lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: Do you believe evolution or intelligent design occured?
Evolution 26 55.32%
Intelligent design 19 40.43%
Don't have a clue 2 4.26%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: The History of the Universe
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-02-2003, 02:32 AM   #121
Psydan
 
Psydan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais

Regarding the watch analogy, the point is that you simply can't connect a watch to "God must have created everything." It doesn't work - there's no connection between the two, as it's clearly evident that the watch is being made by natural processes. There's nothing mystical about it. Evolution develops apes, which develops humans, which develops watches. Watches aren't created miraculously from nowhere. And the fact that they can't self assemble as nothing with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to self assemble.

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing. [/B]
Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot) secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.
Also,
Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais

You apparently still don't get that you can believe God created life on earth, God controls the direction evolution is taking and that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity.

How would you react if I told you that nearly 80% of all Christians take evolution as a fact? That the pope does? That it in no way makes your beliefs invalid, except the Creationistic ones.[/B]
But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us. I agree with you 100% Cjais on the fact that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity, but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes). Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?


~Dan
Psydan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 05:43 AM   #122
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm saying, it HAD to be an actual DAY...because if one DAY in that instance was a million years, the earth (according to your infallible science) would fly out of it's orbit and who knows...get sucked into the sun.
Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet.

Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed.

It makes no sense for God to operate in terms of night and day, since if he's God, he's everywhere and thus night and day doesn't exist to him. Do we agree he made the terms "night" and "day" to help humans understand him, even though it's not really true? Because, as we know, night and day are as relative as they get.

Quote:
so that proves (proving itself now, I'm saying..grr how do I say this. I'm not saying it's proof, but according to itself..what it is saying is an actual day)
No, the Bible cannot prove itself. You're the one who's using circular reasoning to make your head and the earth spin.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 06:43 AM   #123
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Psydan
Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot)
We have a common ancestor in apes, yes.

Quote:
secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.
And what makes you think you aren't stuck with the same question? The only answer we know for sure right now, is that we honestly don't know.

Creator or non-creator, these are still just postulations until we've identified what it really is.

Quote:
But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us.
What we're discussing here, if you somehow managed not to see it, is whether creationism is fact or not.

Again: I don't care if God made the Big Bang. I don't care if God made the first bacteria and afterwards mutated and evolved them to his needs. What I do care about is that the Biblical Genesis isn't fact. It isn't, no matter how much you believe in a holy text.

Again: We've presented positive proof of evolution. You still need to present positive proof of the biblical genesis. It doesn't help to present dating constructs and state "Because the earth is young, our theory must be the right one". It doesn't work, you can't prove the connection, much as I can't state "Because the earth is old, my theory must be right." Try to debunk our dating methods, try to debunk science all you want - in the end you won't be right simply by having done this.


Quote:
but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes).
It's not about believing fact. Do you believe in the theory of gravity as well? The theory of relativity?

Quote:
Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?
Which is exactly what we're doing.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 08:11 AM   #124
BCanr2d2
Chief B*log Man
 
BCanr2d2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the nursery, changing a nappy
Posts: 1,977
Obviously those Creationist Scientists out there that take a view of the Bible in some cases being metaphoric, use the Genesis text to desribe what is in essence a logical six step sequence to the creation of life on earth.

They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.

How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know. You want a mystery, work out how ancient civilisations had enough of an understanding in science to write how the earth was created.


Any resemblence to intelligence in my posts is purely coincidental and accidental..

No posts were harmed in the creation of this post!

B*log....
BCanr2d2 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 09:01 AM   #125
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.
I dunno... creating light before the source of light itself? Creating plants that require photosynthesis before the sun was created?

Quote:
How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know.
I'll let you in on a secret: They're no more right than my viking myths. But it's still art.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 09:05 AM   #126
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais
Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet.

Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed.
Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 11:17 AM   #127
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY
Night and day are relatives. To the Inuits, half the year is one big day, and the other half is one big night.

It's flat out impossible to state that "When there's light, it's day - when there's darkness it's night". To God, whom I assume hovers in orbit of Earth, there'd be no night and day. To the Inuits, it'd make no sense to speak of night and day since their days and nights are pretty damned long to say the least.

There's always light as long as the stars are here, and there's always darkness as long as something blocks that light. Which means the concepts of day and night are as relative as they can possibly get.

Just as God can't label "Light is good", because light actually kills certain lifeforms, and oxygen is toxic to others as well.

