jcd11235 0 #476 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote I believe that the Earth is the only sphere amongst the millions or billions out there that sustains any form of life. Watch this A pretty high res version of the HUDF can be found here (I strongly recommend taking an hour or so to look through the archives of that site - it's truly humbling) and a cool Q and A about the image can be found here. Some of the facts that jump out - 10,000 galaxies in a patch of sky that appears smaller than a large crater on the moon, light from the faintest objects reached the telescope at a rate of less than 1 photon per minute, and the image took 11.3 days of exposure time to build up. And one more thing you need to look at it to find out - it is amazingly beautiful Another thing to remember is that a telescope is a time machine. The farther out we look, the farther back we see.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #477 November 24, 2006 QuoteWatch this "Eight planets orbit our sun. (We'll miss you Pluto.)" Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #478 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteKallend & Billvon what is your view on this ? really interested ".............half-baked and silly disproofs that are based on deliberate misrepresentations ........." macro-evolution cannot have taken place...i have tried to believe the evolution thing cause it does not completely rule out a creative designer that i refer to as God , but the theory lacks to much proof and there are to many "theories" about evolution that is not logical .. as time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #479 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteKallend & Billvon what is your view on this ? really interested ".............half-baked and silly disproofs that are based on deliberate misrepresentations ........." macro-evolution cannot have taken place...i have tried to believe the evolution thing cause it does not completely rule out a creative designer that i refer to as God , but the theory lacks to much proof and there are to many "theories" about evolution that is not logical .. as time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread There is no macro evolution and micro evolution, only evolution. Scientists overwhelmingly support the theory because it is consistent with observation and fossil records. Please offer one bit of credible evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural entity commonly referred to as a God. Why do you hold science to such an impossible standard, by comparison? That appears to be a strictly emotional, without any basis in logic.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #480 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKallend & Billvon what is your view on this ? really interested ".............half-baked and silly disproofs that are based on deliberate misrepresentations ........." macro-evolution cannot have taken place...i have tried to believe the evolution thing cause it does not completely rule out a creative designer that i refer to as God , but the theory lacks to much proof and there are to many "theories" about evolution that is not logical .. as time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread There is no macro evolution and micro evolution, only evolution. Scientists overwhelmingly support the theory because it is consistent with observation and fossil records. This is not the case and there is no proof to support this theory only theory to supprt the proof Please offer one bit of credible evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural entity commonly referred to as a God. Why do you hold science to such an impossible standard, by comparison? That appears to be a strictly emotional, without any basis in logic. Not emotional but personal - I would do away with anything i believe if enough proof according to me is supplied.This has not happened... i have not been in a church or anything similair for the last 5 years and i'm not trying to push religion onto anyone and i believe i have kept an open mind about it all ..... .....still the macro-evolution theory (i'm not gonna explain that again) has faded away leaving a foul stench and although i considered and investigated it when going through a troublesome time in my life i now know that allot of people will believe that crap and suffer . There is still alot to learn and discover and i believe we will all keep an eye on it anyway , but i don't think science will complete and prove the macro-evolution theory .. some more conflicting sites but interesting reads yet again : http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1096 .....and then who has similair qualifications to Anthony Flew ? http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/09/210618.php why would someone like that u know... makes ya think ? ... no ? ... ok If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #481 November 24, 2006 Now this is evolution !! - this was really a unbelievable theory - until proven !! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #482 November 24, 2006 QuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #483 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none. Ag nee regtig hoor ! OK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts in order for it to function. This is particularly true with regards to the workings of DNA and its replication enzymes and protein-creation mechanisms. All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. Thus, it is precisely because evolution cannot produce complex features "all at once", that evolution fails as an explanation for the origin of the first cell. It does not take a genius to think about that and come to a conclusion ... this specific fact is logical and could stand alone against this puffy theory... Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a "step-by-step" evolutionary manner. As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" ....Furthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design")....and developmental Evidence: Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an organism. Commonly cited evidence is the alleged presence of fish gills in human embryos during growth (which are NOT true gills but rather are merely small wrinkles in the neck that appear during development). These ideas were put forth by 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel, who today is known to have fabricated and exaggerated his data....like all macro-evolution theories If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #484 November 24, 2006 QuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #485 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ All the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view? Like i said before I am really open to any "real" proof not guesswork relating to discoveries and then claimed as fact . I believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #486 November 24, 2006 QuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #487 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. OOoooK ! i can see evolution is very slow that side Show me da money greenish ! