100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The THEORY of Evolution. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Are you all still talking evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO Untamed: Thanks. I'll see if my library has it. If you're really interested in understanding evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, Massimo Pigliucci, Richard Dawkins and David Sloan Wilson are authors worth reading up on. Good luck. 
I have checked out Richard Dawkins when his "god delusion" came out; what really caught my eye was the "one of the worlds top intellectuals"....I read the back and flipped to a random chapter and I was AMAZED by the level of ignorance. he is supposed to be a "top intellectual". what. the. hell. Thanks for the recommendations, I also recommend Behe's "Darwins black box" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Getting frustrated Abra?
Clearly you wish. 
I’ve quit reading you posts because your statements are so totally nonsensical that I have better things to do with my time than listen to uneducated ratings. Keep telling yourself that Abra. Your single-flood conjecture has been refuted many years ago by geologists. That argument is almost as old as the story of Noah itself. lol, coughing up total bs again Abra. or should I say as usual? Just rock strata ALONE makes evolution questionable. It can’t possibly be true because that argument would require a single large layer of mud that all occurred at a single point in time. You can’t argue against this fact whilst still maintaining the “single flood” hypothesis. Yet again this statement shows perfectly; you have no clue what you are talking about. If you KNEW about the flood process that is described in the Bible, and if you KNEW about how sediment layers are built up in a flood situation...if Since that’s not what is seen in nature the single-flood conjecture can’t possibly be true. There are literally thousands of layers of fossil records all laid down from different periods in history, each containing animals from a different epoch. Yes and WHY is it that the are only a FEW of these yet there are 1000's of GRAVEYARDS of FOSSILS that are all in the same 'period of history'? why is it that they have found LARGE animals in LOWER levels, and protozoa in HIGHER levels of rock strata???? This fact alone shows that there is a ERROR in the whole simple -to- complex scheme of Darwins. If it WERE true, shouldnt it be the other way around??....or did these large animals evolve into protozoa?? lmao. To entertain your arguments would be like giving a pacifier to a baby. There’s nothing to entertain but the arguer himself. your false sense of security is entertainment enough Abra!
Clearly you have serious fears concerning the truth of evolution since you are scraping the bottom of the barrel using old ideas that have long since been refuted. lol, Again with the bs. Where have they been refuted Abra? Why havent you given me the link to the negative review of Sylvias book? is it perhaps that the sight was bias? hmmm. Whatever is causing your phobia of evolution, it is totally unfounded, I assure you.  I have no fears of lies. good luck with your phobia of truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heres an easy blood clot solution for you and remember I am no scientist. Long ago before blood coagulated. There were 1 million mice. As you will even agree these 1 million mice are not all exactly the same. (That would be ridiculous.) Now all 1 million mice get cut all at once by some bizarre angry mice cutting beast. The 10 or 12 mice that just happen to bleed a little slower have a much better chance at staying alive and passing on that gene. The ones that bleed like a fountain die in seconds and do not pass on their genes. Now let that happen over a few million generations and Ta-da Coagulation. There you go easy as that I proved that wrong in 15 seconds of thinking. So in your concept you're assuming that the mice were able to evolve to rondent form without being attacked ever and only when they were WARM BLOODED ANIMALS did the mutation of blood clotting form? Im no scientist either but I think I beat your personal-best of 15 seconds there. and about the Jesus thing; You had a post which stated :"Im waiting for my apology" in which my reply included debunking your half-assed attempt at debunking Jesus. THEN, after you saw this, you wen back and edited you post to a ] and proceeded to hide from the fact that your claim was obliterated. You're right, I just might go over and re-open that thread so that everyone can see. You didn't ask me to explain how all things evolved to that point you gave a very specific task of Blood not being able to coagulate. I started with an animal full of blood and showed you how it comes to coagulate. Simple problem simple solution, to late to change the parameters now. You concept is insane! do you not see the flaws in it? its alll goood if you make assumptions like THAT but you have to be REALISTIC - which you are not. It's not my concept its yours here are your words Now, if you have NO blood clotting system and you cut yourself; you bleed to death. So if we "evolved" to get more and more complex; tell me how did the lifeforms evolve to create the ability of blood clotting? if in order to DO this, you need to experience it right? no experience = no call to evolve into a superior species right? but if you dont have a blood clot system and you get cut, you bleed to death. Remind me, can your species evolve into a stronger, fitter life form if you (the one that experienced and therefore the catalyst for evolution along your offspring) are