explosion from no where for no reason.

All of those have existed in my 28 years of being alive... what's next? We don't really exist? :an-shock:

Ah yes, I can see it now... Richard Dawkins' book of the future entitled; "Richard Dawkins: We don't really exist."

I kind of like the concept of a work around... I wish I could do that with taxes... do a work around and not have to pay them. XD




Bringing up the big bang in an evolution discussion should be like making a comparison with hitler. The thread ends as soon as it happens.

What does the Big Bang have to do with a thread about Creation and Evolution?

In creation people believe we were created and the starting point is largely believed to be the result of God.

In the theory of evolution you must begin at the starting point and the Big Bang theory is the starting point.

The "I don't want to start at the beginning because the beginning doesn't make any sense" does not work with me.

None of it makes sense.



i could only stomach about a half hour of the video

You should watch the entire thing it's a real treat. There are many laugh out loud moments in it. The one that was the best for me was when he said; "We didn't know the question, but we knew the answer."


the insufferable buffoon kept 'um..yeah'ing so much,was full of himself,and kept bashing on religion,which is ironic because i am not religious,but i can't stand to see the scientific jerkweeds rudely dismissing creationists when they themselves are guessing with theories of ludicrously unprovable statements,most of which are just thrown out there to justify their research grants from my tax dollars.

My first impression of the guy is that he's very immature. He's one of those guys with a title and that's it. Think about it if he really is a valuable scientist then what the hell is he doing standing at a university covering history?

I'm glad that you mentioned the belief bashing because that's a form of bullying. If you've noticed that's what has happened in this thread. Evolutionists come in here and try to bully you and the reason they do that is because they've been taught to be bullies. You've got guys like Lawrence Krauss standing up there making fun of the opposition instead of teaching and he's basically teaching people that if someone doesn't believe in evolution and they choose to believe in God that they are ignorant, anti-intellectual, or somehow not on the same level as the rest of humanity.

I know some evolutionist is going to try to link my anti-evolution comments as bullying. I'm not bashing a belief I'm showing how it's wrong as opposed to saying "You're an anti-intellectual" which is an example of something a bully would say.

I'm going to make a post about the "evolution" of bacteria and viruses later on as well.

My father has a medical procedure in the morning so I'm going to go spend time with him and get back with this later.

[DeMouse]

This is no debate and it's far from being an argument.

What I say here is irrelevant to what I personally believe in.

What I am showing here is that we really do not have the answers.


I know. Thats why its a belief and not knowledge.




Evolution in science is the connection of dots from one creature to another through observation... looking at monkey ears or hands and saying we came form them is like me looking at cat eyes and snake eyes and because they're similar concluding that obviously cats came from snakes. That's what scientists do. Cats developing from snakes is just as unlikely as reptiles (dinosaurs) turning into birds.


Except they they actually follow genetic sequencing. Cats and snakes are known to have VERY different ancestors because the mammal.reptile split happend a very long time ago. Go look up genetic sequencing on youtube.




Evolutionists say one type of animal CAN'T turn into a different kind of animal. They say that you have bird A and some of them migrate to another area away from their natural habitat (for whatever reason - logically they should all go to the same place - "you guys go east we'll go west") and through the process of evolution due to changes in their environment over time they turn into bird B and with that they're still birds, but they're a bird of a different type. So a dog isn't going to suddenly turn into an elephant or anything other than a new breed of dog, but then evolutionists turn around and say dinosaurs turned into birds, which is completely contradictory because that is an example of one type of animal turning into a completely different type... magically no less.


Evolutionist: "Oh no, you are an anti-intellectual and are just uneducated because evolution does not say that one animal 'magically' turns into another animal."

(15 seconds later)

Evolutionist: "Dinosaurs turned into birds... its a scientific fact." (then they post links, charts, and videos about how evolution makes this true)

:|





Dinosaurs turned into birds VERY SLOWLY. They diddn't "Suddenly" turn into birds. They started developing feathers during the late creatacious and then when the Ice Age hit the ones with feathers had a huge evolutionary advantage over those without because they could maintain body heat much mroe effectively. So the dinosaurs without feathers died out and those that had them evolved into birds VERY SLOWLY.








Also, if we came from great apes and there were many subtypes or "in between" versions on our transition from primate to human how is it that humans exist and something as unintelligent as a chimp exists, but something more intelligent than a chimp like a "caveman" doesn't still exist?



Because we wiped them out. First species we drove to extinction was the neanderthals. Look it up.

I believe the reason we did is realated to how much the uncanny valley effect creeps humans out.









Why do SO MANY people refer to the Big Bang as an explosion?

Most people who currently believe in the Big Bang believe "uneducated" people refer to the Big Bang as an explosion because if its name.

Before the year 2000 the Big Bang was taught as being an explosion trillions and trillions and trillions of times larger than the largest super nova.

In school when watching videos of the Big Bang theory this is what you were shown in schools around the world.



(Video courtesy of the Discovery Channel on a lengthy special covering the Big Bang theory 10 years ago - I finally found it)

Someone cropped it so it doesn't show the Discovery Channel logo, but that's it.

This all goes back to teaching something as fact when we don't know. Once you teach it and people learn it one way it's going to take many generations to get the idea of the Big Bang as being an explosion out of people's minds. Everyone 25 years old and older learned IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AROUND THE WORLD that the Big Bang was a sudden explosion and that is why so many refer to it as being an explosion. We wouldn't have referred to it as an explosion if scientists never submitted the idea in the first place, but they did and now they're trying to correct their half-baked theory.

The theory has only in the recent decade began to be taken seriously by some. Why?

Scientists realized people would never believe the idea of empty space filled with nothing suddenly having a catastrophic explosion from no where for no reason so they changed it. In fact, I'm 28 years old and they've drastically changed the theory at least three times since I've been alive. They've changed it two times in the past ten years. People who believe this stuff never seem to notice or care that it has completely changed. Just because they've tweaked it to sound more believable (nothing isn't nothing anymore) doesn't mean they're correct. Those who don't believe it like me have taken note of how much it has changed and when we quote directly out of science text books as it was taught not long ago we're met with believers who say; "That's not how it works you're just uneducated."

That would be like me talking about how cameras worked before they were digital and someone who has never known anything other than digital cameras saying; "Oh no, that's not how it works you're just uneducated." For those of you who may not know digital cameras didn't always exist just like the current theory of the Big Bang didn't always exist and it has changed over the recent years.

Also I'll add that when I was in school and even after I graduated Pluto was a planet... and now it's not, but EVERYONE still views it as a planet because that's what we were taught. The only people who believe Pluto is no longer a planet are the handful of astronomers who made that "ground breaking" discovery. It'll take a hundreds of years to to be bread out of people. Children who make those mini-solar systems for science class... they're still including Pluto. It's round and orbits the sun... it's a planet. Pluto is so far away and we don't know anything about it so they did a "work around" and just stopped including Pluto.

Because of the "work around" we now have the enhanced Big Bang theory where there was no explosion. Before anything there was nothing and from the nothing the universe just suddenly appeared as if by magic and began to expand.

Before that we had the primeval atom, which was an atom that suddenly destabilized and blew up.

Before that we had the old theory that space was huge and empty: Empty space filled with nothing suddenly having a catastrophic explosion from no where for no reason.

All of those have existed in my 28 years of being alive... what's next? We don't really exist? :an-shock:

Ah yes, I can see it now... Richard Dawkins' book of the future entitled; "Richard Dawkins: We don't really exist."

I kind of like the concept of a work around... I wish I could do that with taxes... do a work around and not have to pay them. XD





What does the Big Bang have to do with a thread about Creation and Evolution?

In creation people believe we were created and the starting point is largely believed to be the result of God.

In the theory of evolution you must begin at the starting point and the Big Bang theory is the starting point.

The "I don't want to start at the beginning because the beginning doesn't make any sense" does not work with me.

None of it makes sense.




You should watch the entire thing it's a real treat. There are many laugh out loud moments in it. The one that was the best for me was when he said; "We didn't know the question, but we knew the answer."



My first impression of the guy is that he's very immature. He's one of those guys with a title and that's it. Think about it if he really is a valuable scientist then what the hell is he doing standing at a university covering history?

I'm glad that you mentioned the belief bashing because that's a form of bullying. If you've noticed that's what has happened in this thread. Evolutionists come in here and try to bully you and the reason they do that is because they've been taught to be bullies. You've got guys like Lawrence Krauss standing up there making fun of the opposition instead of teaching and he's basically teaching people that if someone doesn't believe in evolution and they choose to believe in God that they are ignorant, anti-intellectual, or somehow not on the same level as the rest of humanity.

I know some evolutionist is going to try to link my anti-evolution comments as bullying. I'm not bashing a belief I'm showing how it's wrong as opposed to saying "You're an anti-intellectual" which is an example of something a bully would say.




The only relation between the theory of evolution and the big bang is that they both go against the christian religion's teachings.

If you want to talk about the big bang make a big bang thread and don't post it in an evolution thread. The two are completely unrelated form a scientific standpoint. Especially since the theory of the big bang still has a huge ammount of refinement going on. The Big Bang isn't a specific scientific theory but an unbrella term for all of the competing theories that say the universe began from a single infinitely small point and then expanded outwards.

Evolution is practically fact at this point. Like gravity, or electricity, or round earth theory. The only reason there are still peopel trying to debunk it is because it specifically contradicts a certain religion that has had almsot two thousand years of practice in indoctrinating people against competing beliefs.

[transcend]

if you think you can separate physics from biology you are only fooling yourself.. when you talk about creation you are talking about physics too.. learn what quantum biology is about.. it is obvious that your main concern is just trying to promote your own religion of atheism.. because you certainly are not providing any helpful instruction to justify your position.. you say the big bang is an umbrella term now.. well so is evolution.. you come here calling yourself ''the mouse'' making fun of this forum and then act like your some authority on science.. which is really lame.. because it is obvious you are not.. i find it ironic that an atheist who has so little regard for nature comes to avatar forums expecting to convince people of how great progress is and how there is no deity.. lol.. well as avatar proves the majority of the worlds population doesn't agree with you.. anyway it is a game for you i guess.. whatever..

[DeMouse]

if you think you can separate physics from biology you are only fooling yourself.. when you talk about creation you are talking about physics too.. learn what quantum biology is about.. it is obvious that your main concern is just trying to promote your own religion of atheism.. because you certainly are not providing any helpful instruction to justify your position.. you say the big bang is an umbrella term now.. well so is evolution.. you come here calling yourself ''the mouse'' making fun of this forum and then act like your some authority on science.. which is really lame.. because it is obvious you are not.. i find it ironic that an atheist who has so little regard for nature comes to avatar forums expecting to convince people of how great progress is and how there is no deity.. lol.. well as avatar proves the majority of the worlds population doesn't agree with you.. anyway it is a game for you i guess.. whatever..

My beliefs are not a game.

DeMouse is my universal internet handle and was not designed for any philosphical reason. If you come across DeMouse or DeMause on anther forum somwhere then it is most likely me.

I'm not making fun of this forum, though I can be a bit snarky at time I admit. But I find phosophy to be an important and interesting topic. If I wanted people to sit around agreeing with me then I would go to some Secular Humanist forum somwhere and wallow in my self-gratification. But I don't want to do that. I want to engage in serious discussion with people who disagree with me. If you don't want to do that then thats okay, you can block out individual members of the forum(I checked) so just do that and ignore everything I say.

I never brought up any diety's presence or lack there of in anything I have said. There are a huge number of religious people who are perfectly fine with accepting the theory of evolution and others who simply believe that the big bang was set off by a diety.

This thread is about creationism and evolution. Dieties don't even come into it unless you are basing your entire opinion around your religious beliefs.

I have never claimed to be an authority on science, I have simply brought up my opinions. Apart from that one lecture by lawerence krauss I like to avoid posting links to evidence because that can lead to positng biased links that support my side stronger than it deserves. Better I think to direct what the other person whould be investigating and let them find their own unbiased data. There is no reason to cheat about this kind of thing when talking about beliefs, because if i'm right then the other person should find the same information as I did, but if i'm wrong I don't want to lead them to false conclusions based on biased data. If they go look it up on some wibsite predispoed to subjecting the critical process and provide data bisaed against my opinion instead of making an honest attempt then they are fooling themsleves and would never have really listened anyway.

[transcend]

right.. lol

[Aihwa]

My beliefs are not a game.

DeMouse is my universal internet handle and was not designed for any philosphical reason. If you come across DeMouse or DeMause on anther forum somwhere then it is most likely me.

I'm not making fun of this forum, though I can be a bit snarky at time I admit. But I find phosophy to be an important and interesting topic. If I wanted people to sit around agreeing with me then I would go to some Secular Humanist forum somwhere and wallow in my self-gratification. But I don't want to do that. I want to engage in serious discussion with people who disagree with me. If you don't want to do that then thats okay, you can block out individual members of the forum(I checked) so just do that and ignore everything I say.

I never brought up any diety's presence or lack there of in anything I have said. There are a huge number of religious people who are perfectly fine with accepting the theory of evolution and others who simply believe that the big bang was set off by a diety.

This thread is about creationism and evolution. Dieties don't even come into it unless you are basing your entire opinion around your religious beliefs.