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #488 November 24, 2006 QuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #489 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. There we go ! Finally some wisdom !!! People we have a winner ! somebody please pop the champagne Bhwhahahahaaaa ! you guys really crack me up There are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice - but you're to scared to change probably cause you've failed before and it seems like it hurt pretty bad...sorry about that then ok i'm off to the pub wanna talk about it there or don't you get out anymore ? Later freaks If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #490 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I believe that the Earth is the only sphere amongst the millions or billions out there that sustains any form of life. Watch this A pretty high res version of the HUDF can be found here (I strongly recommend taking an hour or so to look through the archives of that site - it's truly humbling) and a cool Q and A about the image can be found here. Some of the facts that jump out - 10,000 galaxies in a patch of sky that appears smaller than a large crater on the moon, light from the faintest objects reached the telescope at a rate of less than 1 photon per minute, and the image took 11.3 days of exposure time to build up. And one more thing you need to look at it to find out - it is amazingly beautiful i think that is one thing we do agree on ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Another thing to remember is that a telescope is a time machine. The farther out we look, the farther back we see.If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #491 November 24, 2006 QuoteThere are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice Many? Are you kidding me - many? They pale into complete insignificance compared to the number that continue to promote evolution.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #492 November 24, 2006 QuoteAll the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. No its not Did you even read the link you posted? Oh wait, you were too busy making puns... So to refresh your memory, QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design"). These assumptions and discrepancies show that evidence for common ancestry is weak. What the hell kind of explanation is that? Its just a piece of vague speculation plonked in their with zero supporting theory or evidence. Weak dude, seriously weak.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #493 November 24, 2006 QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? Uh you do not need trillions.. BUT you do need a depositional enviornment.. then you need the dead critters.. you need to have no ohter animals that consume them.. sredding scattering etc.. and THEN you need to right conditions for the fossils to be preserved.. its exceedingly complex... try it with the next road kill you find.. try burying it in your yard and see how it works out for you just after a couple years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #494 November 24, 2006 Quotehow can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? Yet you believe in an intelligent designer. Have you seen said designer? As I said, your position appears to be based in emotion, not logic. Logically, there is no credible alternative hypothesis to evolution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #495 November 24, 2006 >Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? In your bones and flesh, and in your gas tank. 99.99% of the dead animals and plants that have ever lived have returned to the ecosystem. (Which is a good thing. You would not be here if all the calcium on the planet was locked up in fossils.) If you really believe that there AREN'T trillions of dead ancestors out there - how do you explain oil? Coal? How do you explain the millions of fossils we _have_ found? >...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there > should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. There are. Look at hippos, and manatees, and seals, and sea lions. Check out flying squirrels (especially african flying squirrels) and compare them to bats. Check out mudskippers and you'll see a fish evolving legs. Check out cichlids. Look at horses, zebras and donkeys. Those all had a common ancestor and are evolving away from that common ancestor. They are close enough to still be able to produce offspring (sometimes) but those offspring are no longer fertile. Look at gerbils, rats and hamsters. Also have a common ancestor - but have evolved far enough from each other that they can no longer reproduce with each other at all. Each has its own niche. Rats are perhaps evolving faster than any other animal because humans have offered it so many new niches. Heck, look at us. Compare your foot to your hand. Notice any similarities? Know of any other land animals (other than primates) with hand-feet? We're in a transitional phase between brachiating and walking; our feet are no longer useful as hands, but don't make great feet yet. For an example of evolution happening more recently - check out the mutation and propagation of the Ser447-Stop gene. This gene increases our HDL cholesterol levels (the good kind) and helps us survive in a world full of fatty foods and overabundance. And if it helps more people survive to childbearing years, it will be passed on in ever-greater numbers. Evolution in action, right there in your own body. We are all "inbetweeners." >Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, >slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts >in order for it to function. Right. But the key is that if you remove any one of those pieces, most cells will still survive (albeit not as well.) That's how evolution works. A cell that is just barely surviving and reproducing gets a new component (by accident, or by eating it, or by mechanical action) that helps it. And the next generation of cells are better. >All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. That's just plain false. > "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, >like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a >partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" That's the argument-by-incredulity angle, which I have zero respect for. "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist." Yet most people have no problems getting on elevators or airplanes, even if they don't understand Maxwell's Equations or fluid dynamics. Why? Because most people's religious beliefs aren't threatened by fluid dynamics. Just to prove the above wrong - bats are more-evolved flying squirrels. Flying squirrles DO get incremental improvements from wings that are fractionally larger. I (as well as all evolutionary biologists) have no problem conceiving of an intermediate wing that allows a squirrel to glide just slightly better than its non-winged ancestor. >Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny >recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is >supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an >organism. It's a neat observation, but has nothing to do with evolution. Ontogeny is NOT depenent on phylogenic evolution. Most arguments against evolution can be summed up as "that sounds odd to me, and it reinforces the enemy's position, therefore it is false." That, of course, is not science - it's faith. And faith is great, but too many people confuse the two. They are not the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #496 November 24, 2006 >what possible explanation can strict creationists have to gel the >incredible size, beauty and complexity of the universe with their conviction >of being the only intelligent life? Well: 1) Many creationists are simply unaware of much of the beauty of the universe. You don't find many creationists doing astrophysics. 2) Creationists often believe man is made in the image of God, and he only did that once, to us. Remember the disgust that the catholic church felt when scientists claimed that the earth was NOT the center of the universe? Many feel that way today when scientists claim that humanity may not be the pinnacle of the universe's expression of life. (After all, if we were just one of millions of inhabited planets, how would creationists feel? Like they weren't God's primary creation.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #497 November 24, 2006 I for one am thankful for Billvon's patient, thorough explanations in this and other similar threads.