- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Login/Join to Participateben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is.
*deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is. *deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Delete TopicKaelGotRice
GOLD Member since Jul 2003
![KaelGotRice]()
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA
Total posts: 1584
GOLD Member since Jul 2003
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA
Total posts: 1584
Posted:2+2=5 for very large quantities of 2.
End of story.
The matter here is "perception". People will believe what they choose to percieve, not what really is being percieved.
Meaning largely that this whole "argument" is pointless. The Creationists/IDists will continue to percieve various tidbits of what they percieve to be "truth" and it will only enhance their beiefs.
For example, the Mormons I went to school with would percieve and believe in "micro-evolution" of bacteria and viruses (which aren't really alive). Afterall they take modern medicines and BYU does in fact do lots of medical research.
Though the Mormons I observed admit to the evolution of microorganisms, and even to some extent cats, dogs, and even "ligers" (I sat through a biology class at BYU describing breeding between species to create new species) They throughly refuse to believe that man is subject to nature as animals are. There is nothing special/holier about humans, it is the frabrication of deluded societies and religious egotism/bigotry. Ligers, or the child of a male lion and tigress, have happened forcibly ("intelligent design" through artificial insemination) and by chance (captive breeding pair somehow taking a liking to one another).
To creationists/IDists, to say that men are on the same plane as animals is heretical and unholy. However there are many of us scientific types who consider everything holy and worth the same consideration.
Now I'm not outruling ID or saying you are wrong, but there is no irrefutable PROOF for it as there is so far for evolution.
End of story.
The matter here is "perception". People will believe what they choose to percieve, not what really is being percieved.
Meaning largely that this whole "argument" is pointless. The Creationists/IDists will continue to percieve various tidbits of what they percieve to be "truth" and it will only enhance their beiefs.
For example, the Mormons I went to school with would percieve and believe in "micro-evolution" of bacteria and viruses (which aren't really alive). Afterall they take modern medicines and BYU does in fact do lots of medical research.
Though the Mormons I observed admit to the evolution of microorganisms, and even to some extent cats, dogs, and even "ligers" (I sat through a biology class at BYU describing breeding between species to create new species) They throughly refuse to believe that man is subject to nature as animals are. There is nothing special/holier about humans, it is the frabrication of deluded societies and religious egotism/bigotry. Ligers, or the child of a male lion and tigress, have happened forcibly ("intelligent design" through artificial insemination) and by chance (captive breeding pair somehow taking a liking to one another).
To creationists/IDists, to say that men are on the same plane as animals is heretical and unholy. However there are many of us scientific types who consider everything holy and worth the same consideration.
Now I'm not outruling ID or saying you are wrong, but there is no irrefutable PROOF for it as there is so far for evolution.
To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ubbrollsmile.gif" alt="" />
Posted:So Patriarch, from your posts I see you have a little to no knowledge of biology, geography, chemistry, astro physics (like how we can see a galaxy a million light years away) or anything at all about the natural world. Yet you assume that you know more about all of them than the respective experts in each field. And I thought I was arrogant to a fault! 
Out of interest, how did you do in school?
Out of interest, how did you do in school?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Delete
Posted:Ok Patriarch, you are interpreting the evidence to see the world in a light that is favourable to you. Any piece of evidence (including your vaunted disproof of Creationism) that I give to you you will be able to fit into your idea.
I've gone through and reread everything, and I have no answers or new ideas for you to reinterpret, except the chemical composition of Zircon as a rough guess for the age of the world.
However, in your beliefs you have dismissed centuries of thought, centuries of better minds than ours reaching the opinions that have been brought up by my self and others throughout this thread. If your beliefs are as strong as they appear to be, there is no evidence that we can give you that you can't turn tp your own ends.
Thus this discussion has reached an end.
I've gone through and reread everything, and I have no answers or new ideas for you to reinterpret, except the chemical composition of Zircon as a rough guess for the age of the world.
However, in your beliefs you have dismissed centuries of thought, centuries of better minds than ours reaching the opinions that have been brought up by my self and others throughout this thread. If your beliefs are as strong as they appear to be, there is no evidence that we can give you that you can't turn tp your own ends.
Thus this discussion has reached an end.
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
DeletePosted:Written by: onewheeldave
But, if matter had existed for ever, then all protons would have decayed by now.
Actually this may be the reason for scientists to come up with a revision of the big bang theory: it wasn't a big bang, but a big swing... to explain: there was a previous universe that collapsed (much like a supernova) after the contraction of all matter to the smallest measurable size, again expanded rapidly and went back into expansion, thus releasing enourmous energy apearing like a "bang"... Black holes might just be a entryway to "baby-universes", or a over-dimensional pathway to supply energy for a star on their exit.
Maybe the universe works much like what we see reflected in ourselves, this world and the surrounding universe... all expands over a certain period and then merges back into unity from which is expands another time.. and so on - the endless cycle of rebirth or re-incarnation. The initial programming might (not) get lost in the process of dying.
If looking from this angle it also (to me) converges ID and evolution: there has been an initial masterplan set (from which source ever) and beyond that there is evolution still possible. In the next cycle the initial program has to be carried out, but there is room for further development.
Even if humans have been around in this shape for 100.000 years - they changed their appearance from this initial "model" - now we're version 1000.2.xz with less body hairs, a larger physical size, more dependant to a daily intake of food, etc.
Denying all reasonable evidence for another possible view is a choice someone is making for a reason - whatever that may be.
And even if Jake doesn't like the idea of "morphogenetic fields" there is evidence that evolution happens also through a mere learning and realisation-process, stored in our genes and changing the programming. Or is there (peered) evidence against this theory?
We are in the middle of researching what all this is about - maybe one day we might unravel the mystery. Human scientist these days may even be able to design a new lifeform: a "super-human" - I mean what else is the reason for genetic engeneering anyways?- prooving that evolution and ID have their valid spot in our world right next to each other. Selection is a part of both (evolution and design) - something is created, considered "good" or "faulty" and then improved or rejected...
What's the point?
Just because humans enjoy their shape so much, they cannot believe, that ants (in a given timespan) might be able to develop a "higher intelligence" just alike??? 
Who knows what "god" looks like? Just because we believe to have been made in his image it doesn't mean that he looks human at all... and what would it matter to every days life anyways? We seem to be caught up in our own mindspace.
But, if matter had existed for ever, then all protons would have decayed by now.
Actually this may be the reason for scientists to come up with a revision of the big bang theory: it wasn't a big bang, but a big swing... to explain: there was a previous universe that collapsed (much like a supernova) after the contraction of all matter to the smallest measurable size, again expanded rapidly and went back into expansion, thus releasing enourmous energy apearing like a "bang"... Black holes might just be a entryway to "baby-universes", or a over-dimensional pathway to supply energy for a star on their exit.
Maybe the universe works much like what we see reflected in ourselves, this world and the surrounding universe... all expands over a certain period and then merges back into unity from which is expands another time.. and so on - the endless cycle of rebirth or re-incarnation. The initial programming might (not) get lost in the process of dying.
If looking from this angle it also (to me) converges ID and evolution: there has been an initial masterplan set (from which source ever) and beyond that there is evolution still possible. In the next cycle the initial program has to be carried out, but there is room for further development.
Even if humans have been around in this shape for 100.000 years - they changed their appearance from this initial "model" - now we're version 1000.2.xz with less body hairs, a larger physical size, more dependant to a daily intake of food, etc.
Denying all reasonable evidence for another possible view is a choice someone is making for a reason - whatever that may be.
And even if Jake doesn't like the idea of "morphogenetic fields" there is evidence that evolution happens also through a mere learning and realisation-process, stored in our genes and changing the programming. Or is there (peered) evidence against this theory?