Conclusion: Either God is an abstract invented by tribespeople, or He seriously has no clue WTF he was talking about at that time.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 12:39 PM   #128
Pnut_Man
Existential to the Core
 
Pnut_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 1,061
No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke. I have a few friends who are athiests, we argue alot, I know the deal..just wondering..

And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about?




- Formally hated, praised, and known as Pnut_Man
Pnut_Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 12:46 PM   #129
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke.
I meant it in all seriousness. Where else would he be? Hiding in the grass?

Quote:
And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about?
Read what I just wrote one more time.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 01:30 PM   #130
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Cjais, you're still missing the point of this. We respect your belief that evolution is true. It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right?

And you still haven't explained irreducible complexity. Next point: If there is a design, a very carefully crafted universe that is, by all appeareance, specifically engineered to support life. Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians.

So what we ultimately come down to is that, regardless of how God created us, He clearly did. I personally cannot see that you've proved evolution more than anything else. Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to. And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs. Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong. Those weren't Christians trying to disprove anything; those were evolutionists trying to date what they thought was a real fossil. So how is it that when Christians do it, it is a giant conspiracy, but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time?

Unless we invent a time machine (which is extraordinarily improbable), we cannot know conclusively either way. It still comes down to what you believe. I happen to beleive that Genesis is right; you can't prove it's not. Just as I cannot conclusively prove you wrong. Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 01:33 PM   #131
RpTheHotrod
LFN Staff Emeritus
 
RpTheHotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,798
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here.

I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years, since YOU ARE TAKING THE SCRIPTURE, THE SCRIPTURE IS SAYING

the evening and the morning


which means an actual DAY. Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years" but since you are working with your "infallible" science, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the eart to have a "frillion gazillion years" day...because how do we have days? The earth orbits the sun, correct? Now....if a day lasted 43769269247643786034986734076892470689402376734890 67023849674384375348259656464212342165107452374575 38067237697436897349673549678493675908374028967403 89679437634768342672231233612125214356426754628754 69742389672340673412687375462875469742389672340673 41268736784967893761389678490367849678237697436897 34967354967849367590837402896740389679437634768342 675462875469742389672340673412687367849678 hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity? What keeps the earth from getting pulled in, that's right, the ORBIT......having days and nights!


I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it, the 6 days it took to created was.... SIX days.


man..I don't get why it's so hard to understand such elementary concepts.


Current in-game name is #include
RpTheHotrod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 02:12 PM   #132
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right?
I can prove we descended from a common ancestor to apes. I can prove all life didn't exist simultaneusly at one point in history. I can prove evolution happens on a daily basis right now. I can prove the earliest forms of life were very primitive and gradually evolved to the currents forms.

Quote:
Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians.
What is this meant to prove? That the chance that we're here is very slim indeed? I agree on that.

Give me a link to the site you got this from.

Quote:
Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to.
It obviously does not. You think scientists are specifically "crafting" the numbers they get? That they invent the results?

Quote:
And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs.
Why don't you show me one that isn't. Show me one I haven't refuted by now.

Quote:
Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong.
Such talk again. Similar to "the fact" that human footprints are found alongside dinosaur ones? These footprints never happened - it's a myth.

Quote:
but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time?
Yet it obviously is, when it's possible to date with several different methods and achieve the same result. And not just radioactive dating methods, glacial and wood dating gives the same result. Fantastic.

What's even more remarkable, is that it's possible to predict the results that these several different dating methods spit out, based on which layer and where it was found.

So state once again with certainty that these one-time occurances somehow invalidates the entire principle of isotope dating.

Quote:
Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point.
And while you're still whining how this debate is going down the drain with each post you make, I'm trying hard to get it back on track.

Why don't you present some positive proof of the Genesis, and get to work on the questions I still need answered (some posts back).


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 02:24 PM   #133
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here.
Thank you. And I'm trying reeeeally hard not to think of you as deliberately trying to steer away from my unanswered questions and logic.

Quote:
I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years
Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite. Very well, continue if you must.

Quote:
the evening and the morning

which means an actual DAY.
And by stating this, you also claim that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets.

Quote:
Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years"
Hold on. I never said that either. I'm now stating once again that I said the exact opposite, but since you're so convinced, quote me.

Quote:
Now....if a day lasted [Humongous number edited out] hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity?
Ahh - I think I get it now. So when I said that Inuits and whatnot have days that last longer than we've ever experienced outself, you assumed I meant the earth was standing still. Am I right?