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #498 November 24, 2006 One good thing I have got from reading this thread is the link to Richard Dawkins web site After watching the videos there I got a warm fuzzy feeling. There are people out there who are really trying to save us. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #499 November 25, 2006 I believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #500 November 25, 2006 QuoteI believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. The Big Bang is often termed an explosion because that is what our macro scale perceptions understand. It is not quite that simple, however. Fret not, there is sound scientific evidence for the Big Bang. In fact, a couple of Americans won a Nobel Prize this year for finding such evidence. Perhaps you should check out Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time and/or The Universe In a Nutshell. Prof. Hawking explains some complicated material in a pretty lucid manner for those without the mathematical background to learn the actual theories. Order comes from chaos all the time. A hurricane is a good example.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next Page 20 of 21 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jcd11235 0 #479 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteKallend & Billvon what is your view on this ? really interested ".............half-baked and silly disproofs that are based on deliberate misrepresentations ........." macro-evolution cannot have taken place...i have tried to believe the evolution thing cause it does not completely rule out a creative designer that i refer to as God , but the theory lacks to much proof and there are to many "theories" about evolution that is not logical .. as time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread There is no macro evolution and micro evolution, only evolution. Scientists overwhelmingly support the theory because it is consistent with observation and fossil records. Please offer one bit of credible evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural entity commonly referred to as a God. Why do you hold science to such an impossible standard, by comparison? That appears to be a strictly emotional, without any basis in logic.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #480 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKallend & Billvon what is your view on this ? really interested ".............half-baked and silly disproofs that are based on deliberate misrepresentations ........." macro-evolution cannot have taken place...i have tried to believe the evolution thing cause it does not completely rule out a creative designer that i refer to as God , but the theory lacks to much proof and there are to many "theories" about evolution that is not logical .. as time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread There is no macro evolution and micro evolution, only evolution. Scientists overwhelmingly support the theory because it is consistent with observation and fossil records. This is not the case and there is no proof to support this theory only theory to supprt the proof Please offer one bit of credible evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural entity commonly referred to as a God. Why do you hold science to such an impossible standard, by comparison? That appears to be a strictly emotional, without any basis in logic. Not emotional but personal - I would do away with anything i believe if enough proof according to me is supplied.This has not happened... i have not been in a church or anything similair for the last 5 years and i'm not trying to push religion onto anyone and i believe i have kept an open mind about it all ..... .....still the macro-evolution theory (i'm not gonna explain that again) has faded away leaving a foul stench and although i considered and investigated it when going through a troublesome time in my life i now know that allot of people will believe that crap and suffer . There is still alot to learn and discover and i believe we will all keep an eye on it anyway , but i don't think science will complete and prove the macro-evolution theory .. some more conflicting sites but interesting reads yet again : http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1096 .....and then who has similair qualifications to Anthony Flew ? http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/09/210618.php why would someone like that u know... makes ya think ? ... no ? ... ok If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #481 November 24, 2006 Now this is evolution !! - this was really a unbelievable theory - until proven !! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #482 November 24, 2006 QuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #483 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none. Ag nee regtig hoor ! OK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts in order for it to function. This is particularly true with regards to the workings of DNA and its replication enzymes and protein-creation mechanisms. All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. Thus, it is precisely because evolution cannot produce complex features "all at once", that evolution fails as an explanation for the origin of the first cell. It does not take a genius to think about that and come to a conclusion ... this specific fact is logical and could stand alone against this puffy theory... Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a "step-by-step" evolutionary manner. As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" ....Furthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design")....and developmental Evidence: Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an organism. Commonly cited evidence is the alleged presence of fish gills in human embryos during growth (which are NOT true gills but rather are merely small wrinkles in the neck that appear during development). These ideas were put forth by 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel, who today is known to have fabricated and exaggerated his data....like all macro-evolution theories If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #484 November 24, 2006 QuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #485 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ All the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view? Like i said before I am really open to any "real" proof not guesswork relating to discoveries and then claimed as fact . I believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #486 November 24, 2006 QuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #487 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. OOoooK ! i can see evolution is very slow that side Show me da money greenish ! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #488 November 24, 2006 QuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #489 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. There we go ! Finally some wisdom !!! People we have a winner ! somebody please pop the champagne Bhwhahahahaaaa ! you guys really crack me up There are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice - but you're to scared to change probably cause you've failed before and it seems like it hurt pretty bad...sorry about that then ok i'm off to the pub wanna talk about it there or don't you get out anymore ? Later freaks If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #490 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I believe that the Earth is the only sphere amongst the millions or billions out there that sustains any form of life. Watch this A pretty high res version of the HUDF can be found here (I strongly recommend taking an hour or so to look through the archives of that site - it's truly humbling) and a cool Q and A about the image can be found here. Some of the facts that jump out - 10,000 galaxies in a patch of sky that appears smaller than a large crater on the moon, light from the faintest objects reached the telescope at a rate of less than 1 photon per minute, and the image took 11.3 days of exposure time to build up. And one more thing you need to look at it to find out - it is amazingly beautiful i think that is one thing we do agree on ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Another thing to remember is that a telescope is a time machine. The farther out we look, the farther back we see.If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #491 November 24, 2006 QuoteThere are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice Many? Are you kidding me - many? They pale into complete insignificance compared to the number that continue to promote evolution.