dead? There are no flaws in it. Your assumptions are the ones I used. I worked within your parameters. If it will make you feel better lets put it this way. I believe that God made everything up to the point of the mice with non-coagulating blood and then let them evolve from there. He had no idea what would happen just let evolution work. YOUR concept of the MICE is flawed. Your mice were able to survive 'MILLIONS' (since thats how long its supposed to take to evolve from whatever amoeba to a mammal) of years WITHOUT getting CUT....then suddenly, they are wounded and some survive passing on the gene. Millions of years. and they didnt get cut during their entire evolutionary process? You concept goes hand in hand with straight-jackets. My concept says that God created mice with non-coagulating blood. You are now saying it is crazy to believe that God could creat mice like this? LOL izrabbit1. your attempts to change twist your own words and reframe the subect is hilarious! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emotional instability is hardly proof of faith. Well heres your problem! you think having faith is a sign of emotional stability! You must have the most faith person on this board! It’s more likely a sign of poor diet and lifestyle.  with a statement like this; Im not surprised in your stance against creation.
It can also be a symptom of brainwashing. To think that faith is a 'symptom' of brainwashing/conditioning is clear proof that you have never known God and are in no position to be a critic of creationism Abra. See your doctor for a professional evaluation. Ahh insults....another clear sign of aggravation. Go ahea Abra, laugh. Fact is if you werent aggravated; why resort to insults? what made you feel the NEED to resort hmm? and you say I need professional help. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Untamed I think you have covered it well......no need to add a darn thing. Well except
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God IS the answer! And the question is What has sparked more wars and caused more pain then all other causes? So you think God sits there initiates war, famine, hatred? Does your IQ always drop when you post izrabbit1? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fact is if you werent aggravated; why resort to insults?
I've just been sitting here holding up a mirror for you fellow. If you don't like what you see I'll set it down now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I highly recommend Cremo & Thompson's "Forbidden Archaeology" and "Hidden History of the Human Race" to perusers of this thread.
If you discount the Theory of Evolution solely because of human error, misinterpretation, or misconduct (real or perceived), then , if you wish to appear unbiased, you must use at least an equal level of skepticism in regard to the (many) Creation myths. The bottom line is: Are you going to understand the Theory of Evolution or believe in the Myth of Creation? Better yet, are you intelligent and open-minded enough to find an accommodation between the two? Myth: A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon Theory: A mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested via experimentation or otherwise verified through empirical observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly god is not hate. it does love even haters. My pop use to tell me ignant means not knowing what something is. I usually read the beginning the middle and the end.
That way I know what it is before I can come to a conclusion. Nontheless, the majority of spiritual believe god is the answer. god is love. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I highly recommend Cremo & Thompson's "Forbidden Archaeology" and "Hidden History of the Human Race" to perusers of this thread. I haven’t read either of those books, but I would just like to toss in the idea of not getting caught in the trap of just thinking in terms of Archaeology and Paleontology, and/or mere Biology. Especially when considering the age of the earth. As I stated in an earlier post, Astronomy and Astrophysics clearly shows that the earth has to be millions of years old, not thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, but millions of years old. And that evidence is quite compelling in its own right, and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Archaeology, Paleontology or Biology. It’s a totally independent method of knowing how old the earth has to be. Books that attempt to support creationism by disputing Archaeological evidence aren’t even about to consider being in this independent astronomical evidence. They are going to try to keep the reader focused on the dirt. They have an agenda. They have a specific outcome that they want to support. Science doesn’t have an agenda other than TRUTH! Science doesn’t care how old the earth is. They didn’t shoot to try to make the evidence fit the idea that the earth is 4.5 millions years old. They arrived at that figure via many different methods. They had absolutely no reason to want that to be the answer. Creationists on the other hand, have a particular answer that they are trying to make the data point to, and the data seriously doesn’t fit the answer they want to fit. There’s no way that they can make the astronomical data fit into the idea of a planet that’s only 6,000 years old. The data just isn’t going to bend that far. If you discount the Theory of Evolution solely because of human error, misinterpretation, or misconduct (real or perceived), then , if you wish to appear unbiased, you must use at least an equal level of skepticism in regard to the (many) Creation myths.