Clearly, your understanding of basic astronomy fails you here, as you don't even know what causes days and nights, and how they're completely dependant on where you are on the earth.

Quote:
I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it
I am taking something from it and saying something about it? Errr.... And why does this make me open to illogical attacks on my intelligence?


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 02:36 PM   #134
RpTheHotrod
LFN Staff Emeritus
 
RpTheHotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,798
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
You said

"No, the Bible cannot prove itself."

and now you just said

"Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite."

You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already


What causes our "evening and mornings"? The orbit around the sun. Sun goes up, sun goes down, sun goes up, sun goes down.

Now, if the Bible's "day" was a million years, the earth would have to had STOPPED turning (well, xtremely slowed down, without any change noticable except for maybe a few feet per 5,000 years?)...but it showes in itself the day was in fact, a day by showing and evening and the morning.

Go outside, look at the sun go up, look at the sun go down...it doesn't change. Now, if the sun were to go up, and stay up for the rest of yoru life...well...you're life wouldn't be that long because in order for the sun to stay in "position", the earth would actually stop rotating totally. Could you imagine what would happen to the earth if that happened for even a few months (ignoring the fact that gravity would drag the earth away first)? The light side would be scorched, and the dark side would have no sunlight and die off....so saying "evening and the morning" was a million years is out of the question.

Re-cap...what makes an evening and the morning? The earth rotating and orbiting around the sun. True, some evenings and mornings may LOOK different than other places on the earth, but they still have the same evening and morning.


Current in-game name is #include
RpTheHotrod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 02:48 PM   #135
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
You said

"No, the Bible cannot prove itself."

and now you just said

"Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite."

You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already
Ooooh... quoting out of context - how I just love that.

No. I said the Bible could not prove itself, because that'd be circular reasoning. And now I'm saying you quoted me out of context (more than once) with regards to me saying the days should be taken for years.

Now, I understand the rest of what you posted, but as I said before, it makes no sense to see the "days" as literal days.

When I said it should be taken as a period of time having passed, I meant it. Let's see - how would a few tribespeople try to condense the history of the world as they knew it into laymen's terms? By writing -"A few days passed and God made the animals." How on earth could you get the idea that it meant literal days? That's nonsense, much as you can see it's equally moronic if I write "3 days passed and I made all the killer whales on earth. Then, 5 days after that, I made all the water on the planet for them to live in". If people start believing in that horsedung, they should get a psychic treatment, fast.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 02:53 PM   #136
RpTheHotrod
LFN Staff Emeritus
 
RpTheHotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,798
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
because it said

"and the evening and the morning were the first day"

the earth doesn't suddenly speed or nor slow down "everyonce in awhile"

If it just said "It was the first day", I understand what you're saying, but it gives you a window of time...an evening and a morning.

An evening and a morning doesn't change. It may look different at differnt parts of the world, but it does not change. The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time.

Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long?

Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think.


Current in-game name is #include
RpTheHotrod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 03:07 PM   #137
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time.

Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long?
Go live on the North Pole for a year.

Quote:
Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think.
I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 03:25 PM   #138
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais
Go live on the North Pole for a year.
And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais
I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal.
Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not.
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 03:26 PM   #139
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:

First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time?

Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way?

Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?

Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard.

Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw?

Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits.

Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore?

We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor.

Why do snakes have useless remains of hips?

If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of lifeís traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolutionís quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer?

Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?

Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans.

The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys.

Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal

Last edited by C'jais; 02-02-2003 at 03:38 PM.
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 03:29 PM   #140
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm...
Try Greenland instead. The same day-night dilemma, slightly better living conditions. People have lived on Greenland for thousands of years now. They don't need gas to survive.



Quote:
Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not.
Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 04:05 PM   #141
Pnut_Man
Existential to the Core
 
Pnut_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 1,061
I've gotta admit C'jais, the "Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all" post had alot of nice information.. How it proves that the "Creator of all life" isn't intelligent is beyond me. I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact.




- Formally hated, praised, and known as Pnut_Man
Pnut_Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 04:08 PM   #142
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact.
Thank you.

I remember now, you're one of the cool Christians - one of those who feel evolution doesn't invalidate or violate the concept of God and the Bible, right?

All the more power to you.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 04:34 PM   #143
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais
Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen.
Here is the definition for tribe:

1. A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.

2. A political, ethnic, or ancestral division of ancient states and cultures, especially:
Any of the three divisions of the ancient Romans, namely, the Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan.
Any of the 12 divisions of ancient Israel.
A phyle of ancient Greece.