We are in the middle of researching what all this is about - maybe one day we might unravel the mystery. Human scientist these days may even be able to design a new lifeform: a "super-human" - I mean what else is the reason for genetic engeneering anyways?- prooving that evolution and ID have their valid spot in our world right next to each other. Selection is a part of both (evolution and design) - something is created, considered "good" or "faulty" and then improved or rejected...
What's the point?
Just because humans enjoy their shape so much, they cannot believe, that ants (in a given timespan) might be able to develop a "higher intelligence" just alike??? Who knows what "god" looks like?
Just because we believe to have been made in his image it doesn't mean that he looks human at all... and what would it matter to every days life anyways? We seem to be caught up in our own mindspace.the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005
![Sethis]()
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
BRONZE Member since May 2005
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
Posted:I don't think the idea of the "Universe contracting and then expanding, then contracting and expanding" actually works. I used to think that would be a good explanation 'til someone told me that the Universe has been expanding too long for that to be a real theory. If that was supposed to happen then things would have stopped expanding, and started shrinking now. Instead it's still accelerating.
Maybe, I'm not sure.
Maybe, I'm not sure.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:With regards to FireToms post about the 'Big Bounce Theory' as it is known, as we understand it all information of the past universe would be lost in the cruch phase. There isn't any known mechanism by which information could be passed from one universe to it's descendent. Even the fundemental constants of physics might be altered.
Written by: FireTom
And even if Jake doesn't like the idea of "morphogenetic fields" there is evidence that evolution happens also through a mere learning and realisation-process, stored in our genes and changing the programming. Or is there (peered) evidence against this theory?
Generaly one considers the total lack of credible evidence to be a bit of a give away...
Written by: FireTom
What's the point? Just because humans enjoy their shape so much, they cannot believe, that ants (in a given timespan) might be able to develop a "higher intelligence" just alike???
Who say's they couldn't? If ants could share information accurately between themselves they might reach quite impressive computational power as a network. Of course insect brains are inherintly slower due to their layout and biochemistry...but only at the moment. One day we may be working for our insect overlords
Written by: FireTom
Who knows what "god" looks like? Just because we believe to have been made in his image it doesn't mean that he looks human at all... and what would it matter to every days life anyways? We seem to be caught up in our own mindspace.
I can't believe I'm saying this but the concept of non-omnipotent higher beings was explored a lot in the original series of star trek. Especially Star Trek V
What would God need with a star ship?
Written by: FireTom
And even if Jake doesn't like the idea of "morphogenetic fields" there is evidence that evolution happens also through a mere learning and realisation-process, stored in our genes and changing the programming. Or is there (peered) evidence against this theory?
Generaly one considers the total lack of credible evidence to be a bit of a give away...
Written by: FireTom
What's the point?
Just because humans enjoy their shape so much, they cannot believe, that ants (in a given timespan) might be able to develop a "higher intelligence" just alike??? Who say's they couldn't? If ants could share information accurately between themselves they might reach quite impressive computational power as a network. Of course insect brains are inherintly slower due to their layout and biochemistry...but only at the moment. One day we may be working for our insect overlords
Written by: FireTom
Who knows what "god" looks like? Just because we believe to have been made in his image it doesn't mean that he looks human at all... and what would it matter to every days life anyways? We seem to be caught up in our own mindspace.
I can't believe I'm saying this but the concept of non-omnipotent higher beings was explored a lot in the original series of star trek. Especially Star Trek V
What would God need with a star ship?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeleteTheBovrilMonkey
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
![TheBovrilMonkey]()
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys
Written by: Patriarch917
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
One last thing before I bow out of this thread in sheer frustration...
Patriarch, I'd like to know how you interpret those passages that jeff quoted and their teachings.
If they actually mean something other than the literal meaning, please, let us know because from where I'm sitting, I can see know reason to accept some parts of the bible as completely literal but other parts as some strange code that only the believers can fully understand. Especially if it's the parts that are written in the most straightforward ways that are apparently the coded sections.
Please, let us know what leveticus 19:19 means when it says
'Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'
It seems fairly straightforward to me, but obviously I don't have enough faith to read the true message behind it.
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys
Written by: Patriarch917
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
One last thing before I bow out of this thread in sheer frustration...
Patriarch, I'd like to know how you interpret those passages that jeff quoted and their teachings.
If they actually mean something other than the literal meaning, please, let us know because from where I'm sitting, I can see know reason to accept some parts of the bible as completely literal but other parts as some strange code that only the believers can fully understand. Especially if it's the parts that are written in the most straightforward ways that are apparently the coded sections.
Please, let us know what leveticus 19:19 means when it says
'Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'
It seems fairly straightforward to me, but obviously I don't have enough faith to read the true message behind it.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
DeletePatriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: TheBovrilMonkey
Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys
Written by: Patriarch917
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
One last thing before I bow out of this thread in sheer frustration...
Patriarch, I'd like to know how you interpret those passages that jeff quoted and their teachings.
If they actually mean something other than the literal meaning, please, let us know because from where I'm sitting, I can see know reason to accept some parts of the bible as completely literal but other parts as some strange code that only the believers can fully understand. Especially if it's the parts that are written in the most straightforward ways that are apparently the coded sections.
Please, let us know what leveticus 19:19 means when it says
'Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'
It seems fairly straightforward to me, but obviously I don't have enough faith to read the true message behind it.
As I said before (but you apparently missed), nowhere does it say that the penalty for these offenses is stoning. Jeff admitted that he made that part up because he dislikes Moses. I think he also may have meant to say "mules" rather than "donkeys," but I let that one slide.
Furthermore, he has fundamentally misinterpreted the passage regarding seeds. What it means is that you should not sow two kinds of seeds together at the same time, just as you should not weave two different kinds of material together at the same time. It does not forbid crop rotation. His interpretation is like saying the Bible forbids the wearing of wool one year, and the wearing of linen the next.
It is straightforward, and it should be read in a straightforward manner. Inventing additional meanings and penalties for them is disingenuous.
Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys
Written by: Patriarch917
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
One last thing before I bow out of this thread in sheer frustration...
Patriarch, I'd like to know how you interpret those passages that jeff quoted and their teachings.
If they actually mean something other than the literal meaning, please, let us know because from where I'm sitting, I can see know reason to accept some parts of the bible as completely literal but other parts as some strange code that only the believers can fully understand. Especially if it's the parts that are written in the most straightforward ways that are apparently the coded sections.
Please, let us know what leveticus 19:19 means when it says
'Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'
It seems fairly straightforward to me, but obviously I don't have enough faith to read the true message behind it.
As I said before (but you apparently missed), nowhere does it say that the penalty for these offenses is stoning. Jeff admitted that he made that part up because he dislikes Moses. I think he also may have meant to say "mules" rather than "donkeys," but I let that one slide.
Furthermore, he has fundamentally misinterpreted the passage regarding seeds. What it means is that you should not sow two kinds of seeds together at the same time, just as you should not weave two different kinds of material together at the same time. It does not forbid crop rotation. His interpretation is like saying the Bible forbids the wearing of wool one year, and the wearing of linen the next.
It is straightforward, and it should be read in a straightforward manner. Inventing additional meanings and penalties for them is disingenuous.
Delete
jo_rhymes
SILVER Member since Apr 2005
![jo_rhymes]()
Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 4525
SILVER Member since Apr 2005
Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 4525
Posted:why cant you weave two different types of material together? 
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Delete
Posted:Written by: jo_rhymes
why cant you weave two different types of material together?
Because God said so.
If you do it he will smite you.
why cant you weave two different types of material together?
Because God said so.
If you do it he will smite you.
Delete
jo_rhymes
SILVER Member since Apr 2005
![jo_rhymes]()
Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 4525
SILVER Member since Apr 2005
Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 4525
Posted:oh no!! 