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #492 November 24, 2006 QuoteAll the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. No its not Did you even read the link you posted? Oh wait, you were too busy making puns... So to refresh your memory, QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design"). These assumptions and discrepancies show that evidence for common ancestry is weak. What the hell kind of explanation is that? Its just a piece of vague speculation plonked in their with zero supporting theory or evidence. Weak dude, seriously weak.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #493 November 24, 2006 QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? Uh you do not need trillions.. BUT you do need a depositional enviornment.. then you need the dead critters.. you need to have no ohter animals that consume them.. sredding scattering etc.. and THEN you need to right conditions for the fossils to be preserved.. its exceedingly complex... try it with the next road kill you find.. try burying it in your yard and see how it works out for you just after a couple years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #494 November 24, 2006 Quotehow can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? Yet you believe in an intelligent designer. Have you seen said designer? As I said, your position appears to be based in emotion, not logic. Logically, there is no credible alternative hypothesis to evolution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #495 November 24, 2006 >Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? In your bones and flesh, and in your gas tank. 99.99% of the dead animals and plants that have ever lived have returned to the ecosystem. (Which is a good thing. You would not be here if all the calcium on the planet was locked up in fossils.) If you really believe that there AREN'T trillions of dead ancestors out there - how do you explain oil? Coal? How do you explain the millions of fossils we _have_ found? >...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there > should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. There are. Look at hippos, and manatees, and seals, and sea lions. Check out flying squirrels (especially african flying squirrels) and compare them to bats. Check out mudskippers and you'll see a fish evolving legs. Check out cichlids. Look at horses, zebras and donkeys. Those all had a common ancestor and are evolving away from that common ancestor. They are close enough to still be able to produce offspring (sometimes) but those offspring are no longer fertile. Look at gerbils, rats and hamsters. Also have a common ancestor - but have evolved far enough from each other that they can no longer reproduce with each other at all. Each has its own niche. Rats are perhaps evolving faster than any other animal because humans have offered it so many new niches. Heck, look at us. Compare your foot to your hand. Notice any similarities? Know of any other land animals (other than primates) with hand-feet? We're in a transitional phase between brachiating and walking; our feet are no longer useful as hands, but don't make great feet yet. For an example of evolution happening more recently - check out the mutation and propagation of the Ser447-Stop gene. This gene increases our HDL cholesterol levels (the good kind) and helps us survive in a world full of fatty foods and overabundance. And if it helps more people survive to childbearing years, it will be passed on in ever-greater numbers. Evolution in action, right there in your own body. We are all "inbetweeners." >Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, >slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts >in order for it to function. Right. But the key is that if you remove any one of those pieces, most cells will still survive (albeit not as well.) That's how evolution works. A cell that is just barely surviving and reproducing gets a new component (by accident, or by eating it, or by mechanical action) that helps it. And the next generation of cells are better. >All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. That's just plain false. > "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, >like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a >partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" That's the argument-by-incredulity angle, which I have zero respect for. "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist." Yet most people have no problems getting on elevators or airplanes, even if they don't understand Maxwell's Equations or fluid dynamics. Why? Because most people's religious beliefs aren't threatened by fluid dynamics. Just to prove the above wrong - bats are more-evolved flying squirrels. Flying squirrles DO get incremental improvements from wings that are fractionally larger. I (as well as all evolutionary biologists) have no problem conceiving of an intermediate wing that allows a squirrel to glide just slightly better than its non-winged ancestor. >Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny >recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is >supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an >organism. It's a neat observation, but has nothing to do with evolution. Ontogeny is NOT depenent on phylogenic evolution. Most arguments against evolution can be summed up as "that sounds odd to me, and it reinforces the enemy's position, therefore it is false." That, of course, is not science - it's faith. And faith is great, but too many people confuse the two. They are not the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #496 November 24, 2006 >what possible explanation can strict creationists have to gel the >incredible size, beauty and complexity of the universe with their conviction >of being the only intelligent life? Well: 1) Many creationists are simply unaware of much of the beauty of the universe. You don't find many creationists doing astrophysics. 2) Creationists often believe man is made in the image of God, and he only did that once, to us. Remember the disgust that the catholic church felt when scientists claimed that the earth was NOT the center of the universe? Many feel that way today when scientists claim that humanity may not be the pinnacle of the universe's expression of life. (After all, if we were just one of millions of inhabited planets, how would creationists feel? Like they weren't God's primary creation.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #497 November 24, 2006 I for one am thankful for Billvon's patient, thorough explanations in this and other similar threads.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #498 November 24, 2006 One good thing I have got from reading this thread is the link to Richard Dawkins web site After watching the videos there I got a warm fuzzy feeling. There are people out there who are really trying to save us. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #499 November 25, 2006 I believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #500 November 25, 2006 QuoteI believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. The Big Bang is often termed an explosion because that is what our macro scale perceptions understand. It is not quite that simple, however. Fret not, there is sound scientific evidence for the Big Bang. In fact, a couple of Americans won a Nobel Prize this year for finding such evidence. Perhaps you should check out Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time and/or The Universe In a Nutshell. Prof. Hawking explains some complicated material in a pretty lucid manner for those without the mathematical background to learn the actual theories. Order comes from chaos all the time. A hurricane is a good example.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next Page 20 of 21 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