I have never claimed to be an authority on science, I have simply brought up my opinions. Apart from that one lecture by lawerence krauss I like to avoid posting links to evidence because that can lead to positng biased links that support my side stronger than it deserves. Better I think to direct what the other person whould be investigating and let them find their own unbiased data. There is no reason to cheat about this kind of thing when talking about beliefs, because if i'm right then the other person should find the same information as I did, but if i'm wrong I don't want to lead them to false conclusions based on biased data. If they go look it up on some wibsite predispoed to subjecting the critical process and provide data bisaed against my opinion instead of making an honest attempt then they are fooling themsleves and would never have really listened anyway.


(just fyi, you're trying to debate someone who's a proponent of an ancient astronaut theory. I don't think you're going to get too far with anything approaching logic.)

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

My beliefs are not a game.

you have your beliefs,we have ours,leave it at that,please


I'm not making fun of this forum.

you do attempt to ridicule it though,in your own not so subtle way. it is annoying.


I have simply brought up my opinions.

yes you have,and for some reason you seem to think your opinions matter more than ours. so not cool.



and oh yeah,before you bring up that tired line of me not bringing anything to this debate,this topic left the debate arena long ago when all you evolutionists started trumpeting your theory as 'fact'. lol


34085

[DeMouse]

you have your beliefs,we have ours,leave it at that,please


One of my beliefs happens to be that all beliefs should be challenged. (Including mine)



you do attempt to ridicule it though,in your own not so subtle way. it is annoying.

Stating strong disagreement is not the same a riddicule.



yes you have,and for some reason you seem to think your opinions matter more than ours. so not cool.

If I diddn't think that my opinions were superior then I wouldn't hold them as opinions anymore. Because my opinion would change to whichever one I then found superior. Can you honestly say that you think my opinion is as equally valid as yours?





and oh yeah,before you bring up that tired line of me not bringing anything to this debate,this topic left the debate arena long ago when all you evolutionists started trumpeting your theory as 'fact'. lol

No this time you actually did bring somthing. And evolutionists aren't the only ones who are trumpeting their theory as fact. Once again, If we diddn't think it was far more strongly supported than creationism then we wouldn't be evolutionists.

[_Omaticaya_]

Once again, If we diddn't think it was far more strongly supported than creationism then we wouldn't be evolutionists.

Oh my days... Dude, saying ridicule is serious stuff compared to yours. Just the fact I was introduced by you the first time here, with: -"Oh boy... A creationist..."- with such arrogance, and trash sarcasm ,and superiority feeling you seem to have, makes you lose Any. Credit. if you ever had any... In my opinion, Learn to respect the other beliefs before arguing them first. ****ing puppet shows...

[Eternal Enigma]

I know. Thats why its a belief and not knowledge.

Yes, and it is my strong belief that humans aren't as smart as we would like to believe. I am very humble and I honestly do not believe we can figure out what we say we've figured out. I believe a very high percentage of science is flat out wrong due to misinterpretation of "evidence."

I do not put religion into the equation. In all honesty I do not have a religion to practice. I call myself Christian because people can't just accept "I believe in God."

If you want me to be fully honest the only reason I began calling myself Christian is because a girl wouldn't go out with me if I didn't have a religion, which is the most ridiculous thing ever.

Neither of my parents went to church... I've never been to church... and I read the Bible for the first time in its entirety when I was nineteen, but I've believed in God since I was little because it's an instinct. My motivations have nothing to do with an old book written by men and was most likely translated out of context.



Dinosaurs turned into birds VERY SLOWLY. They diddn't "Suddenly" turn into birds. They started developing feathers during the late creatacious and then when the Ice Age hit the ones with feathers had a huge evolutionary advantage over those without because they could maintain body heat much mroe effectively. So the dinosaurs without feathers died out and those that had them evolved into birds VERY SLOWLY.

Well, that's not what other evolutionists say. Flip back a good few pages. They say one type of animal absolutely cannot turn into a completely new type. So a dinosaur would be able to turn into multiple types of dinosaurs, but not something completely new like a bird.

If it can happen why don't we have extremely exotic lizards with feathers? That would be neat.. that's an example of an "in-between" or transitional stage that for some reason doesn't exist.

It's interesting to me that the animals that are the "smoking gun" as THE transitional proof of evolution... those animals are all extinct. The only way we can even prove they existed at all is through imprints in rocks or other types of fossils. It's really interesting because it's not just one or two. We're talking about billions of transitional species that prove evolution, but they're all extinct.

How convenient... or inconvenient because it depends on what side of the fire you're standing on.

From my side it sounds similar to this; Suspect: "No officer those aren't my drugs..." , Officer: "....They were in your pocket who am I supposed to think they belong to?" , Suspect: "I borrowed these jeans from a friend, sir." , Officer: "Oh, is that right well what's your friends name?" , Suspect: "He doesn't have a name, sir." , Officer: "He doesn't have a name? Well where does he live?" , Suspect: "I don't know, sir." , Officer: "You're borrowing your friend's pants, but you don't know where he lives?" , Suspect: "Yes, sir." , Officer: "...And he doesn't have a name?" , Suspect: "I don't know his name, sir." Officer: "I don't think I'd borrow someone's pants from them if I didn't at least know their name."



Because we wiped them out. First species we drove to extinction was the neanderthals. Look it up.

I know the story mate... the neanderthals were at the top of the food chain then one day another more intelligent type of human that came from no where suddenly encroached on their territory. In doing so they took over the hunting grounds of the neanderthals and the neanderthals died out. That's the old story.

Of course, evolution pivots on unnatural migration and the neanderthals were nomads (thats two strikes against the "we wiped them out" idea) so in reality if that happened if the next step in human evolution took over their territory the neanderthals would have just moved on. That's the what the model suggest for the billions of other creatures.

What's the third strike?

You told me to look it up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaqKbtZe7x4&amp;amp;feature=related




0:28

"Tens of thousands of years ago our species lived along side a different type of human; neanderthal man. Now scientists have discovered that we also shared the planet with another distinct human creature; the Denisovans. We know this from DNA analysis of this piece of bone and tooth (in video) they were found in these caves in southern Siberia. It's a discovery that's astounded the experts."

"If the team publishing this has got it right it's nothing short of sensational because what they've discovered is a completely new lineage of DNA that is not neanderthal that is not modern human that was probably wide spread in Asia and actually links in to one particular group of living humans."

"And all none Africans have some neanderthal DNA. It's these startling findings, published in the journal Nature, that are changing our view of human evolution."

"It's beginning to emerge that several types of humans coexisted, but why did these others die out? We simply don't know."

"But for a while there were many others who walked the Earth with us."



The only relation between the theory of evolution and the big bang is that they both go against the christian religion's teachings.

If you want to talk about the big bang make a big bang thread and don't post it in an evolution thread. The two are completely unrelated form a scientific standpoint. Especially since the theory of the big bang still has a huge ammount of refinement going on. The Big Bang isn't a specific scientific theory but an unbrella term for all of the competing theories that say the universe began from a single infinitely small point and then expanded outwards.

Evolution is practically fact at this point. Like gravity, or electricity, or round earth theory. The only reason there are still peopel trying to debunk it is because it specifically contradicts a certain religion that has had almsot two thousand years of practice in indoctrinating people against competing beliefs.

I've observed many who believe in evolution and they all believe in the Big Bang theory. So they made that connection for me.

As I've said before; I use information that scientists themselves put out against them and I also do this very same thing with evolutionists.

If five evolutionists come up against me and all five of them provide conflicting information or say things contradictory of one another I'm going to point it out.

The most entertaining part of this thread was when all of the evolutionists were giving each other high fives, but none of what they were posting even matched.

[Kiyom]

In the whole science history there have been contradictions, conflicts and misinterpretations. At one point, scientists believed that the planets and the star "floated" in a substance they called ether. There has been a very passionate debate about the nature of light (particle or wave). Einstein disagreed with the quantum theory ("God does not play dice"). That's how science works and advances. Some (and maybe all) current theories are wrong. Newton's law of gravitation is a very good example. This law does not fit at all with observations at relativistic speed, and that's why we have now the relativity for these cases.

Now is it serious that these theories are wrong? Absolutely not! We don't ask the laws and theories to be true but to give a fair representation of how the world works and how we can use it for our advantage, for "progress" (between quotes because we can hardly call the hydrogen bomb a progress). That's why Newton's law of gravitation is still valid. As long as the studied object moves at low speed, it is perfectly okay, or at least, it has never been proven wrong.

A theory like the evolution tries to relate 3 to 4 billion of history of life. It is more than 10 million times the average human life span. It cannot be observed with many technical instruments. The only way to write a chronology is to dig the earth and hope to find clues and then study them. And the clues are rare, compared to the age of the Earth, and it is thus very hard to link all of them.

And yet, the work realized by biologists is outstanding. They have registered thousands of extinct species, some of them look really amazing. Now they try to explain why we (all the current species) are here and why the others are dead. And with the few data we have, we cannot blame scientists to be a little short on some points and to have some oppositions.

It is an uncertain science. There are many suppositions and speculation. It sometimes contradicts itself due to the rare found materials. It is likely to change in the future. It will probably never be fully completed, there will always be holes in the theory because there is no way to go back in time, we can only analyze what is left. Every true evolutionist will say that there is still much to discover.

But the entire history with all its details is not what is interesting, anyway. And it is true for every (hi)story. Do we care if Napoléon sucked his thumb when he was a baby? Do we care if a diplodocus preferred to soil itself with its tail when it slept? Do we care if God whistled while creating the world? No.

Biologists, geologists and other scientists try to relate the great events of Earth's history to explain how we came to what we are now. Just like archeology, it is incomplete, because we have only remnants of what was before, but it's worth a try. And I salute all the people who have worked, are working and will work to establish a constantly more precise and developped history of Earth's life, based on observations, and not on a very old book.

I'm not asking anyone to believe in evolution, but I think these people who work hard to discover the past should at least be given some credits.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

In the whole science history there have been contradictions, conflicts and misinterpretations. It is an uncertain science.


...and there you have it. words of truth. :)


science is based on computer models from old bones,supposition,theory,and whatever the prevailing trend is in the 'current vogue of dinosaur looks' with the unwashed masses,lol. there are no cold hard facts in either evolution or creation,yet both the hard-core evolutionists and the creationists want you to believe their 'version' because it puts revenue and 'credibility' in their coffers. in the end,the search for 'answers' still boils down to scraps of paper dictating the status quo. geez louise,will we petty humanity ever move beyond the incessant need to fill our bank accounts???


34112

[DeMouse]

Oh my days... Dude, saying ridicule is serious stuff compared to yours. Just the fact I was introduced by you the first time here, with: -"Oh boy... A creationist..."- with such arrogance, and trash sarcasm ,and superiority feeling you seem to have, makes you lose Any. Credit. if you ever had any... In my opinion, Learn to respect the other beliefs before arguing them first. ****ing puppet shows...

I don't have to show a single iota of respect for your belief. Neiter do you for mine.

Lack of respect for people's beliefs is not the same as lack of respect for people.

I can respect anyone who has seriosly investigated their beliefs, I still don't have to respect the belief itself if I disagree with it.

[DeMouse]

...and there you have it. words of truth. :)


science is based on computer models from old bones,supposition,theory,and whatever the prevailing trend is in the 'current vogue of dinosaur looks' with the unwashed masses,lol. there are no cold hard facts in either evolution or creation,yet both the hard-core evolutionists and the creationists want you to believe their 'version' because it puts revenue and 'credibility' in their coffers. in the end,the search for 'answers' still boils down to scraps of paper dictating the status quo. geez louise,will we petty humanity ever move beyond the incessant need to fill our bank accounts???


34112

Thats because science is willing to change when it recieves new data. That is how it improves its understanding of the natural world. If science had stayed the same for thousands of years then it would be wrong. As it is however it is the closest approximation to truth that humans have ocme up with. The Invisible-beardy-man-in-the-sky used to be included in scientific theory (especially biology where they would theorise who god chose to make certain animals in certain ways) untill Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection became widely accepted. After which point the people still including invisible-sky-daddy stopped tryign to theorise around him and started justifying a belief in him. And thus "Creation Science" was born.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Thats because science is willing to change when it recieves new data. The Invisible-beardy-man-in-the-sky used to be included in scientific theory.

^ lol

'new data' to you is 'fact'? *shaking my head*

your new avatar is ironic and amuses me,but not in a lol kind of way. :)

[_Omaticaya_]

I don't have to show a single iota of respect for your belief. Neiter do you for mine.

Lack of respect for people's beliefs is not the same as lack of respect for people.

I can respect anyone who has seriosly investigated their beliefs, I still don't have to respect the belief itself if I disagree with it.

Wtf is this^ a tongue-twister or somin'? Whatever you said, I don't agree. If you make fun of what I believe, you make fun of me. That's my opinion mate. And don't worry about respect, I never gave a crap about Hypocrite's Respect, you gotta earn respect in my view... take care

[tm20]

Never ending deeeeeeeeeebaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate~~♩ oaaaaaooaaaooooaaaaaoaaa~~~♩

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/11/13.gif

*oh wow, the debate did actually end :rotfl:

[louielouie11224]

:O OMG that just spoilt EVERY single word Eternal Enigma said... Yall can't help it can't you... Whatever, just believe what you want you fellas , one day (hopefully) you'll realize a human is: guess what? A human. And a monkey is a: monkey. So let's say it Plain and Stupid, the _Omaticaya_ way: Why are there still monkeys? What happened, was there a congress one day like: Okay, you monkeys, you will evolve the next few years into humans, it is decided. While you other monkeys, you just keep doing ya thing guys. *Gets ready for the haters*

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Both humans and monkeys evolved from a common "ape-like" creature. Humans evolving from monkeys is a common misconception about evolution.

