Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #3805

Subject: "Disprove Evolution" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
tappenzee
Member since Sep 28th 2002
19839 posts
Sun Sep-21-03 04:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Disprove Evolution"


  

          

go ahead, disprove it.

I heard something about a human finger found deep in the earth where it was dated back to the times of the dinosaurs or some such shit... who else heard this one?

Personally, I believe in evolution. But still, it's still a theory. Creationists, step up and disprove this shit. Evolutionists, step up and defend this shit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
umm...
Sep 22nd 2003
1
umm...
Sep 24th 2003
49
      fuckin' classic!!
Sep 24th 2003
70
           excellent argument
Sep 24th 2003
71
yeah...
Sep 22nd 2003
2
one thing...
Sep 22nd 2003
3
AHHHHH!
Sep 24th 2003
72
GW Bush
Sep 22nd 2003
4
RE: GW Bush
Sep 29th 2003
99
TAP? You there?
Sep 22nd 2003
5
RE: TAP? You there?
Sep 22nd 2003
6
No... look at what you're saying
Sep 22nd 2003
8
      RE: No... look at what you're saying
Sep 23rd 2003
32
      RE: No... look at what you're saying
Oct 01st 2003
117
RE: TAP? You there?
Sep 22nd 2003
7
Jawnz...
Sep 22nd 2003
9
      RE: Jawnz...
Sep 22nd 2003
10
      Don't Stop
Sep 22nd 2003
11
           RE: Don't Stop
Sep 22nd 2003
12
                Keep Going
Sep 22nd 2003
14
                     RE: Keep Going
Sep 22nd 2003
15
                     RE: Keep Going
Sep 22nd 2003
17
                          Keep Going
Sep 22nd 2003
18
                               Keep going where?
Sep 22nd 2003
19
                                    I'm gonna give myself carpal tunnel....
Sep 22nd 2003
20
                                    why?
Sep 22nd 2003
24
                                         Incorrect
Sep 22nd 2003
26
                                              that's not an answer
Sep 22nd 2003
28
                                                   BECAUSE
Sep 22nd 2003
29
                                                        RE: BECAUSE
Sep 22nd 2003
31
                                                        no
Sep 23rd 2003
33
                                                             RE: no
Sep 23rd 2003
36
                                                        Morality has NOTHING to do with this discussion
Sep 23rd 2003
37
                                    Thank You Thank You Thank You
Sep 22nd 2003
23
                                    no problem
Sep 22nd 2003
25
                                    Hov!
Sep 25th 2003
77
                                    What makes you so certain
Sep 29th 2003
100
                                         works either way
Oct 01st 2003
116
      why does there have to be a creator though?
Sep 23rd 2003
35
           not only that
Sep 23rd 2003
38
God's creatures evolved...
Sep 23rd 2003
34
RE: Disprove Evolution
Sep 22nd 2003
13
RE: Disprove Evolution
Sep 22nd 2003
16
Please, EVERYONE
Sep 22nd 2003
21
One more time man... IT'S NOT RELEVANT
Sep 24th 2003
44
      SPEAK UP
Sep 24th 2003
59
           40thStreetBlack explained why over and over again.
Sep 25th 2003
80
                he can listen to Jimi; he just can't *hear* Jimi
Sep 27th 2003
88
fossil record show clear progression of horse evolution
Sep 22nd 2003
22
Here's a theory
Sep 22nd 2003
27
RE: Here's a theory
Sep 22nd 2003
30
I'm a Creationist...
Sep 23rd 2003
39
don't really need to prove anything
Sep 23rd 2003
40
So...
Sep 24th 2003
60
E. Coli bacteria
Sep 23rd 2003
41
hahaha
Sep 24th 2003
43
Even the experts overlook things
Sep 24th 2003
45
      hey, skippy
Sep 24th 2003
46
           Penicillin is a compound
Sep 24th 2003
54
           And as far as the two bit article goes