But i really wanted to weave corduroy and leather together to make some crazy jumpsuit. Ah well
But i really wanted to weave corduroy and leather together to make some crazy jumpsuit. Ah well
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
DeletePosted:Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion
That is true but by observational physics you can predict what might happen then test to see if your observations match your predictions. Each time you find another way to observe or test and your observations hold true the more sound a theory is.
I would like you to find a way of explaining red shift (the way in which we measure the distance of stars and the thus the speed that they are travelling by the amount of displacement from the wave form of light) this was observed then theorised and then tested it has undergone years of scrutiny and each time a new test or observation has been found they all mach up with the initial principal. So it is now a wide held belief that the galaxies around us are moving away thus the universe is expanding tracking this back we can estimate a time when the universe was all in one space this is how we come up with our current estimates of the age of the universe.
If you can find an explanation, theory or scientific paper that disproves that red shift happens and that the universe is not expanding I would be most impressed.
(Bit of topic sorry)
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
You seem to totally miss understand evolution and are contradicting yourself a lot you say that mutations can happen, you then go on to say that it is not a mutation but a trait already held within the genetic material???
A mutation is a small change in genetic material it could be something so small as a pair of bases was copied incorrectly in tRNA transfer this mistake, lets say an A--T was replaced by a G--C these kinds of mistakes happen all the time in cell replication but more importantly they happen during meiosis (look it up I'm not going into basic biology now) this mistake or mutation will then be passed to every cell in the body and in turn depending which gene it is on passed on to offspring. Now it is what this mutation dose that is important to this discussion, it may do nothing at all in most cases it dose nothing you yourself have many millions of mutations so do I but if this mutation was on one of the genes active in skin cell production and produced a protein that was lets say sensitive to light this light sensitivity could give this animal an advantage in staying alive by avoiding light so stay hydrated for longer as it lived longer that its counterparts it have more chance of reproducing thus passing this light sensitivity on thus we have evolution.
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened
Agvgggghggggggggggggg
You seem to totally miss the point of evolution. A dog cant turn into a cat as they evolved along totally different lines.
If you are talking about injection genetic material into another creature this has been done it is done all the time it is called gene splicing we grow insulin within the genetic code bacteria we have grown new legs on completely different animals like frogs and newts by combining DNA. This is not evolution.
Evolution doesnt happen quickly it is a slow step by step process.
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either
Yes. Yes it has did you not read my quote from earlier
Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor
Written by: Patriarch917
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
will you stop re quoting yourself evolution dose not happen in big steps (oops now I'm doing it) beneficial genetic information is added through mutation but only once in a while is seen as beneficial if the surrounding environment makes it beneficial.
Many human mutations are present every day lets take congenital generalized hypertrichosis (CGH) that is a genetic mutation quite a common one. if our environment were to change (some how) in such a way that to have CGH was in some way beneficial then that genetic trait would become more and more prevalent till every one was hairy all over and would be living happily in their new environment.
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened#
So would evolution as it would disprove everything we have been saying but you have not been listening
Written by: Patriarch917
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were lifted up and the valleys sank down after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
There is one vital floor in your flood explanation well a few actually. firstly if you look at the amount of sedimentation you are talking about to the lowest levels at which we find land living fossils and then take all the known water on the planet (including atmospheric moisture) and mixed the two together which is what would be needed to lay down the sediment in the way you described it would be the consistency of mud there is to much sediment to be held in the amount of water we have.
Also if it was so dramatic as you claim knock down mountains why dont we find animals from in my evolutionary opinion from different time periods in the same layers of sediment why are their no human or rabbit remains lying next to a T-rex and why dont we have more fossils than we do. If it was a flood surly more things would have been fossilized at present we dont find that many fossils as to be fossilized it takes just the right circumstances. And you said earlier thing are not fossilizes today well yes they are. if I fell into a peat bog and by chance was not dug up and burnt I would over many thousands of years be fossilized in to a fossils Tobi, the land then moved along by continental drift may be pushed up into a hill, erosion would ware away the hill and in a few million years ohhhhh look a focalized Tobi hand is poking out of the side of that rock over there. In a layer of rock from the post computerization era.
And finally what happened to all the swimming animals during the flood why did this chap not survive
Non-Https Image Link
and on my understanding only land animals where taken aboard the ark the rest where left to fend for themselves or did it have huge water tanks for the all the whales and stuff.
On a final note how big was the ark and how many animals were taken aboard must have been a big ship and what did they eat. You cant grow sustainable crops on a ship. Did he take all the insects to or are they not animals.
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion
That is true but by observational physics you can predict what might happen then test to see if your observations match your predictions. Each time you find another way to observe or test and your observations hold true the more sound a theory is.
I would like you to find a way of explaining red shift (the way in which we measure the distance of stars and the thus the speed that they are travelling by the amount of displacement from the wave form of light) this was observed then theorised and then tested it has undergone years of scrutiny and each time a new test or observation has been found they all mach up with the initial principal. So it is now a wide held belief that the galaxies around us are moving away thus the universe is expanding tracking this back we can estimate a time when the universe was all in one space this is how we come up with our current estimates of the age of the universe.
If you can find an explanation, theory or scientific paper that disproves that red shift happens and that the universe is not expanding I would be most impressed.
(Bit of topic sorry)
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
You seem to totally miss understand evolution and are contradicting yourself a lot you say that mutations can happen, you then go on to say that it is not a mutation but a trait already held within the genetic material???
A mutation is a small change in genetic material it could be something so small as a pair of bases was copied incorrectly in tRNA transfer this mistake, lets say an A--T was replaced by a G--C these kinds of mistakes happen all the time in cell replication but more importantly they happen during meiosis (look it up I'm not going into basic biology now) this mistake or mutation will then be passed to every cell in the body and in turn depending which gene it is on passed on to offspring. Now it is what this mutation dose that is important to this discussion, it may do nothing at all in most cases it dose nothing you yourself have many millions of mutations so do I but if this mutation was on one of the genes active in skin cell production and produced a protein that was lets say sensitive to light this light sensitivity could give this animal an advantage in staying alive by avoiding light so stay hydrated for longer as it lived longer that its counterparts it have more chance of reproducing thus passing this light sensitivity on thus we have evolution.
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened
Agvgggghggggggggggggg
You seem to totally miss the point of evolution. A dog cant turn into a cat as they evolved along totally different lines.
If you are talking about injection genetic material into another creature this has been done it is done all the time it is called gene splicing we grow insulin within the genetic code bacteria we have grown new legs on completely different animals like frogs and newts by combining DNA. This is not evolution.
Evolution doesnt happen quickly it is a slow step by step process.
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either
Yes. Yes it has did you not read my quote from earlier
Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor
Written by: Patriarch917
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
will you stop re quoting yourself evolution dose not happen in big steps (oops now I'm doing it) beneficial genetic information is added through mutation but only once in a while is seen as beneficial if the surrounding environment makes it beneficial.
Many human mutations are present every day lets take congenital generalized hypertrichosis (CGH) that is a genetic mutation quite a common one. if our environment were to change (some how) in such a way that to have CGH was in some way beneficial then that genetic trait would become more and more prevalent till every one was hairy all over and would be living happily in their new environment.
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened#
So would evolution as it would disprove everything we have been saying but you have not been listening
Written by: Patriarch917
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were lifted up and the valleys sank down after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
There is one vital floor in your flood explanation well a few actually. firstly if you look at the amount of sedimentation you are talking about to the lowest levels at which we find land living fossils and then take all the known water on the planet (including atmospheric moisture) and mixed the two together which is what would be needed to lay down the sediment in the way you described it would be the consistency of mud there is to much sediment to be held in the amount of water we have.