3. A group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit: a tribe of graduate students.

4. Informal. A large family.

Sounds a lot like humans nowadays.
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 04:39 PM   #144
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Sounds a lot like humans nowadays.
That's abusing the word.

The point is not that they were tribespeople dammit - the point I was desperately trying to make is that they were ignorant compared to us. No way around it.

And FFS, stop practicing these linguistic acrobatics - how would you feel if I blatantly ignored the point of your post and blasted your out-of-context quotes to hell and back for not making it clear enough, when I knew full well that I got it?

Gah.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 04:54 PM   #145
Pnut_Man
Existential to the Core
 
Pnut_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 1,061
Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic
The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o?




- Formally hated, praised, and known as Pnut_Man
Pnut_Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 05:02 PM   #146
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic
The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o?
The title is vague, yes, but I think people have got the gist of what it's about now

It's not off topic yet, but certain people are working their way towards it. I've presented two minor Redwings of unrefuted facts and evidence.

I'm willing to go on with this, if we drag the topic back to refuting theories instead of arguing about the oh-so-apparent uselesness of this thread and how none of us are going to win. Come on.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 05:05 PM   #147
RpTheHotrod
LFN Staff Emeritus
 
RpTheHotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,798
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it.


Why did He do all of that? Because He can? Why do I like vanilla coke, and I like Cherry Dr. Pepper, but I don't like Cherry Coke that much, and I hate Vanilla Dr Pepper? Makes no sense to you maybe, but I do it.

Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.


Current in-game name is #include
RpTheHotrod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2003, 05:13 PM   #148
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.
It's evidence of evolution. Powerful evidence, since the best you can come up with, is the tired old "God did it because he could".

Since you don't think this disproves an "Intelligent" creator, go ahead and tell me why it is not evidence of evolution.

Quote:
yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.
Not a massive civilization, but the point is there people up there. And that the concepts of night and day has a completely different meaning to them than to those who apparently got the message from God.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 12:12 AM   #149
Psydan
 
Psydan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 47
You asked for answers, well here are some...

Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:
[...]
Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?
Well, if you look at any good anatomy book, you'll notice that there IS a purpose for these "non-functioning remains of tails". The "tailbone" has many important muscles attached to it that allow such things as going to the bathroom and giving birth, and we kind of need those things, so I'm guessing it's good that we have them.(Don't ask for a website, I got this out of my Bio book and from my Bio teacher)
Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais
[...]
Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?
[/B]
YEAH!!! That makes perfect sense!!!
All of the land mammals just jumped into the water, and those that didn't drown decided that it was a good place to live, so they sprouted fins, (like all animals are able to do if they wish really hard) and changed into dolphins! That sounds plausible, and a lot more likely than God (I'm being sarcastic, so don't quote me on this!).


~Dan
Psydan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 01:32 AM   #150
RpTheHotrod
LFN Staff Emeritus
 
RpTheHotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,798
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by C'jais
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:

First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time?

Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way?

Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?

Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard.

Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw?

Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits.

Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore?

We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor.

Why do snakes have useless remains of hips?

If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of lifeís traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolutionís quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer?

Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?

Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans.

The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys.

Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested.
You just said all of that is powerful evidence...

Those are questions, not evidence.

There you go again stating things that simply arn't true.


Current in-game name is #include
RpTheHotrod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 01:35 AM   #151
RpTheHotrod
LFN Staff Emeritus
 
RpTheHotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,798
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"

No, not examples, no "probably"s, solid evolution that if stated on the news, so true and proven, that nearly every single person would agree that evolution is true.


Current in-game name is #include
RpTheHotrod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 08:03 AM   #152
BCanr2d2
Chief B*log Man
 
BCanr2d2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the nursery, changing a nappy
Posts: 1,977
Then as many as we have said, give us proof that the Bible is true as well - it is not enough to discredit evolution, therefore assume Creation is correct. For all we know, both sides of the argument may be wrong.
It's like me saying 1+1= 3 and you saying 1+1=1, neither of us are right, but if you say my answer is wrong, you assume yours is right, without ever proving that it is. Just because one answer is not correct, does not necessarily mean that an alternate answer is correct by default, you must still prove that it is correct.
After all, most of the current line of thinking only stretches back 200 years, when the Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago knew just as much, or possibly more than man does now about many important things. Do not simply assume this technological age is the be all and end all of human knowledge....