Absolutely, but in order to do that a person would need to pick the Bible apart like I do, and we all know how that goes over.
The bottom line is: Are you going to understand the Theory of Evolution or believe in the Myth of Creation? Better yet, are you intelligent and open-minded enough to find an accommodation between the two? If I was seriously going to try to support the biblical picture I would choose to simply give the biblical stories a very wide birth of abstraction and metaphor. That would solve a lot of the technical problems concerning things like the age of the earth. And even the actual process of evolution itself could be accepted as the method that God used to create “Adam” from the dust of the earth. I would give the whole story a lot of room for abstraction. I would even take “Adam” to mean a whole civilization and not just a single individual. Same thing with Eve, and I would even see the taking of a rib from Adam to create even as having some metaphorical significance. I do know Christians who hold these very abstract views of the biblical accounts of things, and they seem to have a very strong faith without any need at all to face-off against scientific knowledge. Theory: A mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested via experimentation or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
Unfortunately the word ‘theory’ isn’t used properly even be the professionals themselves. They refer to both proven and unproven ideas as ‘theories’. For example, Einstein’s Relativity is still called a ‘theory’, yet it’s predications have all been verified. It’s as true as true can be. Not to say that it can’t be fine-tuned or added too, just like Relativity added to Classical physics, but it’s not going to be overturned. Time-dilation has actually been measured and observed to be a real property of the universe. We can’t erase that observation. Time-dilation is here to stay, it’s been observed to occur in quite literally billions upon billions of experiments in particle accelerators, as well as other independent macro experiments. However, at the other end of the spectrum we have ‘String Theory’, which really isn’t even a theory at all! It doesn’t even make any predictions! It’s not even well understood. What String “theory” actually is, is nothing more than a “conjecture” at this stage. Why they call it a ‘theory’ I’ll never know. It doesn’t even contain a fully formulated set of equations yet. They know what they’d like to achive, but it’s not there yet and may never get there. It’s really just a “conjecture” at this stage, yet they call it a ‘theory’. Finally, even though there exists a ‘theory of evolution’, there also consist much evidences to support it, so people who claim that it’s “Just a theory” are full of it. It’s MUCH MORE than just a theory. Very MUCH MORE. As far as I’m personally concerned it’s a proven fact. We have as much reason to believe that evolution occurred as we do to believe that the earth goes around the sun. In fact, I would say we have even more reasons to believe evolution occured. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no monkey here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no monkey here I think that's an ape? Can you tell the difference between an ape and a monkey? Many people call all primates monkeys, when in fact apes and monkeys are two kinds of animals under the classification of primate. They may look similar, but when you start to learn more about them, it becomes apparent there are many differences between monkeys and apes. Which animals are monkeys, and which are apes? Now... let's talk a little more about some of these apes. Already after reading the list above, some things look familiar to you. That's because humans are apes! Humans are part of the category "Great Apes". The Great Apes have characteristics that set them apart from other apes and primates: The Great Apes are able to use tools, and use language. Their social lives are complex and they are able to solve problems. Who? The great apes include orangutans, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, humans and bonobos These great apes are included under the family Hominidae. Briefly on Monkeys: Monkeys have the most variation among the Primates, and there are many kinds of monkeys. Monkeys themselves are divided into two large categories: Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys. Old World monkeys live in Africa and Asia, and New World Monkeys live in Central and South America. Old World Monkeys: Old World Monkeys make the family Cercopithecinae. They are larger than the New World monkeys. They are diurnal, and are physically different as well. Old world monkeys have: Narrow and downward pointing nostrils. Longer hind legs than forearms. Flattened nails on fingers and toes. Prominent buttock pads that they can sit on. Tails, but not prehensile (adapted for grasping or holding) ones. They are generally larger than the New World monkeys. Old world monkeys themselves are divided into two subfamilies: the Cercopithecinae (cheek-pouched monkeys) and the Colobinae (leaf-eating monkeys). See what I mean about disinformation? I dunno?