I personally am an agnostic atheist. I cannot say that there is or is not a god (obviously, who can?), but if there is one, I really doubt that it's a Christian god, or a Jewish god, or a Muslim god, or whatever. I would think that if there is a god, this being would have an entirely different sense of awareness than us. If it does exist, I would think that this being would not know or not care about our existence.

[DeMouse]

Wtf is this^ a tongue-twister or somin'? Whatever you said, I don't agree. If you make fun of what I believe, you make fun of me. That's my opinion mate. And don't worry about respect, I never gave a crap about Hypocrite's Respect, you gotta earn respect in my view... take care


Fine then. I'll drop the hypocracy.

Anyone who is still a cretionist these days is ignorant, idiotic or lying.

No reasonable person with all of the relevant information could conclude that creationism is accurate.

I can understand somone believing in a god, there is no way to disprove one so if you need an invisible beardy man in the sky to get you through the day then fine. Go ahead. It doesn't bother me enough to lost sleep over it.

However the sheer ammount of evidence you need to ignore in order to get to creationism is so riddiculous that I am convinced it would take a concious effort in ignorance.


My honest reaction whenever somone makes an argument for creationism.

35426


Deal with it.

[Theorist]

Fine then. I'll drop the hypocracy.

Anyone who is still a cretionist these days is ignorant, idiotic or lying.

No reasonable person with all of the relevant information could conclude that creationism is accurate.

I can understand somone believing in a god, there is no way to disprove one so if you need an invisible beardy man in the sky to get you through the day then fine. Go ahead. It doesn't bother me enough to lost sleep over it.

However the sheer ammount of evidence you need to ignore in order to get to creationism is so riddiculous that I am convinced it would take a concious effort in ignorance.


My honest reaction whenever somone makes an argument for creationism.

35426


Deal with it.

While I'm an evolutionist myself, I still gotta say: this is a debate section, so even if there is enough information to clearly prove evolution, it's not really a debate if you say that information is out there, you have to present the information which supports evolution, or use your own logical arguments to argue for it. It doesn't really work to just say it's true and that information is out there. I'm not saying you're the only person who does this, but I can't just trust the crednetials of everything everyone says on the internet.

[tm20]

wow, this thread hasn't been active for 6 months :D time to dig it back up. a few weeks ago i learned of the stoned ape theory, created by Terence McKenna, which suggests that humans evolved from earlier apes. and what drove this evolution? mushrooms :rotfl: over 2 million years the brain size of apes doubled and this correlates with the reduction in rainforests (where these apes lived). the theory suggests that apes were forced out of their trees and searched for food in the open grasslands where cows also lived. cow turds were common places for insects to be so apes would flip over cow turds to look for insects, but because cow turds are warm and damp, shrooms would also grow there so the apes ate the shrooms, had visions and got ideas for all sorts of things (making tools, paintings, gods etc.) and this is what drove human evolution. there's probably no evidence for this but damn, this is a brilliant theory :D some people even think shrooms are an alien life form that was sent down here to drive human evolution (an evolution tool) sounds awesome but unlikely.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

what drove this evolution? mushrooms :rotfl: some people even think shrooms are an alien life form that was sent down here to drive human evolution










somehow these two parts of your post are giving me fits of laughter :laugh:...maybe shrooms is what caused the theory of evolution. lol








p.s. no shroom will ever cause me to believe my large intestine evolved from a monkey. damn i'm hungry! :nlol:

[DeMouse]

wow, this thread hasn't been active for 6 months :D time to dig it back up. a few weeks ago i learned of the stoned ape theory, created by Terence McKenna, which suggests that humans evolved from earlier apes. and what drove this evolution? mushrooms :rotfl: over 2 million years the brain size of apes doubled and this correlates with the reduction in rainforests (where these apes lived). the theory suggests that apes were forced out of their trees and searched for food in the open grasslands where cows also lived. cow turds were common places for insects to be so apes would flip over cow turds to look for insects, but because cow turds are warm and damp, shrooms would also grow there so the apes ate the shrooms, had visions and got ideas for all sorts of things (making tools, paintings, gods etc.) and this is what drove human evolution. there's probably no evidence for this but damn, this is a brilliant theory :D some people even think shrooms are an alien life form that was sent down here to drive human evolution (an evolution tool) sounds awesome but unlikely.

Wow. That is such a nutty theory.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Wow. That is such a nutty theory.










yeah, as about nutty as the whole evolution crapola, what with so many species of apes still on earth today, and not a single one of them has ever shown a lick of evolutionary change in 12,000 years of human history. i think those junk-science types did too many shrooms,lol

[Aihwa]

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Eternal Enigma]

The official belief is that ancient apes suddenly stood up on two feet for a reason that is not yet understood and THAT is what triggered everything.

"Millions of years into the future when not a goddamn thing has changed evolution will be proven wrong."
-Eternal Enigma

Time is not on your side.

[Eternal Enigma]

In the theory evolution... one species either by environmental factors or mutations will begin to evolve slowly over an expanded time period.

For example; "species A" will begin to change, but as it turns into "species B" at some point species A will be absorbed and no longer exist.

So at any given time there would only be one type of bird, one type of fish, one type primate, or one type of insect and so on.

Since in reality we have many species of the same type, but of different species existing at the same time then clearly evolution is incorrect.

Evolution was created for the sake of argument...

Believer: "You don't believe in God?! Then how did we get here?!"

None-believer: "Uhh.... well... you see... uhh..."

The none-believer had nothing to argue so they made something up.

In this thread I've been told that evolution hinges on migration, which means everything only exists because some type of unnatural migration occurred...

Yes, the great tree migrations of the past must have been quite a sight to behold.

[DeMouse]

Eternal Enigma. If you are going to try and put forward arguments against evolution you should at least look into what the evolutionists actually say happened instead of what creationists say evolutionists say happened.

Evolution is a complex process that doesn't "hinge" on any one thing other than self-replication. Even if we had absolutely no evidence whatsoever for evolution (though in reality we have more evidence for evolution than any other scientific theory, including the Heliocentric Solar System and Round Earth theories) Evolution would still be an undeniable fact simply on logic alone. Any self-replicating system which allows for variation is simply going to result in evolution. The only way evolution could be false is if the self-replicating system was too perfect to allow for variation, which we know is simply not the case with biological organisms (E.G. Cancer).

There is no valid argument against evolution that doesn't hinge on religion.

[Aihwa]

In the theory evolution... one species either by environmental factors or mutations will begin to evolve slowly over an expanded time period.

For example; "species A" will begin to change, but as it turns into "species B" at some point species A will be absorbed and no longer exist.

So at any given time there would only be one type of bird, one type of fish, one type primate, or one type of insect and so on.

Since in reality we have many species of the same type, but of different species existing at the same time then clearly evolution is incorrect.

Evolution was created for the sake of argument...

Believer: "You don't believe in God?! Then how did we get here?!"

None-believer: "Uhh.... well... you see... uhh..."

The none-believer had nothing to argue so they made something up.

In this thread I've been told that evolution hinges on migration, which means everything only exists because some type of unnatural migration occurred...

Yes, the great tree migrations of the past must have been quite a sight to behold.




Eternal, evolution is a tree, not a line. In fact, that's WHY Darwin first took notice. On the Gallapagos Islands, he noted many incredibly similar species with DISTINCT differences, due to the fact that they all evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors, but were separated into different environments on the different islands. Its not a simple or straight forward process.

[Eternal Enigma]

There's no way you can make evolution work as science defines it, which is why science is constantly changing the definition of evolution.

There is "none-scientific" evolution and the best example of that is how you can look at the evolution of a particular brand of car and how it has changed over the years.

The Ford Mustang for example...

http://www.avatar-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=41828&stc=1&d=1340676767

Everything from technology to our ever changing lifestyles follow this pattern and as such it's completely logical and irrefutable.

I hope you aren't confusing true evolution with the scientific model of evolution that tries to explain our origins because they aren't the same thing and one is absolutely incorrect.

[Aihwa]

There's no way you can make evolution work as science defines it, which is why science is constantly changing the definition of evolution.

There is "none-scientific" evolution and the best example of that is how you can look at the evolution of a particular brand of car and how it has changed over the years.

The Ford Mustang for example...

http://www.avatar-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=41828&stc=1&d=1340676767

Everything from technology to our ever changing lifestyles follow this pattern and as such it's completely logical and irrefutable.

I hope you aren't confusing true evolution with the scientific model of evolution that tries to explain our origins because they aren't the same thing and one is absolutely incorrect.

The Model T was the first actual automobile.



Now look at all the models and brands of cars we have today, and all the models and brands that failed.


Denying fact without evidence just digs your credibility deeper into the hole its already marinading in.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

The Model T was the first actual automobile.









um, i sometimes try to fathom your 'logic' but to no avail, as you have none. Enigma was using strictly the Ford Mustang as an example of evolution, not the automobile species as a whole. what does your statement have to to do with his observation of evolution? *shaking my head*








your [aihwa/aiwha] credibility deeper into the hole its already marinading in.









oh, the irony of your own line. you have the credibility of dan blather's bush reservist fiasco. that is to say, none. that is all.

[DeMouse]

There's no way you can make evolution work as science defines it, which is why science is constantly changing the definition of evolution.


Never has the definition of evolution been changed amongst the scientific community.




There is "none-scientific" evolution and the best example of that is how you can look at the evolution of a particular brand of car and how it has changed over the years.

The Ford Mustang for example...

http://www.avatar-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=41828&stc=1&d=1340676767

Everything from technology to our ever changing lifestyles follow this pattern and as such it's completely logical and irrefutable.

I hope you aren't confusing true evolution with the scientific model of evolution that tries to explain our origins because they aren't the same thing and one is absolutely incorrect.

Learn what words mean before you use them. Since you have already show that you don't understand what evolution means in a scientific context I feel I must ask what you mean by "true evolution".

Maybe you are mixing up Evolution and Natural Selection?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM

[Pandora66]

I'm sure that somewhere in these 40 pages it's been mentioned that modern humans "Us" still carry around remnants of organs that we no longer use, if that's not proof of evolution I don't know what is. Animals in nature are the same way, the old axiom being that if you don't use it you're gonna lose it and if you need something your DNA will alter/evolve over time to make the necessary changes happen.

[Eternal Enigma]

Never has the definition of evolution been changed amongst the scientific community.

They're constantly changing the theory...

I think that you should look at the evolution of the theory of evolution and how much the theory has changed.

For example; in the past scientists said humans CAME FROM MONKEYS... only recently in the past decade or so have they CHANGED it to "no no we didn't come from THOSE monkeys... we came from a common ancestor." Only recently has the "common ancestor" family tree begun to be taught. I have old NOVA documentaries on VHS showing how it used to be taught and it has changed. In fact, evolution is not taught in schools today the same way it was taught to me just 10 years ago. When my father was in school he was taught that humans came from the ocean... we were once fish and emerged as we are today. He told me that in his science book the cartoon picture actually showed a man in a business suit with a briefcase in hand crawling out of the ocean with the other animals as they evolved. Then later on they inserted the idea that we came from monkeys because the previous version was so absurd... and now the new trend is "humans and monkeys were derived from a common ancestor."


Learn what words mean before you use them. Since you have already show that you don't understand what evolution means in a scientific context I feel I must ask what you mean by "true evolution".

Evolution - "is any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane."

Evolution is a true occurrence, but science has taken a term with a true meaning and applied another meaning to it.

For example; Gay actually means happy or joyful, but today gay primarily means homosexual.

Sort of like how creationists stopped calling it creation and started calling it "intelligent design." (even the theory of creation has changed)

Evolution is the natural change that occurs with all things during the passage of time. That's its TRUE meaning.

For example; clothing has evolved from simple loin cloths and protective coverings to the fashion statement it is today. Our transportation has evolved from walking on foot, to using horses, carriages, automobiles, airplanes, and spacecraft. Even those individually have their own evolutionary paths. Our lifestyles have changed along with our diet and now we no longer need certain organs that are thought to have aided the digestion of raw foods. Evolution is a very real occurrence, but the scientific version doesn't work that way. It applies magical properties to a true occurrence.

In biology evolution is "the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift"

The scientific model for evolution as they say it works biologically is very entertaining... a squirrel suddenly has the need to fly so evolution helps it by giving it elastic skin to use as wings to glide through the canopy as a means of transportation and to escape predators... a fish comes out of the water and because it does it often evolution helps it by giving it legs for walking and lungs to breathe air... a humming bird needs to reach the nectar of a flower so evolution helps it by giving it a longer beak.

You believe that I'm just getting my information from creationists and that this is an argument driven by a religion I'm not even a part of...

You don't believe that's how it's taught in schools all around the world when; in fact, it is.

Science books are on sale even for the general public to buy... if you're interested... you can even buy older science books to see how the theory has changed.

Exhibit A:


I'm sure that somewhere in these 40 pages it's been mentioned that modern humans "Us" still carry around remnants of organs that we no longer use, if that's not proof of evolution I don't know what is. Animals in nature are the same way, the old axiom being that if you don't use it you're gonna lose it and if you need something your DNA will alter/evolve over time to make the necessary changes happen.

That's how its taught in school.

When an organism needs something it eventually it evolves whatever it needs to help it adapt. That's how the scientific version of evolution is said to work. So if humans need to evolve something to better adapt to a situation like say... sky diving... eventually; according to the scientific version of evolution, humans should one day evolve an organic ability to fly (grow wings) in order to better adapt to the situation.