Also if it was so dramatic as you claim knock down mountains why dont we find animals from in my evolutionary opinion from different time periods in the same layers of sediment why are their no human or rabbit remains lying next to a T-rex and why dont we have more fossils than we do. If it was a flood surly more things would have been fossilized at present we dont find that many fossils as to be fossilized it takes just the right circumstances. And you said earlier thing are not fossilizes today well yes they are. if I fell into a peat bog and by chance was not dug up and burnt I would over many thousands of years be fossilized in to a fossils Tobi, the land then moved along by continental drift may be pushed up into a hill, erosion would ware away the hill and in a few million years ohhhhh look a focalized Tobi hand is poking out of the side of that rock over there. In a layer of rock from the post computerization era.
And finally what happened to all the swimming animals during the flood why did this chap not survive
Non-Https Image Link
and on my understanding only land animals where taken aboard the ark the rest where left to fend for themselves or did it have huge water tanks for the all the whales and stuff.
On a final note how big was the ark and how many animals were taken aboard must have been a big ship and what did they eat. You cant grow sustainable crops on a ship. Did he take all the insects to or are they not animals.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Delete
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave
Spiral, you're either missing the point I was trying to make, or arguing for one that I've yet to make any comment on.
I'm totally aware that steady-state theories are not taken that seriously by scientists- I'm very aware that the 'Big-Bang' theory is favoured and I am not arguing against it.
The point I was making was in response to a fundamentalist claim that God could have existed for ever.
Without going into too much detail (it's all covered in the earlier parts of this thread) I'm simply demonstrating why the universe could not have been in existence forever (ie could not have existed for an infinite time-span), using the fact that protons decay in a finite time.
To sum up, far from arguing for any kind of steady-state universe theory, I'm actually doing the opposite.
But my point was that even if proton decay exists it doesn't prove your point, because of the conservation of energy - the form of the energy has changed, but the total energy is the same before and after. The Universe has had the same energy since it started, you can't use particle decay to show that the Universe is finite
Spiral, you're either missing the point I was trying to make, or arguing for one that I've yet to make any comment on.
I'm totally aware that steady-state theories are not taken that seriously by scientists- I'm very aware that the 'Big-Bang' theory is favoured and I am not arguing against it.
The point I was making was in response to a fundamentalist claim that God could have existed for ever.
Without going into too much detail (it's all covered in the earlier parts of this thread) I'm simply demonstrating why the universe could not have been in existence forever (ie could not have existed for an infinite time-span), using the fact that protons decay in a finite time.
To sum up, far from arguing for any kind of steady-state universe theory, I'm actually doing the opposite.
But my point was that even if proton decay exists it doesn't prove your point, because of the conservation of energy - the form of the energy has changed, but the total energy is the same before and after. The Universe has had the same energy since it started, you can't use particle decay to show that the Universe is finite
"Moo," said the happy cow.
DeletePosted:Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
What starting assumption are you talking about? The age of the Universe is built from a long chain of scientific reasoning backed up by observations. In order to deny the end result you've got to be saying that at least one intermediate step is wrong... I'm curious at to which one(s) it is...?
Edited to say, whoops, really should've checked before posting this!
EDITED_BY: spiralx (1138919221)
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
What starting assumption are you talking about? The age of the Universe is built from a long chain of scientific reasoning backed up by observations. In order to deny the end result you've got to be saying that at least one intermediate step is wrong... I'm curious at to which one(s) it is...?
Edited to say, whoops, really should've checked before posting this!
EDITED_BY: spiralx (1138919221)
"Moo," said the happy cow.
DeletePosted:Actually I did mean mules. Funny isn't it...that's the first time in the entire thread Patriarch has been right about something. Personally I think he is literally suffering from a mental illness. I don't mean that in the cutesy 'religion is a mental illness' meaning, but rather something biochemical.
Moses commited murder, ordered genocides and hated gay people. It's a good bet he advacated stoning for the offenses in Leveticus above since he's on a par with Pol Pot or someone of that vein. Jesus was a nice bloke though. A bit big headed perhaps but peaceful, way ahead of his time.
Moses commited murder, ordered genocides and hated gay people. It's a good bet he advacated stoning for the offenses in Leveticus above since he's on a par with Pol Pot or someone of that vein. Jesus was a nice bloke though. A bit big headed perhaps but peaceful, way ahead of his time.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeleteSethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005
![Sethis]()
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
BRONZE Member since May 2005
Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
As I said before (but you apparently missed), nowhere does it say that the penalty for these offenses is stoning. Jeff admitted that he made that part up because he dislikes Moses. I think he also may have meant to say "mules" rather than "donkeys," but I let that one slide.
How magnanimous of you.
You're missing the point. It's not what the passage specifically means, but the fact that the Bible says some very stupid and frequently contradictory things. Your insistence on quibbling over the semantic translation of the passages is simply indicative of the refusal to address the actual point that most of the people in this thread have been railing about.
As I said before (but you apparently missed), nowhere does it say that the penalty for these offenses is stoning. Jeff admitted that he made that part up because he dislikes Moses. I think he also may have meant to say "mules" rather than "donkeys," but I let that one slide.
How magnanimous of you.
You're missing the point. It's not what the passage specifically means, but the fact that the Bible says some very stupid and frequently contradictory things. Your insistence on quibbling over the semantic translation of the passages is simply indicative of the refusal to address the actual point that most of the people in this thread have been railing about.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:Written by: spiralx
Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
What starting assumption are you talking about? The age of the Universe is built from a long chain of scientific reasoning backed up by observations. In order to deny the end result you've got to be saying that at least one intermediate step is wrong... I'm curious at to which one(s) it is...?
Like how we can see the Andromeda galaxy? Or did God tinker with the speed of light just to confound astronomers?
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originaly (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the begining of the experiment.
Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
What starting assumption are you talking about? The age of the Universe is built from a long chain of scientific reasoning backed up by observations. In order to deny the end result you've got to be saying that at least one intermediate step is wrong... I'm curious at to which one(s) it is...?
Like how we can see the Andromeda galaxy? Or did God tinker with the speed of light just to confound astronomers?
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originaly (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the begining of the experiment.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:spiralx
I dont understand your post you seem to have just quoted the hole of Patriarch917s post from earlier which I have answered could you clear this up thanks.
I dont understand your post you seem to have just quoted the hole of Patriarch917s post from earlier which I have answered could you clear this up thanks.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeleteTheBovrilMonkey
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
![TheBovrilMonkey]()
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Actually, the punishment for breaking those laws is that the land will vomit you out.
Quite what that means I'm not sure, but I'm sure I'd have heard of it happening by now, there are plenty of people who mix fabrics in their clothes, so there should be a lot of land vomitting going on.
Ok, different examples from the same book:
Written by: Leveticus 20, chapters 9 and 10
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wifewith the wife of his neighborboth the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Patriarch, are you advocating that people be put to death for cursing their parents or cheating, or would you instead say that not everything in the bible should be taken literally?
Quite what that means I'm not sure, but I'm sure I'd have heard of it happening by now, there are plenty of people who mix fabrics in their clothes, so there should be a lot of land vomitting going on.
Ok, different examples from the same book:
Written by: Leveticus 20, chapters 9 and 10
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wifewith the wife of his neighborboth the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Patriarch, are you advocating that people be put to death for cursing their parents or cheating, or would you instead say that not everything in the bible should be taken literally?
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
DeletePosted:Written by: jeff(fake)
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originaly (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the begining of the experiment.
Well put Jeff
even if it is encoded into there genetic makeup some form of mutation must have to occur to activate that gene ergo evolution
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originaly (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the begining of the experiment.
Well put Jeff
even if it is encoded into there genetic makeup some form of mutation must have to occur to activate that gene ergo evolution
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeletePosted:And how clearly has it to be put that humans de facto undergo an evolutionary process - right now!... they are the same kind, yet they adapt(ed) to their environment - like turning their skin into a different colour, which stays as is for a few generations...