At this moment, neither side can definitively say that either method is true or untrue. We can continue to disprove each other, but how do you refute someone who only quotes the Bible as their source, and not back it up with any other evidence.....

RptheHotrod, you are assuming that you are remaining still for a day or night to be lengthened by the Earth slowing down. I question your logic of how you make this assumption. After all, if it is written from God's perspective, then what is his interpretation of a night and day BEFORE the Earth was created? You do not know that, nor can you ever know that.
Cjais has already shown that the world, at its longest interpretation, was created in 3 years....
A complete literal interpretation of the Bible states that Joseph and Mary lived both in Nazareth and Bethlehem simultaneously, coming from the books of Luke and Matthew. As they state different things about what happened in the time leading up to Jesus' birth. The text was written originally in Greek, with the most highly accepted translation being that of King James, still in itself a quite old translation. You want to talk about out of context, it is here that I believe many Greek words to be placed out of context, or misinterpreted, since many languages have double meanings for the same words, depending where they are used.
You also take subjective choices, and try to pass them off as being objective. Taste, smell, amongst other things is subjective, it is up to each person to decide if they like what they are eating or smelling. You can't just go out there and say brown haired males aged 15, weighing 60 kgs, like Coca Cola over Pepsi, and state that this is the Creators choice...


As for those that refute that there is life in the Arctic, and extreme cold, then do a search on Lake Vostok in Russia and you might be surprised about what may exist in a lake that is constantly 4 km's under ice.....


Any resemblence to intelligence in my posts is purely coincidental and accidental..

No posts were harmed in the creation of this post!

B*log....
BCanr2d2 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 12:26 PM   #153
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true.
The fact that virus evolve(through survival of the fittest)to combat immune systems,or vice-versa?



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 01:42 PM   #154
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Cjais, you ask in essence, "If we have a perfect Creator, why aren't we perfect?"

Now to go a bit theological here (don't quote me as being just a Bible-thumping wacko, okay, I'll get to science in a minute) - go read Genesis. It's our fault we're screwed up, not God's. He created us, and we were "good". And then the woman listened to a temptation, and did what God forbade her to do. The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone - if you looked at your tailbone and the muscles attached to it, you'd see the same thing. Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily. What they actually are is the means for blood to pass through the lungs and pick up oxygen! Any resemblance, however superficial, to anything that might be our evolutionary ancestor, is pointed at as "proof" that we evolved.

If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."

Just because things are designed similarly doesn't mean that they "evolved" from one another. A perfect example is sharks and dolphins. They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc. So why do they look so similar? Because they were designed in a way that made them suitable for their environment.

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution. It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

Anyone who says the Bible contradicts itself about Jesus' birth is wrong. When it gives differing geneologies - those are the geneologies of different people: Mary and Joseph. Careful examination shows that They could not have been in both places at the same time according to the Biblical record; they were required by Roman law to report to Bethlehem for the census. And they did.

Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws. But I haven't seen a massive group of them just take over the human population because they're better fit to survive. for the most part, it is only select groups that have that problem - not all. A lot of which comes down to eating habits and differences in location.

Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed. And they actually have the ability to smell. Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water. Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too? Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

That's the problem with evolution.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 03:03 PM   #155
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
I promised myself (again) not to get into this... But I guess that I'll have another go:

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution.
Whatever you classify a virus, it'll be a forced fit. It falls inbetween.

And natural selection is evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.
Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.
Again your beloved Irreducible Complexity. Which is just as silly as Irreducible Simplicity (of course anything can be divided by zero, its just those stupid mathmaticians who claim otherwise, against their own better judgement).

In this particular case you need to check up on the Galapagos biosphere, and particularily the reptiles living both in and out of the water. Or your local pond, where you will se numerous frogs. Over to C'Jais (and this time I hope to stay out).

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 03:20 PM   #156
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it.
No. HE called them cavemen.

Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.
What I called (and still do call) SPAM is mindless restatements of things that have already been refuted countless times, without coming up with anything new to counter the refuttal. That's just a cheap way to overburden the pitifully understaffed Evolution side. Oh, and he (and I) actually have proven evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

Does away with God, you say? Well, so what. When I look at the Universe I see no absolute values of good or evil. I only see a blind, pitiless indifference, as devoid of malice as it is of compassion. If you can't handle that, then by all means imagine a God whatching over you. But don't tell that lie to your children, or your pupils.

Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.
Polar Bears? Evolved for the environment, you say? Ohh, gee.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 04:57 PM   #157
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"
Nature isn't that simple, but I can name some pretty good evidence that can only be explained by the evolution theory.

Pseudogenes, for one.

Pseudogenes (junk DNA) are remains of genes that no longer function, but continue to be carried along in the DNA as extra luggage that does nothing at all. Pseudogenes change as they're passed on from ancestors, and they're a powerful tool to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. As the common ancestor between two organisms, the more different their pseudogenes will be from each other.

When these genes are compared between, let's say, a human and a dog, their differences are relatively few, compared to human pseudogenes and those of wheat.

Humans have about 100 genes for odour receptors, yet only 30 of those are functional. In other mammals they're all functional, indicating we're losing our sense of smell because it's no longer dead important to survive.

In fact, DNA can also be used to eerily predict discoveries based completely on the evolutionary theory. Strange. It's works, it predicts, it saves lives and it has so far only served to increase our understanding of genetics... but it's not true. Ah well, I'd rather go with something that's actually functional and can predict things even if it's blatantly false.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 05:05 PM   #158
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.
Wrong!!! If I move from New York City out to the farmlands in Georgia somewhere with pigs and cows and where it is hotter, I am going to have to adapt to my environment. Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 05:49 PM   #159
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.
Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

Quote:
Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone
No. They are clearly tails. If they were "early formations" of the tailbone, they wouldn't be as huge as they are. They are tails, but gradually shrink back to the tailbone since that's a leftover from our ancestry with other species.

It's also almost remarkably peculiar that almost every mammal look exactly the same during the first stages of the pregnancy, complete with gills and tails. Every mammal, I stress again. Common ancestry? Nah - just God's curious sense of humour.

Oh, and it's gill slits.

Quote:
Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily.
You are joking, right?

Gills slits in lungs? What are you smoking? Sorry. It's just not true. It is gill slits we see on embryos. They disappear as the pregnancy goes along, but it is indeniably (non-functional) gills.

I'd like to see you point out where exactly these gills should reside in our lungs. They're nowhere to be found, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."
That analogy is about as relevant as true as me saying: "We are all built from the same elemental compounds. Thus, we're all related."

Quote:
They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc.
Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Dolphins share many more genes with us than with sharks. Related to us? Nah, probably not by a long shot.

Quote:
Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same.
Virus are made of the same basic proteins and nucleic acids as we. They as have DNA/RNA, as we. They can reproduce, as we. They can parasitize other creatures and gain from it (as we, heh).

They're neither alive nor dead according to biological conventions.

Quote:
It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.
Tell me the difference between evolving and adapting. Tell me where the defining line between the two is.

Quote:
Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws.
Clearly, wisdom teeth are a bigger problem than you've realized.

Quote:
Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed.
No. No. No.

They have no noses. You're confusing "noses" with snouts.

Quote:
And they actually have the ability to smell.
Haha. You made a funny.

No, they cannot smell. At all. I'm staking a lot on this fact.

Now, isn't it curious that dolphins have genes that once coded for odour receptors? Related to us? Nah, God just felt like including all this junk DNA to puzzle us.

Quote:
Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water.
Finally a place where you have your facts straight. Yes, sharks can smell. And yes, they do have noses.

Quote:
Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too?
Nope. Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Whales are mammals. Both whales and sharks have a ton of traits in common with us. They have five "finger" bones in their fins. Sharks do not. I'm also betting, predicting, that whales have non-functional genes that code for odour receptors as well. Notice I'm predicting a discovery based on the evolutionary theory.

Quote:
Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land.
Amphibious creatures. No, they wouldn't be "vulnerable" on land. They'd be gradually better swimmers, and thus inclined to stay more in the water.

Quote:
Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.
Argh. This is just false.

You assume that evolution works on a sequential basis, right? Wrong - it works simultaneusly since the rate of mutations is constant. The death of one individual carrying the changed gene is not going to stop the rest of those who also carry it. 60 millions years is not going them.

Seriously, do you have any idea how long 4 billion years is? We're nothing compared to that stretch of time. Nothing. We're totally insignificant when viewed in the proper timescale.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2003, 05:59 PM   #160
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.
Factor in 2 million years. You'll "adapt". You'll see.

The problem with you guys is that you seriously have no sense of scale. You expect immediate evolving if I'm gone on a vacation to Egypt. Not going to happen.

Now, both in the sense of "adaptation" and evolution it requires several generations and thousands of years for something noticable to happen.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The History of the Universe

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.