As absurd as it may sound that's what the scientific version of evolution allows. Don't think so? How else would the flying squirrel evolve the ability to fly? At first their must have been a need for it to fly and perhaps it was to escape predators so there was a mutation, but this change took place over time; not over night, so I guess the first flying squirrels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWPruY7uyeQ) died from hitting the ground... how else would the development of elastic skin be seen as necessary... to keep the species going evolution caused mutations and over time the squirrel began to have the ability to glide for better means of transportation and escape, RIGHT? Well... in my opinion I believe that's just how the animal was originally... and over time the animal realized it could use the elastic skin for flight... most likely from accidental falls. The elastic skin is the result of a mutation, but the mutation wasn't triggered because "the squirrel needed to fly" as the scientific version of evolution suggests.

The scientific theory of evolution says these changes happen and will continue to happen. Now because these changes aren't going to happen; evolution as science defines it, will be proven wrong in the future when these changes do not occur. Not to confuse that with true evolution because we're still going to evolve. Our clothing and lifestyle will continue to change and we're going to see changes because of our future lifestyles, but we're not going to suddenly grow wings or anything and that's what the scientific theory of evolution says happens.

My problem is not with EVOLUTION it's with the false theory that has been applied to a true term in an effort to make the theory sound real.

If the scientific version of evolution is correct then because humans have altered our lives and the world so much we should see some interesting evolutionary developments in the future, but conveniently enough evolutionists say that humans and everything else have reached the end of their evolutionary transformation. So these changes that were seen for billions of years have conveniently come to an end according to internet evolutionists. That's just an evolutionists way to try to make it sound like evolution could never be disproven because if the scientific version of evolution is true we should see changes in the future and if these changes do not occur it would be devastating to the theory (e.g. a fish that uses its fins to walk on land and still does not have legs millions of years from now). So in an effort to head that off evolutionists (not scientists - scientists are just in it for the money they don't actually care) - evolutionists fill up message boards and YouTube saying that things have stopped evolving so that when nothing changes (e.g. giant lizards turning into a small birds) they can pretend to be correct.

Millions of years from now birds will still be birds and humans will still be human, but there will never be a day when a human will begin to sprout wings or turn into a completely different subspecies.

Time is on my side because one day when these changes have not occurred scientists will have to make the announcement that their theory is wrong.

Of course, that's only IF we make it for millions of years to see the future... I believe we will have destroyed ourselves long before the theory is disproven.

[DeMouse]

What the **** are you on? DARWIN, when he first proposed the theory of evolution via variation and natrual selection, said it was a common ancestor as opposed to any existing species of monkey. Go and read Origens of Species. The the part of the Theory of Evolution by Variation and Natural Selection (Shotform: Evolution) that has changed over time is the process by which the variations occour before the natural selection bit happens. The role of mutations has been determined as being much smaller than was initially thought.

and its not that we came from apes, we are apes and all apes share a common ancestor.

and even despite the fact that you are wrong about it contantly changing. That they are willing to change the theory to go along with new data strengthens its credibility, not weakens it. Its known as the scientific method.



From the Oxford English Dictionary.
Definition of evolution

noun [mass noun]

1the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.



2the gradual development of something: the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution



3 Chemistry the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat: the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process



4 [count noun] a pattern of movements or manoeuvres: flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions

5 Mathematics, dated the extraction of a root from a given quantity.


The whole definition argument is pointless noise in this instance anyway as it says nothing about the truth or falsity of the process it describes.


Just becuase your school system has an agenda to discredit the theory of evolution by not teaching it properly on purpose does not mean that it is a load of bull**** as you seem to think.

To use your own example. Squirrels diddn't "decide" they needed to fly. A family of squirrels would have developed a bit of excess skin and this would have given them a small advantage when jumping from tree-to-tree. Over hundreds of generations the tiny advantage this gave them would ahve caused the ones with more excess taunt skin between their legs would have survived to reproduce slightly more and as such over time it would have slowly developed to be larger and larger. After thousands of generations you have a new species with a patch of skin which allows them to glide huge distances compared to when they diddn't have it.


Finally. Scientists/evolutionists (a random yotuber is not an evolutionist, in the same way the your grandmother isn't a doctor for saying chicken soup will cure a common cold) don't say we have "reached the end of their evolutionary transformation". People speculate that modern technology and comforts mean that we won't develop in a postive direction due to a lack of factors that would push our evolution in any particular direction. The people who actually know what they are talking about explain that evolution is necessarily a ****ing SLOOOOW process, so much so that any species that reproduces less often than once per day is not going to display noticable (natural) change in your lifetime.


Unnatural change is very common however. Have you ever heared of a phenomena known as selective breeding?




You seem to be subscribing to the type of gradual change Hitler et al (all those nationalist guys) used to jusify himself. The kind that was discredited by scientists before the turn of the 20th century. The idea that went along the lines of Girrafes grew long enecks by constnatly stretching during life and passing this onto their childeren somhow which were then born with longer necks and then did the same for their childeren by constantly reaching for the high branches. I forget the name of the guy who came up with this idea but there was debate between scientists about which was correct beween this guy's idea of evolution and the Initial Darwinian theory during the late 1800s, ending with a resounding vicrory for Darwin.

[tm20]

the 64 mustang evolved into the new one.....but 64 mustangs still exist today, as do 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 etc how come? because people like these cars and so they keep them. same with evolution, if the environment "likes" a species (the species can survive) it will keep said species

[Eternal Enigma]

If anyone here has any issues with my understanding of how evolution (the scientific theory) is said to work then you should take it up with the textbook publishing companies for not publishing science textbooks with the "correct" information. You should also go after television networks like the Discovery Channel and scientific organizations like NOVA and many other independent producers for their productions of the many versions of evolution. There are so many it's quite difficult to keep track of them all and some of them are more entertaining than others. It doesn't really matter what I say either. I can give you a direct quote from a science textbook word for word and you guys will tell me I'm wrong. I'll give you a quote from a NOVA documentary and again I'm told I'm wrong when all I'm doing is repeating what is being taught to the world. So if this information is inaccurate then perhaps the evolutionist community should band together and demand that all of these organizations stop teaching it the wrong way and teach it the right way. Of course, they get their information through publications from the scientists who come up with all this stuff. So if you have a problem with the information I've obtained about this theory you should take it up with the people who have the highest authority on this subject, which is where all of the information comes from.

My question is.... if I am getting my information from official sources and I'm wrong... then where the hell are you guys getting your information from????

If you're also getting your information from official sources then that doesn't prove that I don't know what I'm talking about... all it proves is that it's taught differently around the world and confirms what I'm telling you, which is there are many different versions of evolution being published. It's true and you can believe it or not that's your choice and you have the right to believe whatever the hell you want.

I want the truth... not fairy tales from the Bible or fabricated evidence from scientists.

We're biologically related to lots of things on this planet... according to science all mammals share a relationship.

For example:

Humans are 98.7% related to chimpanzees...

Humans are 97.8% related to dolphins...

Humans are 95.5% related to gorillas...

It doesn't mean anything... and the numbers change depending on which scientific community you consult with.

The term "scientists" is a catchall term because there are many types of scientists and; no, they aren't all on the same page.

A 'recent' theory suggests that orangutans may be the closest human relatives, not chimpanzees according to National Geographic...

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html)

(That's an example showing that the theory has/is being changed)

This isn't a case of me being uneducated... this is how it is being taught. I am sorry to burst your bubble.

Maybe it isn't taught the same way from country to country, which would confirm what I said; there are many versions of it.

To be honest I don't even believe it's being taught the same way from state to state within the United States.

Schools can even be in question because the school I started at and the school I graduated from (just a 30 minute drive apart) taught it differently.

As such it cannot be taken seriously because if all of the evidence provided one conclusion it would be taught the same way all around the world.

You can't consider it as absolute fact... However, you can take it into consideration as something to use that could possibly explain everything. I've considered it and have come to the conclusion that it wouldn't work to create the reality that we live in today. Why am I able to take an objectionable approach? I have nothing to lose or gain from debating it. Unlike scientists I don't eliminate reality just to make a theory work just to continue to receive government grants or to have my name published in the history books for making a great discovery. They don't care if the information they publish is correct or not just in the same way Justin Bieber doesn't care if his music is good or not. They're creating something to sell to make $$$$.

You can disagree and that's fine. If you want to impress me have science predict evolutionary changes millions of years before they happen. Of course, as I said; in the future it will be proven wrong when these changes do not occur as scientists say they should and that's why evolutionists are now saying that perhaps everything has reached its evolutionary peak so when these changes do not occur they can pretend that they predicted it. At one point scientists believed the world was flat with all of this "evidence" to back it up and other groups of scientists came along and proved them wrong and this happens again and again throughout science. In science one group of scientists will propose a theory and another group will try to prove them wrong by inserting their own theory. It's nothing more than a competition for money and fame.

For me it's hilarious and very entertaining, but it's still very interesting to me at the same time.

[Aihwa]

It just got very conspiracy in here.

[Eternal Enigma]

I only watch educational programing so the information in these theories are all I know and I see them everyday.

I just watched part of a series called "The Fabric of the Cosmos - What is Space" on NOVA.

It explained that we aren't really here and that our reality is just an illusion being projected here from somewhere else.

This is a radical new theory that they're comparing to other great discoveries made by mentionable people in history like Newton and Einstein.

In short, scientists compare our universe to a black hole. If you throw something into a black hole you would expect it to be lost forever, but that's wrong. Scientists say the information about that object is duplicated and spread out over the entire surface of the black hole (as a metaphor for the multiple universes and dimensions where multiple versions of everyone and everything exists elsewhere). In theory you could take that information and recreate a copy of the object. The original three dimensional object is inside the black hole and is lost forever, but it originated from outside of the black hole and that's how they believe the universe works because space inside a black hole works the same as space outside of a black hole. From that scientists are now theorizing that our 3D universe is a projection from a 2D space existing somewhere outside of our universe.

Now... that's not me coming up with that... I'm only repeating what's being taught... see for yourself.


(Go to 46:36 to see that part, but I recommend watching the entire thing)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4U



Leonard Susskind of Stanford University: (quote from the video above)

"Is the three dimensional world an illusion in the same sense that a hologram is an illusion? Perhaps... I think I'm inclined to think yes that the three dimensional world is a kind of illusion and that the ultimate precise reality is the two dimensional reality at the surface of the universe."

They say this is a "revolutionary new idea" proposed by scientists, but this theory already exists in the Bible.

If you listen to the theory closely with an open mind it almost sounds like they're close to proving heaven exists...

In the Bible "God" exists in another realm of existence and our reality is only a projection... now even scientists are coming to the same conclusion.

What if one day science accidentally proves creation to be some type of true phenomenon?

[DeMouse]

Eternal I would love to have a debate with you about this in person but I don't think I am going to be able to even come close to penetrating the layered misinformation which is surrouding your opinion on evolution using forum posts. Please watch "The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" on youtube if you are actually at all interested in learning what the actual scientific opinion and evidence are for evolution instead of what a bunch of creationists with religious agendas say it is.

Scientists have much less of an agenda than preachers. If somone is after money then they get into business, law or televangalism and DVD sales. Not science.

[Aihwa]

So at first scientists have an agenda, then you see a video that you can connect to your beliefs and then they don't... They're just proving your theory right. And proving that theory right, and I quote "because reasons". What reasons? Only you seem to know.


On the side, funny story, by how you seem to interpret science, I'm actually a werewolf. Science accepts that werewolves arent real, HOWEVER, you said that not all scientists agree on everything, nobody an "expert" therefor, science could easily be wrong. LETS DO LOGICS! Werewolves are humanoid creatures that also possess certain wolf traits! Such as, acute senses of smell, and hearing, large amounts of body hair, and a strong emotional connection to the moon. We have defined werewolves.


Aihwa has an acute sense of smell. He can identify different people and places by smell alone. Aihwa is also very sensitive to loud noises, and is capable of hearing bats ultrasonic pulses (those ****ers are annoying, one reason I avoid parking lots at night) Aihwa has greater than average body hair. (everywhere... >_>) Additionally, Aihwa suffers terrible emotional swings during full moons, these include anxiety, short tempers, and generally aggressive feelings/actions towards others, even without knowing that it is currently a full moon. (I have no explanation for this)


I meet every criterion of a classic case of Lycanthrope. Now Eternal. Am I a werewolf? Logic (that is to say, your logic without any reasoning attached to it) dictates this is so.



I'm going out on a limb here and saying... No. It is not sound logic. You can't go doing a + b = c while ignoring all the academia behind it.

[Eternal Enigma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUC-QrON0I

I see the humor in it.



if you are actually at all interested in learning what the actual scientific opinion and evidence are for evolution instead of what a bunch of creationists with religious agendas say it is.

See that's the thing... I don't even know what creationists say about evolution because I only have the scientific information about it. This isn't a lack of understanding or lack of information thing... this is an interpretation thing. I have taken a look at all of the official evidence and have concluded that they are incorrect. See you're on the same page with me because you're saying this is misinformation... I'm getting my information from the publications of actual scientists... I don't think they're correct and it's like subconsciously you know they're wrong too because you're saying that the information I have is incorrect, but I'm getting it from the publications of scientists. I'm not doing like Transcend and posting links to conspiracy sites or videos made by crazy people... I'm posting links and videos to official sources and there is a big difference.


Scientists have much less of an agenda than preachers. If somone is after money then they get into business, law or televangalism and DVD sales. Not science.