Sep 24th 2003
55
                well geez
Sep 24th 2003
56
                RE: And as far as the two bit article goes
Sep 24th 2003
57
                     RE: And as far as the two bit article goes
Sep 24th 2003
64
Faulty logic
Sep 25th 2003
76
      Actually E.coli
Sep 27th 2003
86
           Which begs the question
Sep 27th 2003
87
           works fine for simple single-celled microorganisms...
Sep 27th 2003
91
           the *primary* means of reproduction is binary fission
Sep 27th 2003
90
                conjugation is independent of reproduction
Sep 28th 2003
92
                     genomic evolution mapped in close relative of E.Coli
Sep 28th 2003
94
                          Ahh...
Sep 28th 2003
97
                               is that supposed to disprove the paper in some way?
Sep 30th 2003
103
                                    You presented the article
Sep 30th 2003
105
                                    I presented it as science showing evolution in bacteria
Sep 30th 2003
107
                                         RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact
Oct 01st 2003
113
                                              RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact
Oct 01st 2003
115
                                                   RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact
Oct 01st 2003
120
                                                        RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact
Oct 04th 2003
121
                                    you are so, so, so, so, right.
Sep 30th 2003
106
RE: Disprove Evolution
Sep 24th 2003
42
just to clear things up
Sep 24th 2003
58
Archaeopteryx: clear 'missing link' bet. bird &dinosaur
Sep 24th 2003
66
record shows horses evolved from one species to another
Sep 24th 2003
68
MY QUESTION...
Sep 24th 2003
47
they're working on it
Sep 24th 2003
48
      thanks...but...
Sep 24th 2003
51
           it doesn't necessarily HAVE to have worked out the
Sep 28th 2003
96
                HEY!
Oct 01st 2003
108
micro vs macro
Sep 24th 2003
50
this is why people choose to believe in creationism..
Sep 24th 2003
53
I am trying to maintain composure but...
Sep 24th 2003
61
      RE: I am trying to maintain composure but...
Sep 24th 2003
62
           RE: I am trying to maintain composure but...
Sep 24th 2003
65
           see post 66
Sep 24th 2003
67
           you can't be through
Sep 24th 2003
73
Same thing - one is just an extention of the other
Sep 24th 2003
69
      RE: Same thing - one is just an extention of the other
Sep 25th 2003
74
      whatever
Sep 25th 2003
75
      archaeopteryx is a bird, not dinasour
Sep 25th 2003
78
           semantics - it is still a clear transitional form
Sep 27th 2003
89
                still a bird
Oct 01st 2003
109
                     oh yeah before
Oct 01st 2003
112
                     Still a transitional form
Oct 13th 2003
122
Evolution exsists
Sep 24th 2003
52
RE: Evolution exsists
Sep 24th 2003
63
a qoute from stephen gould
Sep 25th 2003
79
GTFOOHWTBS
Sep 26th 2003
81
exactly
Sep 28th 2003
95
did you see the one
Sep 29th 2003
98
      nah I missed that one
Sep 30th 2003
104
RE: GTFOOHWTBS
Oct 01st 2003
110
      can't even argue with you
Oct 01st 2003
114
out of context;discussing gradual evol vs punct equilib
Sep 28th 2003
93
      RE: out of context;discussing gradual evol vs punct equ
Oct 01st 2003
111
we were created, then we evolved
Sep 26th 2003
82
Hey Debate Club members?
Sep 26th 2003
83
RE: Disprove Evolution
Sep 26th 2003
84
Maybe I can...kind've....softshoe in here a bit
Sep 26th 2003
85
101 and having fun
Sep 30th 2003
101
102 no thanks to you.
Sep 30th 2003
102
RE: Disprove Evolution
Oct 01st 2003
118
HEAR ME OUT
Oct 01st 2003
119

inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 07:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "umm..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


What evolved?

that is all.

Reply please.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "umm..."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

what didn't?

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
rogue_scholar
Member since Feb 14th 2003
7647 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "fuckin' classic!!"
In response to Reply # 49


  

          

this exchange should be on a fuckin' t-shirt.

"umm...what evolved?

"umm...what didn't?"

let 'em know mayne!

**************
rS

"Only the educated are free." -- Epictetus

"The punishment we suffer if we refuse to take an interest in matters of government is to live under the government of worse men." -- Plato

----------------
rs

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 06:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
71. "excellent argument"
In response to Reply # 70


  

          



if you're concerned with appearing witty, or getting a few chants and cheers from the Springer crowd.

but you're both ignoring the obvious question.

How can you do that?

please explain.

What evolved?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Trinity444
Charter member
41709 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 08:04 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "yeah..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


In the beginning God created the heaven and earth!

The choice is your's....to believe it or not!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 08:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "one thing..."
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Sep-22-03 08:41 AM

  

          

that to me hints at some sort of creationism...

actually, first, let me say i beliege in both....creation came through process of evolution.....

ok.

can scientists create even the simplest lifeform from scratch? an amoeba, any protozoa? from scratch....and imbue it with life?

there is a difference between a living being and a dead being...they can be identical physically and structurally...but the 'life' cant be pinned down to any atoms, molecules, or strands of DNA...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 06:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
72. "AHHHHH!"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          



Man, I see your point... but don't you see that it's missing the point as well??

Even if they could create life... that supports the Creationist proposition, because you're concurring the that a Creator would be necessary. In terms of implyin evolution (which is incidently NO argument against creationism!!), scientist being able to create life or not is irrelavent!

no?

This discussion is now taking up several different threads... and there has not been a materialist view yet which has not talked itself into a dizzying circle.

Someone contend that... please... otherwise, I just cannot imagine what you're basing your disagreement with creationsits on.

Go ahead.. please.. I need to hear this.

If it wasn't created... WHAT happened?

And don't say the big bang... because something had to blow up.

And don't say some quantuum flux capacitor vacuum 21 gigiwatts shit... because that will still require something to EXIST.

If what we have was not created... then how did it get here.

Stumped?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MrMick
Charter member
1539 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 08:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "GW Bush"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

How far have we really evolved?

Seriously though, You can see evolution all around us. People in mountain villages have bigger chests, because there lungs are larger to accomodate for the altitude. Pygmy's live in densely forested areas, because it helps them to navigate the brush and not to stand out among predators.

It's everywhere.

--

"Old? Gay? Like decks?"
-The Janitor

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
BarTek
Member since Nov 10th 2002
51250 posts
Mon Sep-29-03 05:02 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
99. "RE: GW Bush"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

lol

let's play ping pong ■

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 10:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
5. "TAP? You there?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


What "evolved"?

If God did not "create" the heavens and the earth, and all that abounds in it... if all of it is a constant product of this continuous evolutionary cycle... then WHAT started the cycle? What evolved?

Same question applies everywhere... Big Bang... WHAT BLEW UP?

I hate to sound like now I'm picking at people, hoping for an argument, but I guess I am. Ah well. I apologize.

I know this is not an "Atheism" post... but it's kind of hard to have one discussion with out the other.

I got attatcked once on the OKP boards for saying that Atheists have absolutely no leg to stand on, and are not using their heads in the slightest bit. It's very accusatory, I know. I'd be upset if someone said it to me... But I just can't back down from that statement.

If there is a God, then God created what we have here.

We know it so clearly in our hearts and yet are so scared of what it might imply about our behaviour.

I can't imagine what it is like for God to watch us, LITERALLY denying a creators existence when WE EXIST! WE exist, and have the balls to suggest that maybe NOTHING made us exist... ahh.. i'm at work and getting in trouble now... gotta get off the computer... grrrr!!

peace.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
keithdawg
Charter member
5593 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 10:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: TAP? You there?"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

"If God did not "create" the heavens and the earth, and all that abounds in it... if all of it is a constant product of this continuous evolutionary cycle... then WHAT started the cycle? What evolved?"

"Same question applies everywhere... Big Bang... WHAT BLEW UP?"

These issues you're getting so heated over are impossible to explain from an atheistic or religious perspective.

I mean, you could go on and on forever like, ‘oh yeah, if there’s a God, then some other God must have created that God, and there must have been a God before that God.'

Ish is retarded man, especially to get all heated over … I wish not interfere though, keep chasing your tail and barking at others that do not wish to join in on your ridiculous game of 'who came first, the chicken or the egg?'.

"You fasten all the triggers,
For the others to fire,
Then you sit back and watch,
As the death count gets higher"-Bob Dylan

"Maybe you'll be president,
But know right from wrong,
Or in the flood,
You'll build an Ark,
And sail us to the moon"-Thom Yorke

"I'm in heaven trying to figure out which stack they're going to stuff us atheists into,
When Peter and his monkey laugh and i laugh with them,
I'm not sure what at,
They point and say we'll keep you in the back polishing halos, baking manna and gas"-Modest Mouse

Do yourself a favor,
Be your own savior.