skysaintj 0 #480 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKallend & Billvon what is your view on this ? really interested ".............half-baked and silly disproofs that are based on deliberate misrepresentations ........." macro-evolution cannot have taken place...i have tried to believe the evolution thing cause it does not completely rule out a creative designer that i refer to as God , but the theory lacks to much proof and there are to many "theories" about evolution that is not logical .. as time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread There is no macro evolution and micro evolution, only evolution. Scientists overwhelmingly support the theory because it is consistent with observation and fossil records. This is not the case and there is no proof to support this theory only theory to supprt the proof Please offer one bit of credible evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural entity commonly referred to as a God. Why do you hold science to such an impossible standard, by comparison? That appears to be a strictly emotional, without any basis in logic. Not emotional but personal - I would do away with anything i believe if enough proof according to me is supplied.This has not happened... i have not been in a church or anything similair for the last 5 years and i'm not trying to push religion onto anyone and i believe i have kept an open mind about it all ..... .....still the macro-evolution theory (i'm not gonna explain that again) has faded away leaving a foul stench and although i considered and investigated it when going through a troublesome time in my life i now know that allot of people will believe that crap and suffer . There is still alot to learn and discover and i believe we will all keep an eye on it anyway , but i don't think science will complete and prove the macro-evolution theory .. some more conflicting sites but interesting reads yet again : http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1096 .....and then who has similair qualifications to Anthony Flew ? http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/09/210618.php why would someone like that u know... makes ya think ? ... no ? ... ok If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #481 November 24, 2006 Now this is evolution !! - this was really a unbelievable theory - until proven !! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #482 November 24, 2006 QuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #483 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none. Ag nee regtig hoor ! OK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts in order for it to function. This is particularly true with regards to the workings of DNA and its replication enzymes and protein-creation mechanisms. All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. Thus, it is precisely because evolution cannot produce complex features "all at once", that evolution fails as an explanation for the origin of the first cell. It does not take a genius to think about that and come to a conclusion ... this specific fact is logical and could stand alone against this puffy theory... Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a "step-by-step" evolutionary manner. As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" ....Furthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design")....and developmental Evidence: Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an organism. Commonly cited evidence is the alleged presence of fish gills in human embryos during growth (which are NOT true gills but rather are merely small wrinkles in the neck that appear during development). These ideas were put forth by 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel, who today is known to have fabricated and exaggerated his data....like all macro-evolution theories If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #484 November 24, 2006 QuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #485 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ All the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view? Like i said before I am really open to any "real" proof not guesswork relating to discoveries and then claimed as fact . I believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #486 November 24, 2006 QuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #487 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. OOoooK ! i can see evolution is very slow that side Show me da money greenish ! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #488 November 24, 2006 QuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #489 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. There we go ! Finally some wisdom !!! People we have a winner ! somebody please pop the champagne Bhwhahahahaaaa ! you guys really crack me up There are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice - but you're to scared to change probably cause you've failed before and it seems like it hurt pretty bad...sorry about that then ok i'm off to the pub wanna talk about it there or don't you get out anymore ? Later freaks If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skysaintj 0 #490 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I believe that the Earth is the only sphere amongst the millions or billions out there that sustains any form of life. Watch this A pretty high res version of the HUDF can be found here (I strongly recommend taking an hour or so to look through the archives of that site - it's truly humbling) and a cool Q and A about the image can be found here. Some of the facts that jump out - 10,000 galaxies in a patch of sky that appears smaller than a large crater on the moon, light from the faintest objects reached the telescope at a rate of less than 1 photon per minute, and the image took 11.3 days of exposure time to build up. And one more thing you need to look at it to find out - it is amazingly beautiful i think that is one thing we do agree on ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Another thing to remember is that a telescope is a time machine. The farther out we look, the farther back we see.If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #491 November 24, 2006 QuoteThere are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice Many? Are you kidding me - many? They pale into complete insignificance compared to the number that continue to promote evolution.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #492 November 24, 2006 QuoteAll the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. No its not Did you even read the link you posted? Oh wait, you were too busy making puns... So to refresh your memory, QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design"). These assumptions and discrepancies show that evidence for common ancestry is weak. What the hell kind of explanation is that? Its just a piece of vague speculation plonked in their with zero supporting theory or evidence. Weak dude, seriously weak.