But just because there are some stupid posts in the Bible, it doesn't affect the rest of the thread We also have to take the time into account, where it originates from etc.
If a "critical mass" is reached, evolution might happen like a landslide, which would also explain why there wasn't much of a culture present for a few millenia and just within a few generations it almost exploded. At this time not many humans existed (compared) and information/ knowledge travelled (by trade routes) rather quickly from one end of the known world to the other. About cultures before the Egyptians not much is known, yet lots of records have been destroyed in the big Alexandrian blaze.
Also the fact that this universe is still expanding doesn't really disprove the said theory. Not just because it'd be a matter of age, we might have to accept that certain things actually DO change. And in the theory there is also room for scientists to believe that certain (physical) laws remain the same after the bounce.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138905318)
But just because there are some stupid posts in the Bible, it doesn't affect the rest of the thread
We also have to take the time into account, where it originates from etc.If a "critical mass" is reached, evolution might happen like a landslide, which would also explain why there wasn't much of a culture present for a few millenia and just within a few generations it almost exploded. At this time not many humans existed (compared) and information/ knowledge travelled (by trade routes) rather quickly from one end of the known world to the other. About cultures before the Egyptians not much is known, yet lots of records have been destroyed in the big Alexandrian blaze.
Also the fact that this universe is still expanding doesn't really disprove the said theory. Not just because it'd be a matter of age, we might have to accept that certain things actually DO change. And in the theory there is also room for scientists to believe that certain (physical) laws remain the same after the bounce.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138905318)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Written by: FireTom
where it originates from etc.
hu!!! Where what originates from??
What do you mean by "critical mass"
Written by: FireTom
Also the fact that this universe is still expanding doesn't really disprove the said theory
which said theory? there are so many even just in this thread
sorry for grumbling but it would be a bit more helpful if you expand on your post so a full understanding of what you are trying to say is put across.
Expanding on what you believe and a bit of explanation behind this would be good thanks
Written by: FireTom
we might have to accept that certain things actually DO change
In what sense do you mean do you mean that laws of physics change environmental change genetic change or do you just mean everything????
Thanks
EDITED_BY: Mint Sauce (1138908456)
where it originates from etc.
hu!!! Where what originates from??
What do you mean by "critical mass"
Written by: FireTom
Also the fact that this universe is still expanding doesn't really disprove the said theory
which said theory? there are so many even just in this thread
sorry for grumbling but it would be a bit more helpful if you expand on your post so a full understanding of what you are trying to say is put across.
Expanding on what you believe and a bit of explanation behind this would be good thanks
Written by: FireTom
we might have to accept that certain things actually DO change
In what sense do you mean do you mean that laws of physics change environmental change genetic change or do you just mean everything????
Thanks
EDITED_BY: Mint Sauce (1138908456)
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeletePatriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion
That is true but by observational physics you can predict what might happen then test to see if your observations match your predictions. Each time you find another way to observe or test and your observations hold true the more sound a theory is.
I would like you to find a way of explaining red shift (the way in which we measure the distance of stars and the thus the speed that they are travelling by the amount of displacement from the wave form of light) this was observed then theorised and then tested it has undergone years of scrutiny and each time a new test or observation has been found they all mach up with the initial principal. So it is now a wide held belief that the galaxies around us are moving away thus the universe is expanding tracking this back we can estimate a time when the universe was all in one space this is how we come up with our current estimates of the age of the universe.
If you can find an explanation, theory or scientific paper that disproves that red shift happens and that the universe is not expanding I would be most impressed.
(Bit of topic sorry)
I do not deny red shift, nor that the stars are all hurtling away from us. My first question to you is, do you accept the contention of the theory of relativity (that has been experimentally verified) that time is not a constant, but is distorted by both speed and gravity? My second question is whether you will consider the theory that the universe does not have an infinite size or mass.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
You seem to totally miss understand evolution and are contradicting yourself a lot you say that mutations can happen, you then go on to say that it is not a mutation but a trait already held within the genetic material???
I have not contradicted myself at all in this matter. I maintain that Docs experiment, by his own admission, merely brought out an existing characteristic. There was no addition of new information. It is as if I were to kill everyone on earth who did not have red hair, then let the redheads repopulate the earth. This is not an addition of new information, its just a rearranging of existing traits within a population.
Natural selection is a well proved observable fact. The idea that a chance mutation can add new beneficial information is a theory that has never been observed. Yes, it is true that we have observed a beneficial loss of information (wolves to poodles), and we have intelligently designed organisms with features different from their parents, but a chance beneficial addition of information still exists only in theory.
Even if one were to be observed, this would neither disprove creationism nor prove evolution, so I dont really feel obliged to spend a lot of time on the issue. However, I do want to correct the misunderstanding about what I said.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened
Agvgggghggggggggggggg
You seem to totally miss the point of evolution. A dog cant turn into a cat as they evolved along totally different lines.
Evolution doesnt happen quickly it is a slow step by step process.
Not if were talking about bat wings.
I didnt say that example had anything to do with evolution. I said it would disprove creation. Your frustration is misplaced.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either
Yes. Yes it has
I deleted your quote, since it says nothing about a series of transitional forms. This issue has been discussed in detail between me and jeff(fake) earlier.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
will you stop re quoting yourself evolution dose not happen in big steps (oops now I'm doing it) beneficial genetic information is added through mutation but only once in a while is seen as beneficial if the surrounding environment makes it beneficial.
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. Im not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened#
So would evolution as it would disprove everything we have been saying but you have not been listening
Yes, and if we were to ever observe the random evolution of one kind of animal into another this would disprove creation. But this has not yet been observed.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were lifted up and the valleys sank down after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
There is one vital floor in your flood explanation well a few actually. firstly if you look at the amount of sedimentation you are talking about to the lowest levels at which we find land living fossils and then take all the known water on the planet (including atmospheric moisture) and mixed the two together which is what would be needed to lay down the sediment in the way you described it would be the consistency of mud there is to much sediment to be held in the amount of water we have.
Im not sure where your getting your data, Id like to take a look at it. It is an objective fact that that if you were to level off the land, there is enough water currently to cover the earth to a depth of about 1.7 miles. Are you suggesting that this is not true?
Written by: Mint Sauce
Also if it was so dramatic as you claim knock down mountains why dont we find animals from in my evolutionary opinion from different time periods in the same layers of sediment why are their no human or rabbit remains lying next to a T-rex and why dont we have more fossils than we do. If it was a flood surly more things would have been fossilized at present we dont find that many fossils as to be fossilized it takes just the right circumstances. And you said earlier thing are not fossilizes today well yes they are. if I fell into a peat bog and by chance was not dug up and burnt I would over many thousands of years be fossilized in to a fossils Tobi, the land then moved along by continental drift may be pushed up into a hill, erosion would ware away the hill and in a few million years ohhhhh look a focalized Tobi hand is poking out of the side of that rock over there. In a layer of rock from the post computerization era.
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in its stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution?
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/belly_beast_050112.html
br>
It was found in a mixture of sediments laid down by water, and volcanic ash. "The formation also includes the fossils of insects, frogs and other creatures, suggesting a mass die-off."
The article quotes a scientist who says:
"It's possible that poisonous volcanic gas killed the animals when they were sleeping, then there was a catastrophic explosion that buried the whole thing."
Perhaps... or perhaps the catastrophe that buried them was the flood.
Furthermore, I did not say anything resembling earlier thing are not fossilizes today as you claim. It was I that pointed out the fossilized hat, ham, and waterwheel. While were on the subject of misquotes, I didnt say whatever it was that provoked the discussion on proton decay, either. That was an innocent screw-up of the quote function.