Bearsman (canine) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry no go caveman.......No matter what I did not fall from a speck, that turned into a tadpole, that crawled out and turned into an ape that became me......And if this were the case why are apes still here.......makes no sense to change from something that still is here. And also in your lifetime or say the last 200 years has there been any animal that has changed to another animal.......NOT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heres an easy blood clot solution for you and remember I am no scientist. Long ago before blood coagulated. There were 1 million mice. As you will even agree these 1 million mice are not all exactly the same. (That would be ridiculous.) Now all 1 million mice get cut all at once by some bizarre angry mice cutting beast. The 10 or 12 mice that just happen to bleed a little slower have a much better chance at staying alive and passing on that gene. The ones that bleed like a fountain die in seconds and do not pass on their genes. Now let that happen over a few million generations and Ta-da Coagulation. There you go easy as that I proved that wrong in 15 seconds of thinking. So in your concept you're assuming that the mice were able to evolve to rondent form without being attacked ever and only when they were WARM BLOODED ANIMALS did the mutation of blood clotting form? Im no scientist either but I think I beat your personal-best of 15 seconds there. and about the Jesus thing; You had a post which stated :"Im waiting for my apology" in which my reply included debunking your half-assed attempt at debunking Jesus. THEN, after you saw this, you wen back and edited you post to a ] and proceeded to hide from the fact that your claim was obliterated. You're right, I just might go over and re-open that thread so that everyone can see. You didn't ask me to explain how all things evolved to that point you gave a very specific task of Blood not being able to coagulate. I started with an animal full of blood and showed you how it comes to coagulate. Simple problem simple solution, to late to change the parameters now. You concept is insane! do you not see the flaws in it? its alll goood if you make assumptions like THAT but you have to be REALISTIC - which you are not. It's not my concept its yours here are your words Now, if you have NO blood clotting system and you cut yourself; you bleed to death. So if we "evolved" to get more and more complex; tell me how did the lifeforms evolve to create the ability of blood clotting? if in order to DO this, you need to experience it right? no experience = no call to evolve into a superior species right? but if you dont have a blood clot system and you get cut, you bleed to death. Remind me, can your species evolve into a stronger, fitter life form if you (the one that experienced and therefore the catalyst for evolution along your offspring) are dead? There are no flaws in it. Your assumptions are the ones I used. I worked within your parameters. If it will make you feel better lets put it this way. I believe that God made everything up to the point of the mice with non-coagulating blood and then let them evolve from there. He had no idea what would happen just let evolution work. YOUR concept of the MICE is flawed. Your mice were able to survive 'MILLIONS' (since thats how long its supposed to take to evolve from whatever amoeba to a mammal) of years WITHOUT getting CUT....then suddenly, they are wounded and some survive passing on the gene. Millions of years. and they didnt get cut during their entire evolutionary process? You concept goes hand in hand with straight-jackets. My concept says that God created mice with non-coagulating blood. You are now saying it is crazy to believe that God could creat mice like this? LOL izrabbit1. your attempts to change twist your own words and reframe the subect is hilarious! Well I have to say we agree it is ridicules to think that God did that. Welcome to my side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly god is not hate. it does love even haters. My pop use to tell me ignant means not knowing what something is. I usually read the beginning the middle and the end. That way I know what it is before I can come to a conclusion. Nontheless, the majority of spiritual believe god is the answer. god is love. If God is Love why is Bush at war? and that is no joke the most death penalties in his state he seems to relish war. I love my children, If your children filled Iraq would you have attacked it? If your child with a mental handicap was on death row and you could pardon him would you do it? If you don't have kids put in the people you love most, the ones that you would die if they died and then answer. I do not see love in his God. I do see war and death. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 01/28/08 08:42 AM
|
|
Sorry no go caveman.......No matter what I did not fall from a speck, that turned into a tadpole, that crawled out and turned into an ape that became me......And if this were the case why are apes still here.......makes no sense to change from something that still is here. And also in your lifetime or say the last 200 years has there been any animal that has changed to another animal.......NOT Don't call people 'caveman' just because you don't agree with their opinions!!! At that rate, people might start calling you 'feral-churchianity-lady', and I would hate that! But here's the problem with making fun of the irrational basis for this statement you keep making about '... speck of dirt, turned tadpole, turned ape, turned human, ... how do you , as a female human, being but an afterthought, allegedly having a 'male rib' as an original ancestor, figure that this 'fable' makes more rational sense??? Other than imploring 'blind faith', your argument against evolution which only uses 'questionable' logic against one side of the equation, is highly suspect, and clearly points to presuppositional 'bad faith'. 'Speck of dirt', or 'male rib' as an ancestorial legacy?!?!? I bet many 'free thinking' women, confronted between the two, will opt for the 'dirt' concept! You're helping the opponent's case 'feral'!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... how do you , as a female human, being but an afterthought, allegedly having a 'male rib' as an original ancestor, figure that this 'fable' makes more rational sense???