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #493 November 24, 2006 QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? Uh you do not need trillions.. BUT you do need a depositional enviornment.. then you need the dead critters.. you need to have no ohter animals that consume them.. sredding scattering etc.. and THEN you need to right conditions for the fossils to be preserved.. its exceedingly complex... try it with the next road kill you find.. try burying it in your yard and see how it works out for you just after a couple years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #494 November 24, 2006 Quotehow can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? Yet you believe in an intelligent designer. Have you seen said designer? As I said, your position appears to be based in emotion, not logic. Logically, there is no credible alternative hypothesis to evolution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #495 November 24, 2006 >Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? In your bones and flesh, and in your gas tank. 99.99% of the dead animals and plants that have ever lived have returned to the ecosystem. (Which is a good thing. You would not be here if all the calcium on the planet was locked up in fossils.) If you really believe that there AREN'T trillions of dead ancestors out there - how do you explain oil? Coal? How do you explain the millions of fossils we _have_ found? >...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there > should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. There are. Look at hippos, and manatees, and seals, and sea lions. Check out flying squirrels (especially african flying squirrels) and compare them to bats. Check out mudskippers and you'll see a fish evolving legs. Check out cichlids. Look at horses, zebras and donkeys. Those all had a common ancestor and are evolving away from that common ancestor. They are close enough to still be able to produce offspring (sometimes) but those offspring are no longer fertile. Look at gerbils, rats and hamsters. Also have a common ancestor - but have evolved far enough from each other that they can no longer reproduce with each other at all. Each has its own niche. Rats are perhaps evolving faster than any other animal because humans have offered it so many new niches. Heck, look at us. Compare your foot to your hand. Notice any similarities? Know of any other land animals (other than primates) with hand-feet? We're in a transitional phase between brachiating and walking; our feet are no longer useful as hands, but don't make great feet yet. For an example of evolution happening more recently - check out the mutation and propagation of the Ser447-Stop gene. This gene increases our HDL cholesterol levels (the good kind) and helps us survive in a world full of fatty foods and overabundance. And if it helps more people survive to childbearing years, it will be passed on in ever-greater numbers. Evolution in action, right there in your own body. We are all "inbetweeners." >Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, >slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts >in order for it to function. Right. But the key is that if you remove any one of those pieces, most cells will still survive (albeit not as well.) That's how evolution works. A cell that is just barely surviving and reproducing gets a new component (by accident, or by eating it, or by mechanical action) that helps it. And the next generation of cells are better. >All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. That's just plain false. > "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, >like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a >partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" That's the argument-by-incredulity angle, which I have zero respect for. "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist." Yet most people have no problems getting on elevators or airplanes, even if they don't understand Maxwell's Equations or fluid dynamics. Why? Because most people's religious beliefs aren't threatened by fluid dynamics. Just to prove the above wrong - bats are more-evolved flying squirrels. Flying squirrles DO get incremental improvements from wings that are fractionally larger. I (as well as all evolutionary biologists) have no problem conceiving of an intermediate wing that allows a squirrel to glide just slightly better than its non-winged ancestor. >Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny >recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is >supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an >organism. It's a neat observation, but has nothing to do with evolution. Ontogeny is NOT depenent on phylogenic evolution. Most arguments against evolution can be summed up as "that sounds odd to me, and it reinforces the enemy's position, therefore it is false." That, of course, is not science - it's faith. And faith is great, but too many people confuse the two. They are not the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #496 November 24, 2006 >what possible explanation can strict creationists have to gel the >incredible size, beauty and complexity of the universe with their conviction >of being the only intelligent life? Well: 1) Many creationists are simply unaware of much of the beauty of the universe. You don't find many creationists doing astrophysics. 2) Creationists often believe man is made in the image of God, and he only did that once, to us. Remember the disgust that the catholic church felt when scientists claimed that the earth was NOT the center of the universe? Many feel that way today when scientists claim that humanity may not be the pinnacle of the universe's expression of life. (After all, if we were just one of millions of inhabited planets, how would creationists feel? Like they weren't God's primary creation.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #497 November 24, 2006 I for one am thankful for Billvon's patient, thorough explanations in this and other similar threads.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #498 November 24, 2006 One good thing I have got from reading this thread is the link to Richard Dawkins web site After watching the videos there I got a warm fuzzy feeling. There are people out there who are really trying to save us. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #499 November 25, 2006 I believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #500 November 25, 2006 QuoteI believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. The Big Bang is often termed an explosion because that is what our macro scale perceptions understand. It is not quite that simple, however. Fret not, there is sound scientific evidence for the Big Bang. In fact, a couple of Americans won a Nobel Prize this year for finding such evidence. Perhaps you should check out Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time and/or The Universe In a Nutshell. Prof. Hawking explains some complicated material in a pretty lucid manner for those without the mathematical background to learn the actual theories. Order comes from chaos all the time. A hurricane is a good example.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next Page 20 of 21 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