According to that NOVA documentary that one experiment to see if the Earth twists space allowed the few scientists that were working on it to receive 750 million dollars in grants from the government, NASA, and private donations over the period of nearly 40 years... it sounds like if you want money science is the place to be. In fact, at the end of that science film they give you the information for purchasing their DVD and book... $$$$ cha-ching.

[Aihwa]

According to that NOVA documentary that one experiment to see if the Earth twists space allowed the few scientists that were working on it to receive 750 million dollars in grants from the government, NASA, and private donations over the period of nearly 40 years... it sounds like if you want money science is the place to be. In fact, at the end of that science film they give you the information for purchasing their DVD and book... $$$$ cha-ching.

In 2001 the Catholic Church alone took in 420 billion dollars tax exempt.


Ron L. Hubbard said it, if you want to get rich, start a ****ing religion.

[Eternal Enigma]

So at first scientists have an agenda, then you see a video that you can connect to your beliefs and then they don't... They're just proving your theory right. And proving that theory right, and I quote "because reasons". What reasons? Only you seem to know.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I have consistently said that scientists have an agenda and I have even said that I don't go to church because for one it's against my beliefs and because they're also in it for the money. I've even explained that religion is separate from creation because there could be a God, but religion is the human interpretation and humans can be wrong. I haven't been one sided against evolution. In fact, I posted Bible scripture showing how creationist have misinterpreted the Bible because it says that you should pray in a closet and not on the street corners. I then said that if you think about it every street corner has a church on it... if you'll remember. I also explained that I don't believe in either account of how the universe formed because they both sound like and I quote; "bullsh!t." We only have two theories and they both make me laugh.


On the side, funny story, by how you seem to interpret science, I'm actually a werewolf. Science accepts that werewolves arent real, HOWEVER, you said that not all scientists agree on everything, nobody an "expert" therefor, science could easily be wrong. LETS DO LOGICS! Werewolves are humanoid creatures that also possess certain wolf traits! Such as, acute senses of smell, and hearing, large amounts of body hair, and a strong emotional connection to the moon. We have defined werewolves.

Aihwa has an acute sense of smell. He can identify different people and places by smell alone. Aihwa is also very sensitive to loud noises, and is capable of hearing bats ultrasonic pulses (those ****ers are annoying, one reason I avoid parking lots at night) Aihwa has greater than average body hair. (everywhere... >_>) Additionally, Aihwa suffers terrible emotional swings during full moons, these include anxiety, short tempers, and generally aggressive feelings/actions towards others, even without knowing that it is currently a full moon. (I have no explanation for this)

I meet every criterion of a classic case of Lycanthrope. Now Eternal. Am I a werewolf? Logic (that is to say, your logic without any reasoning attached to it) dictates this is so.

I'm going out on a limb here and saying... No. It is not sound logic. You can't go doing a + b = c while ignoring all the academia behind it.

Actually science is what would defy logic... I would quickly see that you are in fact not a werewolf after seeing no such evidence to support such a claim, but regardless of the fact that there is no proof that you are a werewolf science would publish a theory about it in text books anyways. My logic is to not publish things before you can prove them and that sounds flawed to you? Even in that documentary they admit that if one of the early theories is ever proven wrong in the future then the rest of the theories that are based one on top of the other would fall to pieces.


In 2001 the Catholic Church alone took in 420 billion dollars tax exempt.

The Catholic church doesn't believe in God... they worship the 'virgin' Mary so... who knows what type of shady stuff she has them doing.

[Eternal Enigma]

I finally found it again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Q1iAVcp5I&amp;feature=related

[Aihwa]

Actually science is what would defy logic... I would quickly see that you are in fact not a werewolf after seeing no such evidence to support such a claim, but regardless of the fact that there is no proof that you are a werewolf science would publish a theory about it in text books anyways. My logic is to not publish things before you can prove them and that sounds flawed to you? Even in that documentary they admit that if one of the early theories is ever proven wrong in the future then the rest of the theories that are based one on top of the other would fall to pieces.



The Catholic church doesn't believe in God... they worship the 'virgin' Mary so... who knows what type of shady stuff she has them doing.



You're learning, but don't seem to be able to accept it. You don't accept my thesis because it ignores scientific fact. It makes perfect logical sense, but is completely unsubstantiated by our understanding of the universe. It is creationist science.



And you have no idea what you're talking about as far as Catholics go. I was a catholic.

[Eternal Enigma]

And you have no idea what you're talking about as far as Catholics go. I was a catholic.

Wait, so you're the religious nut here now?! I don't even know who you are anymore! :an-tongue.:

[Aihwa]

Indoctrination is a hell of a drug.

[_Omaticaya_]

Indoctrination is a hell of a drug.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udNHsk57f24lol reminded me

[Aihwa]

Yes, we all knew what I was referencing.

[Pandora66]

Evolution is fact. For humans/animals it happens over 100's-1000's of years, for microbes and bacteria it's much faster, hospitals are now forced to deal with bacteria that are anti-biotic resistant, we keep finding a better way to kill them and they become immune/resistant to the drugs that used to kill them easily. I don't know why this is so such a controversial subject for some people, it's a common sense rule of life, adapt or risk dying.

I'm off to the park to hunt rabbit with a club and rock....


HumansMain article: Human vestigiality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality)

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2012/07/11.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray906.png)
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2012/07/12.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray906.png)
The muscles connected to the ears of a human do not develop enough to have the same mobility allowed to many animals.


Human vestigiality is related to human evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution), and includes a variety of characters occurring in the human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) species. Many examples of these are vestigial in other primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate) and related animals, whereas other examples are still highly developed. The human caecum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caecum) is vestigial, as often is the case in omnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore), being reduced to a single chamber receiving the content of the ileum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ileum) into the colon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(anatomy)). The ancestral caecum would have been a large, blind diverticulum in which resistant plant material such as cellulose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose) would have been fermented in preparation for absorption in the colon.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-Descent-16) [18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-18)Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform similar functions. An alternative explanation would be the possibility that natural selection selects for larger appendices because smaller and thinner appendices would be more susceptible to inflammation and disease.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-19) The coccyx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx),[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-20) or tailbone, though a vestige of the tail of some primate ancestors, is functional as an anchor for anchor certain pelvic muscles.
Other structures that still are considered vestigial include the plica semilunaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plica_semilunaris_of_the_conjunctiva) on the inside corner of the eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye) (a remnant of the nictitating membrane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nictitating_membrane));[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-Hobson-485-21) and, as pictured, muscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auricular_muscles) in the ear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-Bhamrah-26-22) and other parts of the body. Other organic structures (such as the occipitofrontalis muscle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipitofrontalis_muscle)) have lost their original functions (keep the head from falling) but are still useful for other purposes (facial expression).[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-Saladin-285-23)
Humans also bear some vestigial behaviors and reflexes. The formation of goose bumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_bump) in humans under stress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_(medicine)) is a vestigial reflex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_action);[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-24) its function in human ancestors was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators.
Infants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant) will instinctively grasp any object which touches the palm, in some cases strongly enough to support their own weight.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-25)
There are also vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is L-gulonolactone oxidase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-gulonolactone_oxidase), a gene, that is functional in most other mammals, which produces an enzyme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme) that can make vitamin C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C). A purported mutation deactivated the gene in an ancestor of the current group of primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate), and it now remains in the human genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome) as a vestigial sequence called a pseudogene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene).[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#cite_note-26)

[_Omaticaya_]

The muscles connected to the ears of a human do not develop enough to have the same mobility allowed to many animals.[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



I can move my Ears quite a lot *lol* I read it is rare. But for instance, I can't move my eyebrows one at a time. I can open and close my nostrils though. Always wondered why some can and some can't.

Found this funny cool web page with 'impossible things to do' lol 10 Things That Are (Almost) Impossible To Do With Your Body (http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/12/things-that-are-almost-impossible-to-do-with-your-body/)
I'm sitting here trying to do this one :rotfl: :



Think you can multitask? Try this: while sitting on a chair, lift your right foot off the floor and make clockwise circles. Then, while doing that, draw the number 6 with your right hand. You can’t help it: your foot will change direction.

[Pandora66]

I can move my Ears quite a lot *lol* I read it is rare. But for instance, I can't move my eyebrows one at a time. I can open and close my nostrils though. Always wondered why some can and some can't.

Found this funny cool web page with 'impossible things to do' lol 10 Things That Are (Almost) Impossible To Do With Your Body (http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/12/things-that-are-almost-impossible-to-do-with-your-body/)
I'm sitting here trying to do this one :rotfl: :


maybe you're OLD dna stock :welcoming:

[_Omaticaya_]

maybe you're OLD dna stock :welcoming:

Lmao :nlol:

[DeMouse]

According to that NOVA documentary that one experiment to see if the Earth twists space allowed the few scientists that were working on it to receive 750 million dollars in grants from the government, NASA, and private donations over the period of nearly 40 years... it sounds like if you want money science is the place to be. In fact, at the end of that science film they give you the information for purchasing their DVD and book... $$$$ cha-ching.

Scientific grants don't go into scientist's pockets. It is spent on the equipment used for experiments. Thats why they ahve a special name. What the money is spent on is closely tracked.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

[Eternal Enigma]

And now we're back to the falsehood of creationism... lol

I'm going to attempt to get you guys to understand where I'm coming from again. I'm better prepared this time because now I understand that you guys believe I'm a creationist who is trying to somehow prove that God exists, which isn't the argument that is taking place here at all. That's not even what this thread is about. If you've paid attention at all to what I've said you would understand that I do not have one solid belief. In fact, I'm willing to take anything into consideration because no one knows anything for certain and that opens up the door to many possibilities. That's one of the reasons why I created this thread so we could look at the theories that exist, deconstruct them, debate the aspects of them that do not work, or for you to even be creative enough to come up with a theory of your own... assuming that anyone here is capable of thinking for themselves and not just having a preacher or a scientist tell them what to believe.

Religion is flawed because humans are flawed.

Science is flawed because humans are flawed.

I haven't been one sided about this and when I first began I actually started by ripping creation a new one by covering things that just don't make sense, but when I mentioned that the theory of evolution had a fatal flaw the thread was thrown into chaos and suddenly members who hadn't been active on this forum for over a year came here just to tell me I was ignorant because they believed I was pulling the religion card. I'm not a religious person at all. I've never been to church and never will be because it goes against my beliefs. I believe that religion holds humanity down and casts a very dark shadow over our true potential. The main reason why I do not take religion seriously because it is nothing more than an interpretation and humans can misinterpret things.

That's also why science must be questioned. Even if something already has an answer it must be examined again and again to see if anything was missed or perhaps to find a better way of explaining it. I'm only being critical of the fundamental principles in the theory of evolution. The particular area that I'm being critical of the most is how they say diversification took place. That's all... I'm not saying we didn't evolve I'm just saying we didn't evolve how scientists say we did. The model is flawed because it would not create the reality we live in. As such it can only be seen as incorrect.

What does that actually mean?

Here's an example: A man closes a door and two people witness this. One witness says; the man who closed the door slammed the door, while the other witness says he didn't slam the door at all. The witness who says the man who closed the door didn't slam the door isn't suggesting that the door was never closed. The witness is only stating that the man did not slam it closed. They are not arguing if he closed the door or not, but rather the manner in which it was closed.

I'm saying we didn't evolve how scientists say we did... not that we didn't evolve at all.

I don't know how else to say it so that you'll get it. This thread has been here for nearly a year (11 months) and you haven't gotten it yet.

[Foxhound]

Okay i am just going to say. I am a committed creationist but..... This thread is pointless. No matter how much evidence either side gives no one is going to change their minds. It might be possible to change someone's mind if you got together face to face and talked it out but trying to change someone's mind on an issue like this over the internet is will not work. I view things from a biblical prospective. I have preset beliefs. You are not going to change them on this forum. Just like I will not be able to change your pre-conceived opinions.

Show of hands. How many people want to have their mind changed by a faceless person on the other side of the internet that they only know because the both like a certain movie?

This bickering is pointless.

In fact the only thing it does is make the people posting feel more secure about their own point of view.

Now I may be generalizing some but as I gave a speech on how you brain creates fortresses around ideas I do have a clue what I am talking about.

Ya'll feel free to debate, but just remember the odds of you actually changing someone's mind are in the single digits.

[tm20]

you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
you will change your mind
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2012/07/12.gif

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ i think i changed my mind,lol.....to what i have no clue. :nlol: maybe mr. redbull can clear the fog.

[Otter]

I'm saying we didn't evolve how scientists say we did... not that we didn't evolve at all.

I don't know how else to say it so that you'll get it. This thread has been here for nearly a year (11 months) and you haven't gotten it yet.

Hi to everybody. I found these forums looking for information about the Sideshow Neytiri bust revealed at SDCC2012... and then I found this thread! Hence my first post.

Admittedly I didn't read the whole thing (I'm realtively familiar with the debate), so it was convenient that you recently posted this one EE.

If I can respectfully weigh in:

It sounds like your frustration with everyone comes from your use of the word "evolve". I don't think you can say evolution without meaning "how scientists claim we evolved". It'd be like saying "I think creation occurred... just not as it was described in the Bible". Evolution is a word with a very specific (although with continuously unfolding detail) meaning.

Foxhound makes a really important point when stating that the bickering is pointless (and I love anyone who can use a Star Wars reference in a debate). My experience in this debate is that neither parties are open to having their world views challenged. ... Well, that's not always true. But the language used by each worldview is not really compatible, so it is hard for each party to understand why the other is making their arguments.