Written by: Mint Sauce
And finally what happened to all the swimming animals during the flood
and on my understanding only land animals where taken aboard the ark the rest where left to fend for themselves or did it have huge water tanks for the all the whales and stuff.
On a final note how big was the ark and how many animals were taken aboard must have been a big ship and what did they eat. You cant grow sustainable crops on a ship. Did he take all the insects to or are they not animals.
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars. About 500 feet long, 75 feet wide, 50 feet tall, with three stories.
The feasibility of the ark has been well established for many years. Heres a good, non-technical summary. For an in depth study, there is a book referenced in the article.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion
That is true but by observational physics you can predict what might happen then test to see if your observations match your predictions. Each time you find another way to observe or test and your observations hold true the more sound a theory is.
I would like you to find a way of explaining red shift (the way in which we measure the distance of stars and the thus the speed that they are travelling by the amount of displacement from the wave form of light) this was observed then theorised and then tested it has undergone years of scrutiny and each time a new test or observation has been found they all mach up with the initial principal. So it is now a wide held belief that the galaxies around us are moving away thus the universe is expanding tracking this back we can estimate a time when the universe was all in one space this is how we come up with our current estimates of the age of the universe.
If you can find an explanation, theory or scientific paper that disproves that red shift happens and that the universe is not expanding I would be most impressed.
(Bit of topic sorry)
I do not deny red shift, nor that the stars are all hurtling away from us. My first question to you is, do you accept the contention of the theory of relativity (that has been experimentally verified) that time is not a constant, but is distorted by both speed and gravity? My second question is whether you will consider the theory that the universe does not have an infinite size or mass.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
You seem to totally miss understand evolution and are contradicting yourself a lot you say that mutations can happen, you then go on to say that it is not a mutation but a trait already held within the genetic material???
I have not contradicted myself at all in this matter. I maintain that Docs experiment, by his own admission, merely brought out an existing characteristic. There was no addition of new information. It is as if I were to kill everyone on earth who did not have red hair, then let the redheads repopulate the earth. This is not an addition of new information, its just a rearranging of existing traits within a population.
Natural selection is a well proved observable fact. The idea that a chance mutation can add new beneficial information is a theory that has never been observed. Yes, it is true that we have observed a beneficial loss of information (wolves to poodles), and we have intelligently designed organisms with features different from their parents, but a chance beneficial addition of information still exists only in theory.
Even if one were to be observed, this would neither disprove creationism nor prove evolution, so I dont really feel obliged to spend a lot of time on the issue. However, I do want to correct the misunderstanding about what I said.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened
Agvgggghggggggggggggg
You seem to totally miss the point of evolution. A dog cant turn into a cat as they evolved along totally different lines.
Evolution doesnt happen quickly it is a slow step by step process.
Not if were talking about bat wings.
I didnt say that example had anything to do with evolution. I said it would disprove creation. Your frustration is misplaced.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either
Yes. Yes it has
I deleted your quote, since it says nothing about a series of transitional forms. This issue has been discussed in detail between me and jeff(fake) earlier.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
will you stop re quoting yourself evolution dose not happen in big steps (oops now I'm doing it) beneficial genetic information is added through mutation but only once in a while is seen as beneficial if the surrounding environment makes it beneficial.
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. Im not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened#
So would evolution as it would disprove everything we have been saying but you have not been listening
Yes, and if we were to ever observe the random evolution of one kind of animal into another this would disprove creation. But this has not yet been observed.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were lifted up and the valleys sank down after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
There is one vital floor in your flood explanation well a few actually. firstly if you look at the amount of sedimentation you are talking about to the lowest levels at which we find land living fossils and then take all the known water on the planet (including atmospheric moisture) and mixed the two together which is what would be needed to lay down the sediment in the way you described it would be the consistency of mud there is to much sediment to be held in the amount of water we have.
Im not sure where your getting your data, Id like to take a look at it. It is an objective fact that that if you were to level off the land, there is enough water currently to cover the earth to a depth of about 1.7 miles. Are you suggesting that this is not true?
Written by: Mint Sauce
Also if it was so dramatic as you claim knock down mountains why dont we find animals from in my evolutionary opinion from different time periods in the same layers of sediment why are their no human or rabbit remains lying next to a T-rex and why dont we have more fossils than we do. If it was a flood surly more things would have been fossilized at present we dont find that many fossils as to be fossilized it takes just the right circumstances. And you said earlier thing are not fossilizes today well yes they are. if I fell into a peat bog and by chance was not dug up and burnt I would over many thousands of years be fossilized in to a fossils Tobi, the land then moved along by continental drift may be pushed up into a hill, erosion would ware away the hill and in a few million years ohhhhh look a focalized Tobi hand is poking out of the side of that rock over there. In a layer of rock from the post computerization era.
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in its stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution?
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/belly_beast_050112.html
br>
It was found in a mixture of sediments laid down by water, and volcanic ash. "The formation also includes the fossils of insects, frogs and other creatures, suggesting a mass die-off."
The article quotes a scientist who says:
"It's possible that poisonous volcanic gas killed the animals when they were sleeping, then there was a catastrophic explosion that buried the whole thing."
Perhaps... or perhaps the catastrophe that buried them was the flood.
Furthermore, I did not say anything resembling earlier thing are not fossilizes today as you claim. It was I that pointed out the fossilized hat, ham, and waterwheel. While were on the subject of misquotes, I didnt say whatever it was that provoked the discussion on proton decay, either. That was an innocent screw-up of the quote function.
Written by: Mint Sauce
And finally what happened to all the swimming animals during the flood
and on my understanding only land animals where taken aboard the ark the rest where left to fend for themselves or did it have huge water tanks for the all the whales and stuff.
On a final note how big was the ark and how many animals were taken aboard must have been a big ship and what did they eat. You cant grow sustainable crops on a ship. Did he take all the insects to or are they not animals.
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars. About 500 feet long, 75 feet wide, 50 feet tall, with three stories.
The feasibility of the ark has been well established for many years. Heres a good, non-technical summary. For an in depth study, there is a book referenced in the article.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
Delete
Posted:Written by: Mint Sauce
spiralx
I dont understand your post you seem to have just quoted the hole of Patriarch917s post from earlier which I have answered could you clear this up thanks.
Doh, sorted!
spiralx
I dont understand your post you seem to have just quoted the hole of Patriarch917s post from earlier which I have answered could you clear this up thanks.
Doh, sorted!
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Delete
Posted:Erm..
"Genesis 7:23:
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens'"
Had pigs been deemed "unclean" animals at that time?
"Genesis 7:23:
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens'"
Had pigs been deemed "unclean" animals at that time?
Delete
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
I do not deny red shift, nor that the stars are all hurtling away from us. My first question to you is, do you accept the contention of the theory of relativity (that has been experimentally verified) that time is not a constant, but is distorted by both speed and gravity? My second question is whether you will consider the theory that the universe does not have an infinite size or mass.
I accept that as true apart from the bit about gravity, gravity is non existent the attraction between objects is due to the curvature of space time around mass. As explained by the special theory of relativity.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
I shall refer to a post made by Jeff then added to by me
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: jeff(fake)
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originally (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the beginning of the experiment.
even if it is encoded into there genetic makeup some form of mutation must have to occur to activate that gene ergo evolution
Written by: Patriarch917
Not if were talking about bat wings
Bovril put up a link for the bat wing argument
Written by: TheBovrilMonkey
Why is it so hard to think that bat wings did indeed spring up like that?
If, as that article suggests, the wings were only controlled by a single gene, it'd be relatively easy for the wings to appear, it only takes one random mutation.