skysaintj 0 #481 November 24, 2006 Now this is evolution !! - this was really a unbelievable theory - until proven !! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #482 November 24, 2006 QuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #483 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteSince Darwin's big commotion , science for me is moving towards sufficient proof that macro-evolution cannot have taken place... Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. Quoteas time goes on i believe science will reveal more truth and fact about it - cause if it was one sided even witout God and only from a scientific point we would not be typing away on this thread In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none. Ag nee regtig hoor ! OK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts in order for it to function. This is particularly true with regards to the workings of DNA and its replication enzymes and protein-creation mechanisms. All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. Thus, it is precisely because evolution cannot produce complex features "all at once", that evolution fails as an explanation for the origin of the first cell. It does not take a genius to think about that and come to a conclusion ... this specific fact is logical and could stand alone against this puffy theory... Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a "step-by-step" evolutionary manner. As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" ....Furthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design")....and developmental Evidence: Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an organism. Commonly cited evidence is the alleged presence of fish gills in human embryos during growth (which are NOT true gills but rather are merely small wrinkles in the neck that appear during development). These ideas were put forth by 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel, who today is known to have fabricated and exaggerated his data....like all macro-evolution theories If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #484 November 24, 2006 QuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #485 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" Dear lord, its called a rhetorical question! Look it up if you've never heard of it, they're quite common. Perhaps you could apologise to Dr Carroll for your blatant misrepresentation by buying the book and finding out the context? Its on Amazon. QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? ...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there should be millions of inbetweeners walking around You can't ask a question and then forbid people from telling you the correct answer. With the exception of some sharks, crocodiles and possibly cockroaches most species around us are in some form of transition - some far more noticeably than others. QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design") Yes, I saw that - it did make me giggle! The creator you envision would be endowed with unlimited intellect, innovation and creativity. The unfathomable murk of quantom theory, gravity, sub-atomic particles etc would (if he existed) attest to that. Why then, would he re-use and modify existing "off the shelf" parts that, when taken too far from their original role, start to show serious limitations? Look at us - if we are, as you say, the pinnacle of gods creation why have we been lumbered with a lower back, hip and knee arrangement bodged up from what the primitive apes had left over? So god's been able to knock off early that day but we're left with an awkward, injury prone arrangement that works just well enough to let us go upright but wears out 30 years before the rest of us! It makes no sense, god wouldn't need common design, evolution demands it. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ All the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ By the way, I asked a question on a different tack about creationism and intelligent life in the universe - what is your view? Like i said before I am really open to any "real" proof not guesswork relating to discoveries and then claimed as fact . I believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #486 November 24, 2006 QuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #487 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteI believe we are the only civilitation in the whole universe because we are the only one we know about - i believe in the possibilty that there might be life outhere but i don't believe there is - how can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? My wife's grandfather, an immigrant from The Old Country, quit school after the 3rd grade because his family needed him to tend the sheep. He came to this country as a young man, learned barely passable English, worked in a small factory in a small town, and never read a book or newspaper in his life. He believed the moon landings were a fraud perpetrated in a TV studio. If he couldn't see it happen with his own eyes, it didn't happen. His excuse for such ignorance and lack of ability to think in the abstract or extrapolate conclusions was a complete dearth of any kind of meaningful education. But when I see intelligent, educated adults in 21st Century industrialized nations engage in essentially the same kind of reasoning process, it makes me want to weep buckets. There's simply no excuse for it. OOoooK ! i can see evolution is very slow that side Show me da money greenish ! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #488 November 24, 2006 QuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #489 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteShow me da money greenish ! You were shown the money when you received your formal education. What you do with the tools in your toolbox is a choice you must make for yourself. There we go ! Finally some wisdom !!! People we have a winner ! somebody please pop the champagne Bhwhahahahaaaa ! you guys really crack me up There are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice - but you're to scared to change probably cause you've failed before and it seems like it hurt pretty bad...sorry about that then ok i'm off to the pub wanna talk about it there or don't you get out anymore ? Later freaks If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #490 November 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I believe that the Earth is the only sphere amongst the millions or billions out there that sustains any form of life. Watch this A pretty high res version of the HUDF can be found here (I strongly recommend taking an hour or so to look through the archives of that site - it's truly humbling) and a cool Q and A about the image can be found here. Some of the facts that jump out - 10,000 galaxies in a patch of sky that appears smaller than a large crater on the moon, light from the faintest objects reached the telescope at a rate of less than 1 photon per minute, and the image took 11.3 days of exposure time to build up. And one more thing you need to look at it to find out - it is amazingly beautiful i think that is one thing we do agree on ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Another thing to remember is that a telescope is a time machine. The farther out we look, the farther back we see.If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #491 November 24, 2006 QuoteThere are many scientists,professors,ex-atheists and ex-evolutionists with more knowledge than you and me that promote macro-evolution as the fraud of our time and that have changed their views about this bullshit theory so at the end of the day you are left with a choice Many? Are you kidding me - many? They pale into complete insignificance compared to the number that continue to promote evolution.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #492 November 24, 2006 QuoteAll the above is explained in the degeneration link added on an earlier post - Your evoltion theory is actually degeneration. No its not Did you even read the link you posted? Oh wait, you were too busy making puns... So to refresh your memory, QuoteFurthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals above as evidence for "common design"). These assumptions and discrepancies show that evidence for common ancestry is weak. What the hell kind of explanation is that? Its just a piece of vague speculation plonked in their with zero supporting theory or evidence. Weak dude, seriously weak.