When one side is arguing from faith (belief in the absence of evidence) and the other is arguing from rationalism and deduction by evidence... neither party are really on the same playing field. So the "debate" goes around in very frustrating circles while each party reiterate their position.

[tm20]

hence all creationism VS evolution debates are pointless, but they are great for killing time :P

[Otter]

hence all creationism VS evolution debates are pointless, but they are great for killing time :P

Oh but I didagree...

The creation "science" vs evolution debate is well worth having. That kind of debate must be had, in order to establish that Creation "science" is not science at all.

I just meant that it can be frustrating when two camps are arguing with different language, and ultimately are defending two different things. Creation "science" attempts to use the language of science, but does not adhere to the discipline. That is an argument well worth having.

Likewise I figure that faiths can probably argue amongst each other quite satisfactorily (... although history would indicate otherwise :ambivalence:). It's just that science, and therefore evolution, is not faith. So why try to argue that one is right and the other is wrong? Oranges and apples as they say.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i find it very ironic and a bit amusing that the only google ads that pop up on this particular thread, are for Bible college degrees and Creation websites. where are the pro-evolution crowd and the atheists? what...you can't afford google ads? where's your gov't grants to disprove the existence of a benevolent Creator?! lolz









* that's what i thought. aw, sh*t, cue aiwha/aihwa in 3...2...1... *

[Otter]

i find it very ironic and a bit amusing that the only google ads that pop up on this particular thread, are for Bible college degrees and Creation websites.

That is an interesting observation.

My understanding is that when placing an ad online, you aim at what you perceive to be a target market. So why would a bunch of fans of the film Avatar be more inclined to buy a "Bible college degree? Were the themes in the film overtly Christian?

[Wind12]

^ basically I agree with the thought that "religion" and science are too different things, some people try to combine them( a religion and science Resee's) but it is more like combining bleach and ammonia( both are used for cleaning, but when you combine them well...) Religion and science are both used to find answers to big questions, but they just can't be mixed. Science is NOT supposed to be built on faith( i.e. you don't "believe" in evolution, you may just think it is the way life progressed by the physical evidence that has been observed that is all) While Religion is about faith, it is the faith that there is a purpose beyond the observable. Personally I think there is plenty of room for both in this world, I think people can still have faith, AND be willing to find out the physical workings of this universe.

[Otter]

( i.e. you don't "believe" in evolution,

Agreed. It's like saying "I believe in gravity".

Now as to the origing of life, the purpose of humanity... science has less to say on the matter. Personally I don't think you need religion to address those issues either, but many people do. And that's cool, so long as it doesn't hurt or manipulate people.

[DeMouse]

i find it very ironic and a bit amusing that the only google ads that pop up on this particular thread, are for Bible college degrees and Creation websites. where are the pro-evolution crowd and the atheists? what...you can't afford google ads? where's your gov't grants to disprove the existence of a benevolent Creator?! lolz









* that's what i thought. aw, sh*t, cue aiwha/aihwa in 3...2...1... *



http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2012/08/58.jpg



Just... no.

[DeMouse]

^ basically I agree with the thought that "religion" and science are too different things, some people try to combine them( a religion and science Resee's) but it is more like combining bleach and ammonia( both are used for cleaning, but when you combine them well...) Religion and science are both used to find answers to big questions, but they just can't be mixed. Science is NOT supposed to be built on faith( i.e. you don't "believe" in evolution, you may just think it is the way life progressed by the physical evidence that has been observed that is all) While Religion is about faith, it is the faith that there is a purpose beyond the observable. Personally I think there is plenty of room for both in this world, I think people can still have faith, AND be willing to find out the physical workings of this universe.



Faith only works as long as you stick with applying it to an abstract concept rather than a real entity.


For instance I have faith in "Humanity" as an abstract and undefined concept. But if you asked me if I had faith in any specific person I would tell you no.
I have trust in a number of them, but every single person or thing that I trust has earned that trust, so I don't call it faith.


I trust the scientific method because I have determined based on the evidence of what science has achieved for Humanity that it is worthy of my trust. I don't have "faith" in it.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

I have faith in "Humanity"







that is a ludicrous and impossible notion, mr. dakka. :angry:


hitler didn't murder 20,000,000 Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Russians, Czechs, Romanians, Yugoslavs, and all the other countries he invaded, by himself. that vile individual had a standing military of just under TWO MILLION men in 1939, and many more in the next six years, that actually did the dirty work at his commands. it is estimated, because we don't know the actual number even to this day, that stalin killed 30,000,000 people in his reign of terror, and once again, he didn't do that himself.



your 'faith' is invalidated by the nature and barbarity of man. class dismissed. you may go.

[DeMouse]

that is a ludicrous and impossible notion, mr. dakka. :angry:

hitler didn't murder 20,000,000 Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Russians, Czechs, Romanians, Yugoslavs, and all the other countries he invaded, by himself. that vile individual had a standing military of just under TWO MILLION men in 1939, and many more in the next six years, that actually did the dirty work at his commands. it is estimated, because we don't know the actual number even to this day, that stalin killed 30,000,000 people in his reign of terror, and once again, he didn't do that himself.

your 'faith' is invalidated by the nature and barbarity of man. class dismissed. you may go.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0


We have changed already.

No longer are humans seperated from each other and made to grow up not knowing the multitudes of opinions and cultures that make up humanity.

I do not believe that it would be possible for anything like the kinds of killings perpetrated under the orders of those men to happen again in anything which we would recognise as a modern nation. Not even China's government, for all of their attempts, has managed to insulate their population from the rest of the world.


Call me an optomist or naive if you must. But I believe Humanity is capable of great things and that as long as the freedom of the internet is maintained mankind will not allow men to commit those kinds of atrocities.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

well, i have no 'faith' in humanity, nor will i ever. mankind is not capable of progressing beyond it's own pettiness, folly, greed, envy, jealousy, and a million other negative aspects that make up the human condition. next, i suppose you'll bring up that one-world gov't crap for the 'good' of mankind. puh-leeze...so an army of jack-booted UN thugs are gonna dictate 'morality' for the planet?! :angry:

[Aihwa]

well, i have no 'faith' in humanity, nor will i ever. mankind is not capable of progressing beyond it's own pettiness, folly, greed, envy, jealousy, and a million other negative aspects that make up the human condition. next, i suppose you'll bring up that one-world gov't crap for the 'good' of mankind. puh-leeze...so an army of jack-booted UN thugs are gonna dictate 'morality' for the planet?! :angry:

Bitch we landed on mars.


\o/

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Bitch we landed on mars.


\o/










no we didn't....that's a piece of nuclear-powered space junk that's sending back signals. we're still here, bitch.

[Aihwa]

no we didn't....that's a piece of nuclear-powered space junk that's sending back signals. we're still here, bitch.



A piece of space junk that we fired at several thousand kilometers an hour at a target going several hundred thousand kilometers an hour. And it landed in one piece.




Lets see you top that.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Lets see you top that.






42708



yups :nlol:

[DeMouse]

well, i have no 'faith' in humanity, nor will i ever. mankind is not capable of progressing beyond it's own pettiness, folly, greed, envy, jealousy, and a million other negative aspects that make up the human condition. next, i suppose you'll bring up that one-world gov't crap for the 'good' of mankind. puh-leeze...so an army of jack-booted UN thugs are gonna dictate 'morality' for the planet?! :angry:


That is the ecxact opposite of what I am talking about.

I'm talking about a bottom-up approach. A single world government would be top-down.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Mckayla is not impressed with this thread nor any idea whatsoever of a nat'l identity-destroying one world gov't dictatorship.

42717

[First Na'vi]

Guys, seriously back to topic!

Creation and Evolution?

There is the question, what was first? And how did it appeared? I just see 1 option. We life in a dimension with rules. I am not talking about gravity or light. I am talking about time, space, position, existance. We life in our dimension, we can't imagine what is in another because we are bound to this rules. I dont know what there is, but there are no objects, there is no time, there is nothing like here. You can't say "there" because it's not a place, it's something you just can't imagine, impossible, not even close. So there is something, there has to be, what created this dimension, actually created is a wrong word, because in the other dimension there is nothing like creating, there is no sound, no light no space no time. I think I am saying this the 3. time, you just cannot compute this with your brain because it is something that is not explainable for a "our dimension living being". It's like to explain a stroke, what a ball is. If you know what i mean ^^

I simply think, there is just everything, everything you can imagine and more. Everything is somehow created because it is. To hard to explain >.<

[Otter]

I simply think, there is just everything, everything you can imagine and more. Everything is somehow created because it is. To hard to explain >.<

It's all well and good to think whatever you like. The fact remains there is evidence for evolution through natural selection. That's a process that we know occured. Are there other processes we don't understand yet? Of course. Will they be understood eventually? Maybe. Are there things we can't explain because of the limits of our perception or "testability". Most likely. But just becasue there are things we can't understand doesn't mean things we have evidence for, and do understand, didn't happen.

[First Na'vi]

It's all well and good to think whatever you like. The fact remains there is evidence for evolution through natural selection. That's a process that we know occured. Are there other processes we don't understand yet? Of course. Will they be understood eventually? Maybe. Are there things we can't explain because of the limits of our perception or "testability". Most likely. But just becasue there are things we can't understand doesn't mean things we have evidence for, and do understand, didn't happen.
Yes, I totally agree, but why did you quote my post? It has nothing to do with what I said. Of course there was evolution and stuff. But it's simply impossible for us to say what was before our univers and dimension. The rules of our dimension are bound to the rule of time and space. So if there is nothing, there never will be something. In our dimension at least. Our univers is just like a exploding and imploding ball, for ever. But with our understanding of physik and being there is no answere for what could possibly created this first explosion or first material. People say maybe God created it, but when was God born? This question will never be answered, for sure. It is beyond our capasities, because like I said our brain can't imagine another dimension because another dimension (sorry maybe dimension is the completly wrong word but I dont know another to describe it in english) is not even close to ours. You can't imagine something without space, time and stuff and for you it can't exist because it is not possible to think of it.

What I am saying is just my point of view of course. You can believe what you want, but for me it is just logical.

[crimsonclover]

As someone who goes to a Christian university, while not being religious AT ALL (closest thing to home..free rent), I have to still concur with evolution here. I mean we are forced to take a religious studies minor. I don't mind, I have no problem with people who are religious/believe in God, and I thought hey, maybe I'll at least UNDERSTAND why they do...
After my first year I took "Themes of the Bible', 'Old Testament' 'New Testament' and 'Intro to Christianity' and I have to say that learning all of the facts makes me MORE confused. We were told that God exists because God says He Himself exists. This is duh, because Scripture is "written" BY God through other people. I mean, uh, WHAT? I am sorry but how is this ANY evidence in the existence of God? If I write a book and write about how Santa Claus exists simply because he says he exists, would people believe it?

Not to mention this is a BOOK. I just CANNOT wrap my mind around why a BOOK was taken and given life and people invested their entire lives into it. Genesis aint say **** about the universe OR the dinosaurs and science gives proof on all sides here.
People have a problem with "well how did ONE cell come into being? How could ONE cell create all this?" Well, how did GOD become into 'being', how did this one GOD create everything? I need specifics, not some washed down version of 6 days of work and on the 7th he got tired so now we have church. There is NOOOOOO proof in creationism, but there is 10 fold the proof in terms of evolution.

Like I said, people can believe what they want. That's what kind of world this is, but I think people latched onto this God thing just because people are afraid of dying. People don't like to accept the fact that you die, you rot, that's it. The end. Life moves on without you. That's a scary thing to realize your purpose on earth is nothing more than what you make of it, not what some divine being has laid out for you.

I'm sorry but that's MY take on it. I have a bajillion more reasons why I believe in evolution, but those are only a few.

[DeMouse]

Like I said, people can believe what they want. That's what kind of world this is, but I think people latched onto this God thing just because people are afraid of dying. People don't like to accept the fact that you die, you rot, that's it. The end. Life moves on without you. That's a scary thing to realize your purpose on earth is nothing more than what you make of it, not what some divine being has laid out for you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odFJr3Krr3A

[crimsonclover]

I just think instead of believing in GOD, you should believe in yourself.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ that little comedy skit was obviously from several years back, like 2008 or so, because he is still worshiping Pres. Obama. you know, the dude in the White House who has added a few trillion onto the debt by bailing out a bunch of corrupt and broke companies like GM and Chrysler. these companies and others should have gone bankrupt and out of business, he still hasn't closed that unpatriotic act torture prison in Cuba, and he sent way more troops to Afghanistan than his predecessor ever did. yeah, you're democraddicts are doing a bang-up job, BO. :angry: oh wait, this isn't the political thread. my bad. lolz :embarrassed:

[Otter]

Yes, I totally agree, but why did you quote my post?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be antagonistic. I just wanted to define that there were some things known to science (evolution), and that those are different to the things that are unknowable, or as yet unknown. Invoking the unknowable is not evidence for God... but I realise now that's not what you were getting at.

[Aihwa]

^ that little comedy skit was obviously from several years back, like 2008 or so, because he is still worshiping Pres. Obama. you know, the dude in the White House who has added a few trillion onto the debt by bailing out a bunch of corrupt and broke companies like GM and Chrysler. these companies and others should have gone bankrupt and out of business, he still hasn't closed that unpatriotic act torture prison in Cuba, and he sent way more troops to Afghanistan than his predecessor ever did. yeah, you're democraddicts are doing a bang-up job, BO. :angry: oh wait, this isn't the political thread. my bad. lolz :embarrassed:

That was Bush. Obama didn't bailout till the whole "too big to fail" issue with the banks.