It's already been proved in labs that the theory of random mutation causing new characteristics works (I've seen this in person, so don't try to pass this off as unproven), why should it only apply to microbes when the basic mechanics are pretty much the same for all creatures?
the wings were only controlled by a single gene so a small mistake in copying that gene during meiosis and bingo a wing of sorts. That would then be passed on to decedents.
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either
I deleted your quote, since it says nothing about a series of transitional forms. This issue has been discussed in detail between me and Jeff(fake) earlier
some fossil records shows exactly that. Each transitional stage of evolution in the correct layer of sediment (of predicted time record) they would not be found in the same place as thousands of years elapse between each evolutionary step
In fact, we see many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9htfGc4m.J...nsp23150_lg.jpg
br>
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyj9ynuJ...cts/whalevo.jpg
br>
what we dont see is any fossils in the wrong place if we did it would blow evolution out of the water (so to speak)
Written by: Patriarch917
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in its stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution
that is why I used specific examples of human or rabbit as neither had evolved when dinosaurs were around the mammal found in your article is a 130 million year old mammal that evolved alongside dinosaurs
what I was saying is why dont you find fossils from different time periods together in the same sediment layer as would be found in a flood.
Written by: Live Science
It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.
this has and never will be part of evolution theory it is school yard science. It is a very unscientific article.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. Im not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
what you seem to be saying is that mutations dont happen I shall refer to my previous post and to what Jeff and I said earlier
A mutation is a small change in genetic material it could be something so small as a pair of bases was copied incorrectly in tRNA transfer this mistake, lets say an A--T was replaced by a G--C these kinds of mistakes happen all the time in cell replication but more importantly they happen during meiosis (look it up I'm not going into basic biology now) this mistake or mutation will then be passed to every cell in the body and in turn depending which gene it is on passed on to offspring. Now it is what this mutation dose that is important to this discussion, it may do nothing at all in most cases it dose nothing you yourself have many millions of mutations so do I but if this mutation was on one of the genes active in skin cell production and produced a protein that was lets say sensitive to light this light sensitivity could give this animal an advantage in staying alive by avoiding light so stay hydrated for longer as it lived longer that its counterparts it have more chance of reproducing thus passing this light sensitivity on thus we have evolution.
Ok I have no example to hand of this happening in large animals or plants but mutation does happen all the time
You seem to be deifying basic logic if you say that all of these mutations will be unbeneficial.
Written by: Patriarch917
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
so what happened to the animals that did live in the sea but did not survive
Written by: Patriarch917
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars
not very big then and that article makes some pretty big ASSUMPTIONS none of witch have any prove to back them up
Any way I'm not getting into bible stuff this is evolution v ID may be another time or thread
I do not deny red shift, nor that the stars are all hurtling away from us. My first question to you is, do you accept the contention of the theory of relativity (that has been experimentally verified) that time is not a constant, but is distorted by both speed and gravity? My second question is whether you will consider the theory that the universe does not have an infinite size or mass.
I accept that as true apart from the bit about gravity, gravity is non existent the attraction between objects is due to the curvature of space time around mass. As explained by the special theory of relativity.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
I shall refer to a post made by Jeff then added to by me
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: jeff(fake)
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originally (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the beginning of the experiment.
even if it is encoded into there genetic makeup some form of mutation must have to occur to activate that gene ergo evolution
Written by: Patriarch917
Not if were talking about bat wings
Bovril put up a link for the bat wing argument
Written by: TheBovrilMonkey
Why is it so hard to think that bat wings did indeed spring up like that?
If, as that article suggests, the wings were only controlled by a single gene, it'd be relatively easy for the wings to appear, it only takes one random mutation.
It's already been proved in labs that the theory of random mutation causing new characteristics works (I've seen this in person, so don't try to pass this off as unproven), why should it only apply to microbes when the basic mechanics are pretty much the same for all creatures?
the wings were only controlled by a single gene so a small mistake in copying that gene during meiosis and bingo a wing of sorts. That would then be passed on to decedents.
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either
I deleted your quote, since it says nothing about a series of transitional forms. This issue has been discussed in detail between me and Jeff(fake) earlier
some fossil records shows exactly that. Each transitional stage of evolution in the correct layer of sediment (of predicted time record) they would not be found in the same place as thousands of years elapse between each evolutionary step
In fact, we see many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9htfGc4m.J...nsp23150_lg.jpg
br>
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyj9ynuJ...cts/whalevo.jpg
br>
what we dont see is any fossils in the wrong place if we did it would blow evolution out of the water (so to speak)
Written by: Patriarch917
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in its stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution
that is why I used specific examples of human or rabbit as neither had evolved when dinosaurs were around the mammal found in your article is a 130 million year old mammal that evolved alongside dinosaurs
what I was saying is why dont you find fossils from different time periods together in the same sediment layer as would be found in a flood.
Written by: Live Science
It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.
this has and never will be part of evolution theory it is school yard science. It is a very unscientific article.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. Im not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
what you seem to be saying is that mutations dont happen I shall refer to my previous post and to what Jeff and I said earlier
A mutation is a small change in genetic material it could be something so small as a pair of bases was copied incorrectly in tRNA transfer this mistake, lets say an A--T was replaced by a G--C these kinds of mistakes happen all the time in cell replication but more importantly they happen during meiosis (look it up I'm not going into basic biology now) this mistake or mutation will then be passed to every cell in the body and in turn depending which gene it is on passed on to offspring. Now it is what this mutation dose that is important to this discussion, it may do nothing at all in most cases it dose nothing you yourself have many millions of mutations so do I but if this mutation was on one of the genes active in skin cell production and produced a protein that was lets say sensitive to light this light sensitivity could give this animal an advantage in staying alive by avoiding light so stay hydrated for longer as it lived longer that its counterparts it have more chance of reproducing thus passing this light sensitivity on thus we have evolution.
Ok I have no example to hand of this happening in large animals or plants but mutation does happen all the time
You seem to be deifying basic logic if you say that all of these mutations will be unbeneficial.
Written by: Patriarch917
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
so what happened to the animals that did live in the sea but did not survive
Written by: Patriarch917
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars
not very big then and that article makes some pretty big ASSUMPTIONS none of witch have any prove to back them up
Any way I'm not getting into bible stuff this is evolution v ID may be another time or thread
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeletePatriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility
Erm..
"Genesis 7:23:
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens'"
Had pigs been deemed "unclean" animals at that time?
Apparently so, although this could have been merely a convenience for the reader (who would have received the list of clean and unclean animals along with this passage. We know that sacrifices and Sabbath existed before the flood. It is likely that, having a much closer relationship with God, the pre-flood civilization would have known many of the things that would again be taught from Mt Sinai.
Erm..
"Genesis 7:23:
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens'"
Had pigs been deemed "unclean" animals at that time?
Apparently so, although this could have been merely a convenience for the reader (who would have received the list of clean and unclean animals along with this passage. We know that sacrifices and Sabbath existed before the flood. It is likely that, having a much closer relationship with God, the pre-flood civilization would have known many of the things that would again be taught from Mt Sinai.
Delete
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: Mint Sauce
Bovril put up a link for the bat wing argument
the wings were only controlled by a single gene so a small mistake in copying that gene during meiosis and bingo a wing of sorts. That would then be passed on to decedents.
Yes, the article vindicated what I had been saying. Bat wings could not have evolved slowly over many transitional forms. They had to spring up immediately (bingo, as you put it). However, the wings were not controlled by a single gene. A protein that has something to do with the structure of the fingers is controlled by a single gene.
Written by: Mint Sauce
some fossil records shows exactly that. Each transitional stage of evolution in the correct layer of sediment (of predicted time record) they would not be found in the same place as thousands of years elapse between each evolutionary step
In fact, we see many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9htfGc4m.J...nsp23150_lg.jpg
br>
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyj9ynuJ...cts/whalevo.jpg
br>
what we dont see is any fossils in the wrong place if we did it would blow evolution out of the water (so to speak)
The fossil record does not arrange these in order of complexity. Textbook illustrations are the only place where these forms are found in this correct order.