Daniel Johnston

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 01:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
8. "No... look at what you're saying"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          


No...
you could not go on forever in a "which came first?" debate

Eventually you'll have to concede that something started the whole damn thing.
Something "outside" the physical realm. If it were "inside" the physical realm, it would part of said "damn thing".

Please tell me if you think I'm off here.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Kozmikblak
Member since Sep 10th 2002
1154 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 12:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "RE: No... look at what you're saying"
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

Does christianity not teach god is or was a physical being also?

and I think the point keithdawg is making is if your reasoning of what evolved gives credence to the existence of a god because something was created from nothing....... then where did god come from who or what created god?.......did god create him/her/itself?.... and if so from what?......is that even possible?......did a all knowing nonphysical being appear from nowhere or did it evolve to become all knowing?....and if so, evolved from what or what evolved?


"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas poison

"For trees to grow in Brooklyn seeds need to be planted. I asked, "can you feel me?" and the crowd left me stranded" -Talib kweli

"Hip Hop can never be a way of life it doesn't tell you how to raise a child or treat a wife" -Q-tip A tribe called Quest

"...Cats sip champagne to toast death and pain like slaves on a ship talking about who has the flyest chain" -Talib Kweli Black Star

"We're the renegade we're the people with our own philosophy, we change the course of history. Everyday people like you and me." Afrika Bambaataa and the Soulsonic force Renegades of funk

"There's a war goin on outside no man is safe from...You can run but you can't hide forever" -Mobb Deep

"The children in the street no longer seek 300 and 6-0 degrees, they park they minds at 1 oh 6 and freeze" -Pos-Freedom Train

"Devil and nigga are the same to me." -Nettrice

"it's wack to me when the beat is more hype than the M.C. cuz what he is saying

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 12:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
117. "RE: No... look at what you're saying"
In response to Reply # 8
Wed Oct-01-03 12:46 PM

  

          

I think your problem is that you see everything within time as linear and so your lack of comprehension forces you to place a god at the beginning of this long line. It is the same reason primitive societies made gods for rain, sun, wind and so on. They did this because they did not have the scientific means to understand these things. Slowly over time, all these gods, through through the power of kings and rulers who wanted to maintain fear in their subjects, shifted all these gods into one single god with themselves as "his" representatives on earth.

If you want to comprehend evolution, you have to except two notions. One is that human beings are incable of comprehending infinity and secondly that time and space cannot be looked at in a flat and linear manner. The root of earth evolution is in the fact that for an infinite amount of time throughout space energy has continuously been transferred through various celestial phenomena. One phenomena would create another and another and another and so forth.

Do you ever ask yourself how mold grows on old food? It came out of nowhere didn't it? Well, not really, the obvious observation is that certain combinations of elements cause these things to occur.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 11:00 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "RE: TAP? You there?"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

>>I got attatcked once on the OKP boards for saying that Atheists have absolutely no leg to stand on, and are not using their heads in the slightest bit

Instead of Athiests....insert any religious faction, and the statement would make a lot more sense.....People who dont believe in God arent the ones that "are not using their heads in the slightest bit"

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 01:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
9. "Jawnz..."
In response to Reply # 7


  

          


No.

Atheism refuses to acknowledge a creator that is supreme to the physical world we see around us.

That is a lack of logic.

I am here. Who put me here?
The earth is here. Who put it here?
The earth is beautiful. Who made it that way? Better yet, who instilled the concept of "beauty" in my mental/emotional vocabulary. Better yet... WHY would they do that?

We can go no further until you explain to me how "Atheism" uses any sort of logic WHATSOEVER to arrive at it's outcome.

You or anyone. I'm waiting. Please. A lot is at stake here.

And please don't come at me with the "religious faction" stuff.
I am not asking for examples of how a fallable human has abused or misused the moral law that has been placed in every single one of our souls (hey! by who?).

I'm simply asking for someone to show me a shread of logic in Atheism.

Again I apologize if my urgency is coming off brashness. But this is hella-fucking urgent. Isn't it?

ready? go.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 01:38 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: Jawnz..."
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

>>No.