Please stop posting false information.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

That was Bush. Obama didn't bailout till the whole "too big to fail" issue with the banks.


Please stop posting false information.









are you insane or just a really dumbass troll?! the GM, Chrysler,and bank bailouts happened on B0's watch. you're an idiot. there are 20,000 websites, newspapers, network news, etc, that support this, because it happened in the first term of BO. wake up and smell the crap you are shoveling, rip van aiwha/aihwa. geez

[Aihwa]

are you insane or just a really dumbass troll?! the GM, Chrysler,and bank bailouts happened on B0's watch. you're an idiot. there are 20,000 websites, newspapers, network news, etc, that support this, because it happened in the first term of BO. wake up and smell the crap you are shoveling, rip van aiwha/aihwa. geez

The Consumerist » Bush Approves Auto Industry Bailout (http://consumerist.com/2008/12/bush-approves-auto-industry-bailout.html)


My work here is done.


ggnore

[Wind12]

^ Yes Bush STARTED it, but "hope and CHANGE" CONTINUED IT( his admin. even brags about the bailout/take over of GM) this it's ALL the Republican's falt, and its ALL the Democrats fault manure gets old real quick. Obama whined about the wiretapping and the base in Cuba thing... until he was pres. and then... oh, well their o.k. now, last time I checked the dept was hurtling out of control, and gas prices are over 3 dollars/gal. (even without "bushicanes" hitting the refineries on the Gulf coast go figure) o.k. end rant/
sorry for getting of subject.

[The Silver Stag]

Like I said, people can believe what they want. That's what kind of world this is, but I think people latched onto this God thing just because people are afraid of dying. People don't like to accept the fact that you die, you rot, that's it. The end. Life moves on without you. That's a scary thing to realize your purpose on earth is nothing more than what you make of it, not what some divine being has laid out for you.


Hey there, let me just say that I'm not a christian and I do believe in evolution however I do find it very bold of you to state, while you are clearly alive, that when you die that's just it. Reincarnation is scientifically proven in the physical sense at least in the fact that all living tissue breaks down to be used and become part of new plant/animal life. Past experiences have given me reason to believe in a 'next life' so I personally would not be so quick to claim that death is the end :)

Just my 2 cents, not trying to put you down or anything ;)

[_Omaticaya_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0


We have changed already.

No longer are humans seperated from each other and made to grow up not knowing the multitudes of opinions and cultures that make up humanity.

I do not believe that it would be possible for anything like the kinds of killings perpetrated under the orders of those men to happen again in anything which we would recognise as a modern nation. Not even China's government, for all of their attempts, has managed to insulate their population from the rest of the world.


Call me an optomist or naive if you must. But I believe Humanity is capable of great things and that as long as the freedom of the internet is maintained mankind will not allow men to commit those kinds of atrocities.

No, Just No.

You know, the other night I watched a long documentary on BBC about the London Riots in 2011, exactly one year ago.

You know what I saw? That humans have been, are, and will always be the same. I was in London 2012, suppose to be the most 'diverse', open to everyone event in History. And yes okay, it was. Sports wise only.
But then I see, just a year ago, they we're all looting, destroying shops, trying to murder police men, And they showed all the original interviews of the criminals, and all I saw, was a concept No one mentioned, a word no one said but that's what it was all about: Racism. There will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, be a Unity in humanity we're all different, we all like to be proud of our country, and after the Horrible things I saw and heard, God I am proud to be English.

[Otter]

... humans have been, are, and will always be the same. ... we're all different,

It's funny because it's true.

People are capable of doing some pretty awful things to each other. But when people are educated, respectful and tolerant I think the likelihood decreases. If there's no hope, what's the point?

People need to be open to having their views challenged. Otherwise progress cannot be made. I think that was always my frustration with the "creation/evolution debate". I know plenty of people who, originally accepting the creation myth, have rejected it once faced with evolutionary evidence (whether or not they still believe in a god is a different story), but none who originally understood evolutionary processes then those in favour of biblical creation. (I'm not saying those people don't exist, I just don't know any.)


My frustration lays with dogged determination in the face of good evidence. Of course, some people are proud of such determination, of such willful ignorance. And that's what is frustrating.

[Aihwa]

^ Yes Bush STARTED it, but "hope and CHANGE" CONTINUED IT( his admin. even brags about the bailout/take over of GM) this it's ALL the Republican's falt, and its ALL the Democrats fault manure gets old real quick. Obama whined about the wiretapping and the base in Cuba thing... until he was pres. and then... oh, well their o.k. now, last time I checked the dept was hurtling out of control, and gas prices are over 3 dollars/gal. (even without "bushicanes" hitting the refineries on the Gulf coast go figure) o.k. end rant/
sorry for getting of subject.


Nice attempt to change the subject. That wasn't what we were discussing.



I said.


ggnore.

[Foxhound]

It's funny because it's true.

People are capable of doing some pretty awful things to each other. But when people are educated, respectful and tolerant I think the likelihood decreases. If there's no hope, what's the point?

People need to be open to having their views challenged. Otherwise progress cannot be made. I think that was always my frustration with the "creation/evolution debate". I know plenty of people who, originally accepting the creation myth, have rejected it once faced with evolutionary evidence (whether or not they still believe in a god is a different story), but none who originally understood evolutionary processes then those in favour of biblical creation. (I'm not saying those people don't exist, I just don't know any.)


My frustration lays with dogged determination in the face of good evidence. Of course, some people are proud of such determination, of such willful ignorance. And that's what is frustrating.

I know how you feel. Its called Cognitive dissonance and everyone including you and me have it. Basically your brain defends the ideas you view as fact. Whether or not they are the right ideas or true. It is usually hard to destroy and firmly entrenched idea.

For example. If I were to link you to the Answers In Genesis website. (A Large group of Christian scientists who believe in intelligent design and have lots of evidence supporting their claims.) You would most likely not change your mind or even read all of it with an open mind. WHY? Because you don't want your mind to be changed. You're happy with your current views and unless you become unhappy with them then you will most likely not change your mind.
I am the same way. Heck I don't usually read half the links that are posted on these debate threads. You are not going to change my mind and No one is going to change yours unless you want it to be changed.

Cognitive Dissonance extends beyond the realm of religion. Republicans will only vote republican and Democrats will vote only Democrat. Say anything against their views and they will tune you out. (I have relatives on both sides of that.)
I would post a speech i gave on it but unfortunately the notes and formatting of it make it unreadable to anyone but me.

Cognitive Dissonance itself is not a bad thing. It is your brain's defense against believing everything you hear. However if you are unaware of it can hurt you.

Now since I stated that you would most likely not go to the site with an open mind you are gonna start trying to defend yourself so I am gonna say, this is not just targeting you its for everpony you are just the easiest one point out without going to another page. EVERYONE (Including me.) has this. I am not picking on just you.

So what does this leave us at?
Well not really sure. I guess you guys can keep debating pointlessly. I am gonna sit back and watch. (Grabs popcorn and puts on 3D glasses.)

[Otter]

On the conntrary... the nature of science, is to be challenged and reasses your ideas (hypotheses) if your explanation for the natural world is shown to be flawed.

Personally I am open to having my worldview challenged and my mind changed. It has happened to me many times, including to my indoctrination in a belief in God.

My understanding of congnitive dissonance is that one is reluctant to accept a challenging worldview, not that it is unable to be accepted. One just needs the right skills. Cognitive dissonance can be addressed. Surely that is the whole point of this debate. The thing you are right about is that you need to approach the debate with an open mind, that is, be prepared to address that cognitive dissonance.

I'm up for it.

[Foxhound]

On the conntrary... the nature of science, is to be challenged and reasses your ideas (hypotheses) if your explanation for the natural world is shown to be flawed.

Personally I am open to having my worldview challenged and my mind changed. It has happened to me many times, including to my indoctrination in a belief in God.

My understanding of congnitive dissonance is that one is reluctant to accept a challenging worldview, not that it is unable to be accepted. One just needs the right skills. Cognitive dissonance can be addressed. Surely that is the whole point of this debate. The thing you are right about is that you need to approach the debate with an open mind, that is, be prepared to address that cognitive dissonance.

I'm up for it.

(Please note that this is not entirely directed at you but for anyone who reads this.)

Cognitive dissonance is not a bad thing. People can change my world view if they want to. It is easier though when you are aware of what your brain is doing.

One of the bad things though is that when you have Cognitive dissonance however is that you twist evidence to support your views.

Example.
Two scientists One christian and one Atheist are given a fossil and told to draw conclusions on it.
The Atheist looks at it and says "This was found in a certain rock layer so it must be billions of years old. We know that the rock layer it older because the earlier species that had not evolved much are in it."
The Christian looks at it and says "This fossil was found in a rock layer that could only have been laid down by a world wide flood and since it was a bottom dweller it would have been first buried!"

Two different views from the same evidence.

Now some people can have their minds changed. But usually it takes a lot more an internet debate.
Have you ever noticed that when you start to lose an argument you get angry even if the other person is right? That is your mind's defenses activating against what it perceives as a threat to its views. Its a lot of work to change how you view life. Unless your cup is empty, it takes time and effort or a massive shock to make your mind give up something it believes in.

For example.

People who voted for Obama can be shown large amounts of evidence on why they should not vote for him again. And they will ignore that evidence because changing their minds would mean that they would have to admit they not only made a mistake in voting for him but also they may have to rethink their life style and what they think about issues and ideas that deal with their vote for Obama.
For many their brain refuses to go to all that work and instead blocks the person off and continues believing what it wants to believe by creating strawman arguments or attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
And logical fallacies and how to spot them are something I could go on for hours about. But I don't have time for that right now.
(And the same could be said about Rmoney republicans.)



Since you do seem open minded or trying at least, (Your doing better then a lot of people I know.) I will post the link to the site I was talking about. I personally won't try to change your mind because frankly, I am not a rocket scientist. More then fifty percent of this goes way over my head. If I tried to debate this with anyone about this I would sound like a moron. I don't use the "Idiot's guide to creationism" I use the "Totally clueless person's guide to creationism."


Root - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/flood-geology-fossils/v/popular)
Please note that there is a lot of data and I don't blame you if you don't read it all. In fact honestly I don't really care. But you said you wanted to have a go so here you are. Have Fun!
(Oh and also note that while this site has a lot of good points it is christian and does have a christian slant. Also note that there is debate among Christians about what is still relevant in the bible and what is advice not commandments so don't disregard this because you disagree with its stance on marriage or some other issue that is not the point.)

(Also please note that while I may be a christian I am not a huge fan of the organised church and I am defiantly not a fan of the bigots and other jerks who show up too much in the church. I mean after all Jesus preached about loving your neighbor and doing to others as you would have them do to you. Not beating people over the head with a bible and telling them to turn or burn. But that is another debate entirely.)

[crimsonclover]

I believe that a cat created the universe.

[Foxhound]

I believe that a cat created the universe.
If a cat had made the world it would have been.
"On the first day the cat created the sofa and the pillow."
"On the second day the cat created the sun spot and food bowl."
"On the third day the cat created the mouse to play with."
"On the fourth day the cat rested, played with the mouse, and ate food."
"The fifth day was like the first but instead the cat played with the mouse, ate food, and rested."
"On the sixth day the cat invented a different pillow then played with the mouse, rested, and ate food."
"The seventh day was exactly like the fourth day but the instead of playing with the mouse the cat slept."

"And the cat sent down its only begotten kitten so that it could nap in the sun so that mankind could worship it and bring it food."

[crimsonclover]

bahahahah

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ lolz at the Creator Cat :nlol:



so, in the last couple of months, i have been to the Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountains, Great Smoky Mountains, Mammoth Caverns, Forbidden Caverns, and the Appalachian Mountains, seen all this beauty and grandeur of Mother Nature, and if there is a Divine Creator who has created this and all the umpteen quadzillions of endless galaxies, stars, constellations, and still more beyond this, then i look at this petty race of carbon-based bipeds running around chasing paper scraps and seriously ***king up said majesty of beautiful planet, i have but one question....WE'RE IT??!!!!!!

[Wind12]

I hope not...

[Foxhound]

I hope not...
What would you prefer?

[DeMouse]

i have but one question....WE'RE IT??!!!!!!

Well if you believe evolution then we aren't finished cooking yet(Read: ever).

[Ximphron]

Well if you believe evolution then we aren't finished cooking yet(Read: ever).

Yup. We just keep on cooking till the universe says "it still ain't done yet? **** it" and chucks an asteroid our way. Or not.

[Wind12]

Well it would be a shame if we were it, with all of the expanse of the universe, kind of seems like a waste if we are truly the only thing in the universe.

[applejuice]

And, what if Apes descent from Men??? (Warning, philosophic question potential)

[DeMouse]

And, what if Apes descent from Men??? (Warning, philosophic question potential)

Well the whole question is a fallacy because we still are Apes

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Well the whole question is a fallacy because we still are Apes



wut?! you, maybe. :angry:

42981

[_Omaticaya_]

wut?! you, maybe. :angry:

42981

Thanks, I was going to post the same. Pique agrees too :nlol:

[DeMouse]

wut?! you, maybe. :angry:

42981




|-
| Kingdom:
| Animalia (Animals) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal)
|-
| Phylum:
| Chordata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate) (Vertibrates)
|-
| Class:
| Synapsida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid)(Lunged Vertibrates)
|-
| Class:
| Mammalia (Mammals) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal)
|-
| Order:
| Primates (Monkeys and Apes) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate)
|-
| Family:
| Hominidae (Great Apes) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae)
|-
| Tribe:
| Hominini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini)
|-
| Genus:
| Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo)
|-
| Species:
| H. sapiens (Humans)
|-




Humans are apes.