You interpret the illustration that includes the whales as somehow indicating descent. It is true, the top two look remarkably similar and probably came from a common ancestor. However, the bottom two are quite different, and could easily be interpreted as two different types of animals.
Im not even sure what the fish illustration was supposed to mean, since it seemed to be emphasizing how radically different their front fins were. Are you sure this is even trying to imply that these were transitional forms?
Finding fossils in the wrong place has happened, as my link showed.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in its stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution
that is why I used specific examples of human or rabbit as neither had evolved when dinosaurs were around the mammal found in your article is a 130 million year old mammal that evolved alongside dinosaurs
what I was saying is why dont you find fossils from different time periods together in the same sediment layer as would be found in a flood.
Written by: Live Science
It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.
this has and never will be part of evolution theory it is school yard science. It is a very unscientific article.
The article is from a reputable, very pro-evolution web site. I think it is better qualified than you to say what conventional evolutionary theory was. I can personally vouch for them, as I was taught that theory in school. The simple fact is that this particular theory about world history was proved to be wrong. There is no shame in an aspect of a theory being proved wrong, and you dont have to claim that the theory never existed to try to get out of it.
Finding fossils from different time periods requires us to first assume which ones belong in which time period. It was once thought that finding a mammal like this living with (and eating) a dinosaur was impossible because they were from the wrong time period. Now that they have been found, the correct time period has changed. I have no doubt that if a rabbit were found in the stomach of a dinosaur, the correct time periods would be adjusted again.
In a flood, you would expect to find animals distributed in the sediments based on where they lived, how mobile they were, and their size. Bottom dwelling ocean creatures would be covered first, people who could cling to logs would probably not be found, since they would float and rot.
The fact that the search for transitional forms has resulted in only a handful of disputed examples does not shake the faith of evolutionists. The fact that the search for animals from the wrong time periods has resulted in only a handful of (somewhat) disputed examples does not shake the faith of creationists.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. Im not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
what you seem to be saying is that mutations dont happen [explanation of what a mutation is deleted]
Ok I have no example to hand of this happening in large animals or plants but mutation does happen all the time
You seem to be deifying basic logic if you say that all of these mutations will be unbeneficial.
I do not dispute that mutations occur. What I dispute is that a random mutation has ever been observed to add beneficial genetic information. You can dance around it all you want, its never been observed. I understand that you believe it must have happened billions of times in the past, and that this is a suitable explanation for life.
We agree on what is observed. We do not agree on theoretical historical happenings. I think the theory defies probability, and you probably agree. However, if we start with an assumption that there is no God, we must have faith that time and chance can explain all that there is.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
so what happened to the animals that did live in the sea but did not survive
They were either fossilized, eaten by scavengers, or rotted away. Perhaps some were abducted by aliens, but I doubt it
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars
not very big then and that article makes some pretty big ASSUMPTIONS none of witch have any prove to back them up
Any way I'm not getting into bible stuff this is evolution v ID may be another time or thread
The article doesnt claim to prove what happened, it merely shows that it was feasible.
Bovril put up a link for the bat wing argument
the wings were only controlled by a single gene so a small mistake in copying that gene during meiosis and bingo a wing of sorts. That would then be passed on to decedents.
Yes, the article vindicated what I had been saying. Bat wings could not have evolved slowly over many transitional forms. They had to spring up immediately (bingo, as you put it). However, the wings were not controlled by a single gene. A protein that has something to do with the structure of the fingers is controlled by a single gene.
Written by: Mint Sauce
some fossil records shows exactly that. Each transitional stage of evolution in the correct layer of sediment (of predicted time record) they would not be found in the same place as thousands of years elapse between each evolutionary step
In fact, we see many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9htfGc4m.J...nsp23150_lg.jpg
br>
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyj9ynuJ...cts/whalevo.jpg
br>
what we dont see is any fossils in the wrong place if we did it would blow evolution out of the water (so to speak)
The fossil record does not arrange these in order of complexity. Textbook illustrations are the only place where these forms are found in this correct order.
You interpret the illustration that includes the whales as somehow indicating descent. It is true, the top two look remarkably similar and probably came from a common ancestor. However, the bottom two are quite different, and could easily be interpreted as two different types of animals.
Im not even sure what the fish illustration was supposed to mean, since it seemed to be emphasizing how radically different their front fins were. Are you sure this is even trying to imply that these were transitional forms?
Finding fossils in the wrong place has happened, as my link showed.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in its stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution
that is why I used specific examples of human or rabbit as neither had evolved when dinosaurs were around the mammal found in your article is a 130 million year old mammal that evolved alongside dinosaurs
what I was saying is why dont you find fossils from different time periods together in the same sediment layer as would be found in a flood.
Written by: Live Science
It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.
this has and never will be part of evolution theory it is school yard science. It is a very unscientific article.
The article is from a reputable, very pro-evolution web site. I think it is better qualified than you to say what conventional evolutionary theory was. I can personally vouch for them, as I was taught that theory in school. The simple fact is that this particular theory about world history was proved to be wrong. There is no shame in an aspect of a theory being proved wrong, and you dont have to claim that the theory never existed to try to get out of it.
Finding fossils from different time periods requires us to first assume which ones belong in which time period. It was once thought that finding a mammal like this living with (and eating) a dinosaur was impossible because they were from the wrong time period. Now that they have been found, the correct time period has changed. I have no doubt that if a rabbit were found in the stomach of a dinosaur, the correct time periods would be adjusted again.
In a flood, you would expect to find animals distributed in the sediments based on where they lived, how mobile they were, and their size. Bottom dwelling ocean creatures would be covered first, people who could cling to logs would probably not be found, since they would float and rot.
The fact that the search for transitional forms has resulted in only a handful of disputed examples does not shake the faith of evolutionists. The fact that the search for animals from the wrong time periods has resulted in only a handful of (somewhat) disputed examples does not shake the faith of creationists.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. Im not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
what you seem to be saying is that mutations dont happen [explanation of what a mutation is deleted]
Ok I have no example to hand of this happening in large animals or plants but mutation does happen all the time
You seem to be deifying basic logic if you say that all of these mutations will be unbeneficial.
I do not dispute that mutations occur. What I dispute is that a random mutation has ever been observed to add beneficial genetic information. You can dance around it all you want, its never been observed. I understand that you believe it must have happened billions of times in the past, and that this is a suitable explanation for life.
We agree on what is observed. We do not agree on theoretical historical happenings. I think the theory defies probability, and you probably agree. However, if we start with an assumption that there is no God, we must have faith that time and chance can explain all that there is.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
so what happened to the animals that did live in the sea but did not survive
They were either fossilized, eaten by scavengers, or rotted away. Perhaps some were abducted by aliens, but I doubt it
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars
not very big then and that article makes some pretty big ASSUMPTIONS none of witch have any prove to back them up
Any way I'm not getting into bible stuff this is evolution v ID may be another time or thread
The article doesnt claim to prove what happened, it merely shows that it was feasible.
Delete
Posted:Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility
Patriarch: What would it take, or what proof would you require that showed beyond all possible doubt that evolution does happen and will continue to happen, and it was, has and never will be God that is designing everything?
If that is the case....
So....umm...what proof for the existance of evolution would you not be able to argue with?
Patriarch: What would it take, or what proof would you require that showed beyond all possible doubt that evolution does happen and will continue to happen, and it was, has and never will be God that is designing everything?
If that is the case....
So....umm...what proof for the existance of evolution would you not be able to argue with?
Delete
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.