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #493 November 24, 2006 QuoteOK ? - Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? Uh you do not need trillions.. BUT you do need a depositional enviornment.. then you need the dead critters.. you need to have no ohter animals that consume them.. sredding scattering etc.. and THEN you need to right conditions for the fossils to be preserved.. its exceedingly complex... try it with the next road kill you find.. try burying it in your yard and see how it works out for you just after a couple years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #494 November 24, 2006 Quotehow can anyone believe that if they haven't seen it ? Yet you believe in an intelligent designer. Have you seen said designer? As I said, your position appears to be based in emotion, not logic. Logically, there is no credible alternative hypothesis to evolution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #495 November 24, 2006 >Where is the trillions of transitional fossils ? In your bones and flesh, and in your gas tank. 99.99% of the dead animals and plants that have ever lived have returned to the ecosystem. (Which is a good thing. You would not be here if all the calcium on the planet was locked up in fossils.) If you really believe that there AREN'T trillions of dead ancestors out there - how do you explain oil? Coal? How do you explain the millions of fossils we _have_ found? >...and don't come that that kak of we are all in transistion cause there > should be millions of inbetweeners walking around .. There are. Look at hippos, and manatees, and seals, and sea lions. Check out flying squirrels (especially african flying squirrels) and compare them to bats. Check out mudskippers and you'll see a fish evolving legs. Check out cichlids. Look at horses, zebras and donkeys. Those all had a common ancestor and are evolving away from that common ancestor. They are close enough to still be able to produce offspring (sometimes) but those offspring are no longer fertile. Look at gerbils, rats and hamsters. Also have a common ancestor - but have evolved far enough from each other that they can no longer reproduce with each other at all. Each has its own niche. Rats are perhaps evolving faster than any other animal because humans have offered it so many new niches. Heck, look at us. Compare your foot to your hand. Notice any similarities? Know of any other land animals (other than primates) with hand-feet? We're in a transitional phase between brachiating and walking; our feet are no longer useful as hands, but don't make great feet yet. For an example of evolution happening more recently - check out the mutation and propagation of the Ser447-Stop gene. This gene increases our HDL cholesterol levels (the good kind) and helps us survive in a world full of fatty foods and overabundance. And if it helps more people survive to childbearing years, it will be passed on in ever-greater numbers. Evolution in action, right there in your own body. We are all "inbetweeners." >Darwin's theory requires that things evolve via "numerous, successive, >slight modifications." However, the cell requires a large number of parts >in order for it to function. Right. But the key is that if you remove any one of those pieces, most cells will still survive (albeit not as well.) That's how evolution works. A cell that is just barely surviving and reproducing gets a new component (by accident, or by eating it, or by mechanical action) that helps it. And the next generation of cells are better. >All of these parts must be present or the cell would not function. That's just plain false. > "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, >like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a >partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" That's the argument-by-incredulity angle, which I have zero respect for. "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist." Yet most people have no problems getting on elevators or airplanes, even if they don't understand Maxwell's Equations or fluid dynamics. Why? Because most people's religious beliefs aren't threatened by fluid dynamics. Just to prove the above wrong - bats are more-evolved flying squirrels. Flying squirrles DO get incremental improvements from wings that are fractionally larger. I (as well as all evolutionary biologists) have no problem conceiving of an intermediate wing that allows a squirrel to glide just slightly better than its non-winged ancestor. >Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny >recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is >supposedly reflected during the growth and development of an >organism. It's a neat observation, but has nothing to do with evolution. Ontogeny is NOT depenent on phylogenic evolution. Most arguments against evolution can be summed up as "that sounds odd to me, and it reinforces the enemy's position, therefore it is false." That, of course, is not science - it's faith. And faith is great, but too many people confuse the two. They are not the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #496 November 24, 2006 >what possible explanation can strict creationists have to gel the >incredible size, beauty and complexity of the universe with their conviction >of being the only intelligent life? Well: 1) Many creationists are simply unaware of much of the beauty of the universe. You don't find many creationists doing astrophysics. 2) Creationists often believe man is made in the image of God, and he only did that once, to us. Remember the disgust that the catholic church felt when scientists claimed that the earth was NOT the center of the universe? Many feel that way today when scientists claim that humanity may not be the pinnacle of the universe's expression of life. (After all, if we were just one of millions of inhabited planets, how would creationists feel? Like they weren't God's primary creation.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #497 November 24, 2006 I for one am thankful for Billvon's patient, thorough explanations in this and other similar threads.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #498 November 24, 2006 One good thing I have got from reading this thread is the link to Richard Dawkins web site After watching the videos there I got a warm fuzzy feeling. There are people out there who are really trying to save us. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #499 November 25, 2006 I believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #500 November 25, 2006 QuoteI believe that he put everything where it belongs, set it in motion, and left it to run its course. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteHow do you know that He didn't set it in motion by means of The Big Bang, and that leaving it to run its course means that the development of the universe, and the evolution of life forms, didn't happen the way modern science believes it did?The results of the Big Bang[ a huge explosion] goes against the current motion of every planet and solar system within this galaxy. Everything seems to turn in a giant counterclockwise motion. In a rather orderly fashion. I've never seen an explosion that suddenly put everything into working order, unless there was someone around to clean up the mess. The Big Bang is often termed an explosion because that is what our macro scale perceptions understand. It is not quite that simple, however. Fret not, there is sound scientific evidence for the Big Bang. In fact, a couple of Americans won a Nobel Prize this year for finding such evidence. Perhaps you should check out Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time and/or The Universe In a Nutshell. Prof. Hawking explains some complicated material in a pretty lucid manner for those without the mathematical background to learn the actual theories. Order comes from chaos all the time. A hurricane is a good example.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