You can no more say that humans are not apes than you can say that humans are not mammals, or humans are not vertibrates.

[applejuice]

Well the whole question is a fallacy because we still are Apes

And yet, we're immensely different to our primate relatives...

[DeMouse]

And yet, we're immensely different to our primate relatives...

Larger brain, standing more upright and shorter body hair.

Not all that different. We aren't even that much smarter, just better at holding knowledge that won't immediately affect us.

Humans are much closer to the other apes than, for instance, monitor lizards are close to other lizards.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

|-
| Kingdom:
| Animalia (Animals) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal)
|-
| Phylum:
| Chordata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate) (Vertibrates)
|-
| Class:
| Synapsida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid)(Lunged Vertibrates)
|-
| Class:
| Mammalia (Mammals) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal)
|-
| Order:
| Primates (Monkeys and Apes) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate)
|-
| Family:
| Hominidae (Great Apes) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae)
|-
| Tribe:
| Hominini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini)
|-
| Genus:
| Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo)
|-
| Species:
| H. sapiens (Humans)


|-

Humans are apes.


You can no more say that humans are not apes than you can say that humans are not mammals, or humans are not vertibrates.





oh puh-leeze...ape species haven't evolved into humans in over 12,000 carbon-datable years of our history, nor has any definitive proof of evolution, yet you are here to say unequivocally that we descended from those critters. get a grip and a clue. i am no creationist/religious whack-job, nor am i a believer of your 'scientific' mumbo-jumbo big spark s**t. come back when you can convince me beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, that mankind evolved and adapted from an animal species that has no reasoning or cognitive ability, TO THIS VERY DAY. see ya.


if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this planet?

[applejuice]

I'm very aware that Humans are consistent with Evolution. But there's one thing that seems out of place: why aren't we seeing any convergence in other species? There are a lot of animals older than Man but they seem to have stopped evolving. I think (but that's just my opinion, I may be terribly wrong) that we should be seeing signs of evolution in our primate relatives but I haven't heard something indicating so.

[DeMouse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hawcXJerkjs


Like I said. It is only a reliatively minor difference in the way we think that sets us apart

[Ximphron]

Larger brain, standing more upright and shorter body hair.

Not all that different. We aren't even that much smarter, just better at holding knowledge that won't immediately affect us.

IMO one of the greatest developments is language. There's language-esque things in the rest of the animal world but only humans have true language to communicate such complex ides with one another. Apes seem to lack similar communication abilities and idea development.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

that video proves not a thing. every gap in the editing sequence probably hides the trainer coming out and coaching the animals in what to do. there is no continuous video showing the animal making a conscious decision or action. *shaking my head* animal trainers can pretty much get them to do anything, given the proper enticements. look at the huskies in the Eight Below film.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

We aren't even that much smarter


43020

[_Omaticaya_]

Look at the huskies in the Eight Below film.

Love that film...

[Pandora66]

I'm very aware that Humans are consistent with Evolution. But there's one thing that seems out of place: why aren't we seeing any convergence in other species? There are a lot of animals older than Man but they seem to have stopped evolving. I think (but that's just my opinion, I may be terribly wrong) that we should be seeing signs of evolution in our primate relatives but I haven't heard something indicating so.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight, it takes thousands of generations for changes to take hold. Primates in the wild have been observed using tools and even sharing tools with others in their group. The DNA of chimps is within 1-2% of ours, we are very closely related. At some point our primitive relatives made a leap by using tools/learning and passing on that knowledge to others, other primates and animals have been observed doing that same thing, it's not unique to humans.

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives - ScienceNOW (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06/bonobo-genome-sequenced.html)

as for human origins please read up on vestigial organs, this is physical evidence of organs that we used to have and still have in some cases and slowly over time have eliminated their use, eventually they will be completely gone as our DNA continues to be modified over time, the definition of evolution.

I think part of the problem with understanding these issues is the scope of time that is required for these changes to take place, for some organisms who duplicate rapidly it can take days/weeks (see the continuing battle in medicine (antibiotics) and for others it might be thousands/hundreds of thousands or longer.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Evolution doesn't happen overnight, it takes thousands of generations for changes to take hold.


43044





how convenient that any 'evidence/proof' of the evolutionary theory is thousands of years in the past or in the future, but before you think i'm being contrary, i really put no stock in the creation/intelligent design theory either, as that is just as unprovable as evolution. i'm just so tired of both sides throwing their crap out there as 'fact'.

[Pandora66]

43044





how convenient that any 'evidence/proof' of the evolutionary theory is thousands of years in the past or in the future, but before you think i'm being contrary, i really put no stock in the creation/intelligent design theory either, as that is just as unprovable as evolution. i'm just so tired of both sides throwing their crap out there as 'fact'.


Like I said it depends on the organism, medical researchers are in a constant war fighting all kinds of germs/virus due to their ability to mutate and fight off the drugs that we design to kill them, it's the same with insects who also reproduce at very rapid rates, some are now immune to certain pesticides that used to kill them instantly. You can sit on the fence if you want that's your choice however there is more than enough "proof" that all living things evolve/change over time, DNA does not remain static for all eternity. Look at human beings we are not built the same and certainly do not look the same, how can that happen if our genome doesn't have the ability to change/mutate to help us deal with the environment that we live in.

[applejuice]

Don't take what I'm going to write too seriously, I can tell you why Evolution may be wrong: Women.

[Foxhound]

Like I said it depends on the organism, medical researchers are in a constant war fighting all kinds of germs/virus due to their ability to mutate and fight off the drugs that we design to kill them, it's the same with insects who also reproduce at very rapid rates, some are now immune to certain pesticides that used to kill them instantly. You can sit on the fence if you want that's your choice however there is more than enough "proof" that all living things evolve/change over time, DNA does not remain static for all eternity. Look at human beings we are not built the same and certainly do not look the same, how can that happen if our genome doesn't have the ability to change/mutate to help us deal with the environment that we live in.

Yea because there is two types of Evolution. Micro and Macro.
Micro is where a dog changes into a different type of dog.
Macro is where a dog changes into a cat.

The thing is, a wolf can be breed to be a poodle but a poodle can not be bread to be a wolf. Every generation the DNA loses information.
A wolf can not be breed to be a cat because the cat information does not exist. There is no new information added. Eventually you may get a dog that is mistaken for a rat but it will still be a dog.
So where would the information to turn a Dinosaur into a bird come from? The DNA for feathers had to come from somewhere. How many bazillions of Dinosaurs had misshapen useless scales before they could fly? There should be billions of dead Dinosaurs that are half mutated.

[DeMouse]

that video proves not a thing. every gap in the editing sequence probably hides the trainer coming out and coaching the animals in what to do. there is no continuous video showing the animal making a conscious decision or action. *shaking my head* animal trainers can pretty much get them to do anything, given the proper enticements. look at the huskies in the Eight Below film.

Did you not watch the whole thing?

The point was that the chimps diddn't investigat why the altered piece wouldn't stand up but the human did. It shows that we simply think differently.

[applejuice]

Yea because there is two types of Evolution. Micro and Macro.
Micro is where a dog changes into a different type of dog.
Macro is where a dog changes into a cat.

The thing is, a wolf can be breed to be a poodle but a poodle can not be bread to be a wolf. Every generation the DNA loses information.
A wolf can not be breed to be a cat because the cat information does not exist. There is no new information added. Eventually you may get a dog that is mistaken for a rat but it will still be a dog.
So where would the information to turn a Dinosaur into a bird come from? The DNA for feathers had to come from somewhere. How many bazillions of Dinosaurs had misshapen useless scales before they could fly? There should be billions of dead Dinosaurs that are half mutated.

That implies that information is lost in the process, right? But we see what happens when bits of our DNA are altered or simply disappear: most likely a decease or condition that impedes what we consider a "normal" development. To evolve, mutations have to be made to very specific parts of the DNA to, redundantly, evolve.

[DeMouse]

Yea because there is two types of Evolution. Micro and Macro.
Micro is where a dog changes into a different type of dog.
Macro is where a dog changes into a cat.

The thing is, a wolf can be breed to be a poodle but a poodle can not be bread to be a wolf. Every generation the DNA loses information.
A wolf can not be breed to be a cat because the cat information does not exist. There is no new information added. Eventually you may get a dog that is mistaken for a rat but it will still be a dog.
So where would the information to turn a Dinosaur into a bird come from? The DNA for feathers had to come from somewhere. How many bazillions of Dinosaurs had misshapen useless scales before they could fly? There should be billions of dead Dinosaurs that are half mutated.

Let me make this exceedingly clear to you.

In a scientific context "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" mean absolutly ****ing nothing.


The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

once again, evolution is just a theory, an entirely unprovable theory because we cannot travel into the past nor do we have actual dna from all these ancient creatures, just dead bones containing no live or datable marrow. no matter what you throw out there, have read, or are taught, evolution is still just a THEORY. IT IS NOT FACT. end of story.

[applejuice]

once again, evolution is just a theory, an entirely unprovable theory because we cannot travel into the past nor do we have actual dna from all these ancient creatures, just dead bones containing no live or datable marrow. no matter what you throw out there, have read, or are taught, evolution is still just a THEORY. IT IS NOT FACT. end of story.

Actually a Theory is a proven fact, a hypothesis is something to be proved beyond reasonable doubts. I've been reading that "Evolution" is taken too literally. For us, the average humans, "evolution" almost always signifies an improvement but for scientists it is just a term to describe any change, be it an improvement or the contrary or simply a change that has not effect at all.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

as long as we are here debating the evolution/creation mess, let me give you my upbringing perspective. i was raised religious as in an offshoot of the Lutherns, but identified as 'non-denominational', my parents believing in the Creation thing from the Bible. i never believed or disbelieved all that stuff, just couldn't deal with it, nor the evolution mumbo-jumbo in public school after my parents could no longer afford the school fees for our parochial schools that my brother and i attended in the earlier years. i left home after high-school, really don't give a crap about religion and all that jazz, nor do i particularly care in all the explanations by humanity...none make sense nor are provable in any way, shape, or form.

i have had some recent thoughts pop up again this summer after seeing the Grand Canyon and a lot of other places, that are clearly very old, hundreds of thousands years old even possibly millions of years, as dating is really impossible past carbon-dating which is only 'reliable' to about 12,000 years. my parents still believe earth is only 6,000-12,000 years old, because the Creationists go with the carbon-dating thing, but you can clearly see the rock and strata layers in the Grand Canyon, and there are THOUSANDS of layers. the Earth is much older than 12,000 years old. i have seen a lot of things this summer which clearly disprove my upbringing, but i still see no proof of evolution...ape becoming man, stuff like that.

i wish my relatives had had the financial/gasoline resources to see Dinosaur Nat'l Momument Park in Utah, as we did come within 350 miles of it, but they only had time/money for a certain amount of sights and a clear driving route on the way to the Grand Canyon and back home, my being a clearly grateful and thankful guest on that quite fun and adventuresome trip. the 35 y/o RV we went in was comfortable, reliable, but did have some issues along the way resulting in some budget cuts for sights, but i would never have seen the parks and sights we did regardless. thanks, Uncle Owen :in-love:i'll always treasure this trip.

anyway, my parents believe dinosaurs never existed, and all the bones/skeletons are man-made. lol. yeah, after seeing the ones in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History last week, i have to really disagree with my upbringing, but still the existence of dinosaurs does not prove or disprove Creation or Evolution. for me, it is just more questions...

i would love to see Dinosaur National Park in Utah someday...there are sheer granite canyon walls with dinosaur bones imbedded in the rock, and literally hundreds and hundreds of excavation and quarry areas that have active digs for bones. here are several picture examples from the net.

43155 43156

[Foxhound]

Let me make this exceedingly clear to you.

In a scientific context "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" mean absolutly ****ing nothing.


The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time.



Micro is proven. Macro is not.

Macro says that Mutations cause new types of animals.
Mutations are losses of information. Wolves mutate to poodles. They loose DNA information. Look at what happens when families inbreed. Mutations never add any new DNA information.
Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution)

The Evidence behind Macro Evolution is debatable. The Dating processes are unreliable and involve a lot of guesswork. Missing links are still missing despite the fact that there should be more half evolved dinobirds skeletons then normal dinosaurs.

Doesn (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible)

There is more links to evidence showing the failings of the dating methods on that same site but it seemed like it was in a difference language and I barely under stood it.

The point I am trying to make is, People often confuse micro and macro evolution.
Micro Evolution is genetic code adapting a certain type of Animal to a different environment. Once an animal is adopted though it can't change without new information being added. (Like Dingos are descended from wolves and have adapted to warm climates but would freeze to death in Russia and would not be able to evolve longer hair unless they were breed with a long haired dog.)
Micro IS proven.

Macro Evolution is genetic code mutating to add new information allowing an animal without the genes to adapt to an environment evolve to have the genes required over a long period of time. (Like a Dingo moving to Russia and breeding with other Dingos and mutating to add the genetic code which allows it to grow long hair to survive.)
Macro is NOT conclusively proven and is debated by young earth scientists.




In a scientific context "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" mean absolutly ****ing nothing.
Now forgive me if i am wrong but according to those links I posted, which were written by highly capable scientists, that statement is not entirely correct.
Creation scientists and other biographies of interest (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/)