Sorry Voil, if she truly believes in the Bible then she's not allow to answer your questions because women aren't allow to speak out publicly on matters of religion and philosophy according to the Bible.
Unless, of course, she’s an extremely disobedient rebellious believer who supports the religion whilst defiantly violating the laws of her Lord and Master. :rolls eyes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a thought!!!
How about a 'creationism meets evolution' discussion BACKWASH!!! A sort of cleansing process, which would serve objectivity, open-mindedness, and establish the fondations for an 'equal opportunity debating practice' discussion?!?!? Here's how this 'BACKWASH' metaphor might shape in the context of this exchange. Primo: From a rigourous scientific perspective, 'god' cannot be proven to 'exist', from a material, physical, or demonstrable standpoint, therefore, any other form of existence, that might suggested by human schools of thought, namely religion, or philsophy, are not in agreement with the 'position' of science. Secundo: Let's 'pretend' that this scientific position was considered 'infallable' and 'without possible error'!!! Tertio: That this 'god exists' claim, based on the s called litteral and 'factual proof' of his word in a 2000 year old book, was in fact a claim or position which squarely discredits, contradicts, and possibly falsifies the scientific position, and on that basis, represents a threat to the very existence of the scientific approach, and those practicing it. Quartio: Given this imminent threath to the truht of science, it proposed that the scientific community considers this as a direct attack by religious groups on the very integrity of science and scientists, and to further consider potential conunter-attacks on religion organizations own their own grounds. As concrete means of counter attacks, the scientific evolution 'apologetics', propose that ... ... 'evolution science' be PREACHED every Sunday in Church, right alongside 'creationism'. ... that it be TAUGHT as altnative belief, to the litteral word of the bible as the word of god. ... that every 'apologetics evolution soldiers' be equally taught to spread equal dosage of 'poison' and 'antidote' to the masses they proselityse to. ... and finally, ... that 'fundamental beleivers' be taught the elementary notions of critical thinking and objective (open-minded) perspective, ... while hard line scientists, would be taught to consider for themselves an others, the 'intangible' aspects of faith and belief. Wouldn't that be refreshing!!! Imagine for a moment, a line-up of 'science freaks', protesting in front of your church doors, claiming their 'science-given' right to 'touch' believers with 'THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH' during Sunday services!!! As I suggested, a discussion 'BACKWASH' !!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 01/28/08 12:27 PM
|
|
... how do you , as a female human, being but an afterthought, allegedly having a 'male rib' as an original ancestor, figure that this 'fable' makes more rational sense??? Sorry Voil, if she truly believes in the Bible then she's not allow to answer your questions because women aren't allow to speak out publicly on matters of religion and philosophy according to the Bible.
Unless, of course, she’s an extremely disobedient rebellious believer who supports the religion whilst defiantly violating the laws of her Lord and Master. :rolls eyes: Forgot about this 'female suppression dogma' 'abra'.
But don't you think that 'feral' might have it in her to 'rebel' against such oppression!!! Also, that 'feral' might be closer than we think in realizing that the 'Lord and Master' is within her, and within US all?!?!? That in fact there is no wall, division or separation between our soul and the so-called Lord and Master. That she might be close to realizing that our shared spirit, as we all wake-up in owning it, is the only metaphoric 'Lord and Master' that ever existed!!! As in, "... WE HAVE MET WITH THE LORD AND MASTER, AND HE IS 'US' !!!..." |
|
|
|
|