YES

>>Atheism refuses to acknowledge a creator that is supreme to the physical world we see around us.That is a lack of logic.

And i stand firm with the belief that putting your faith into something that cannot be proven to exist in anyway is that very same "lack of logic" that you accuse athiests of being guilty.


>>I am here. Who put me here?
You are here bcause at some point,something began to grow in some ooze, and eventually something crawled out of that ooze, and eventually,something climbed up in a tree, and eventually something began to walk upright, and then their cranial cavities grew larger, allowing us to eventually begin to deal with questioning our very existence....then some of us got logic...the rest got God....

>>The earth is here. Who put it here?

THe answer is not a "WHO"..its a how that doesnt in anyway involve a who

>>The earth is beautiful. Who made it that way? Better yet, who instilled the concept of "beauty" in my mental/emotional vocabulary. Better yet... WHY would they do that?

It got this beautiful by being lucky enough to be snuggled in just the right place within this galaxy as to allow life to begin to flourish....

>>We can go no further until you explain to me how "Atheism" uses any sort of logic WHATSOEVER to arrive at it's outcome.

Again, the real challenge is finding a religious person to use any logic whatsoever...I cant really waste my time with those kind of people, its amzing how they never tire of chasing their own tails around over and over when it comes to their way of looking at things....


>>And please don't come at me with the "religious faction" stuff.
I am not asking for examples of how a fallable human has abused or misused the moral law that has been placed in every single one of our souls (hey! by who?).

Only things that are in my soul comes from me and the way i was raised by my parents....



>>Again I apologize if my urgency is coming off brashness. But this is hella-fucking urgent. Isn't it?

Honestly, no, its not that urgent...In my opinion, the evidence is there, right in our faces, and yet religious types continue to scramble to explain things in terms of God, when it really comes down to the perfect blend of science and nature.....

peace


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 01:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "Don't Stop"
In response to Reply # 10


  

          


where did the ooze come from Jawnz?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 02:01 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "RE: Don't Stop"
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

>>where did the ooze come from Jawnz?


Again, the ooze came from chemical reactions(science)....

trust me, you're not gonna change my mind, and i sure as hell aint gonna change yours...but like i said, its really not that pressing of an issue...people are dying everyday, people are starving, rights are being taken from us on a daily basis...i really dont care what some religious kook wants to tell himself about the origins of the universe....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 02:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
14. "Keep Going"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          


Where did the chemicals come from?





--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 02:52 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "RE: Keep Going"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

see, we can do this all nite. I name something, and you ask me "But where did that come from" over and over, but the bottom line is...you CANT prove where they came from either.....like i said, no time for chasing tails round and round....too much to do.

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 03:40 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "RE: Keep Going"
In response to Reply # 14
Mon Sep-22-03 03:44 PM

  

          

>Where did the chemicals come from?

they came from the heavy elements created in the cores of stars via nucleosynthesis (and blown out into space when those stars exploded into supernovas), which came from interstellar nebula of hydrogen and helium, which came from matter produced from energy which was created by an inflationary false vacuum emerging out of a quantum vacuum fluctuation at the beginning of the universe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Study your math, kids. Key to the Universe." - the Archangel Gabriel, 'The Prophecy'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 03:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "Keep Going"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          



You've successfully communicated a layman's summarization of the big-bang and early evolution theories.

Now keep going.

KEEP going.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 04:32 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "Keep going where?"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

I answered your ultimate question of where everything came from, what started the cycle, what blew up the Big Bang: the answer is, a quantum vacuum fluctuation. There is no more to "keep going" from that then there is from your idea of "God" as the first cause... the difference being that my explanation is scientifically plausible, while yours is not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Study your math, kids. Key to the Universe." - the Archangel Gabriel, 'The Prophecy'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 04:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
20. "I'm gonna give myself carpal tunnel...."
In response to Reply # 19


  

          



See the post entitled "C.S. Lewis"

then... see the post entitled "C.S. Lewis 2"

then.... and so on and so forth.

I'm transcribing number 4 now... but 1 thru 3 should be up.

This is NOT irrelavent man.

If you are empatically debating my position, understand what my position is before you do so. PLEASE, read those post.

Will you?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 04:56 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "why?"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

What does a discussion on human morality have to do with quantum vacuum fluctuations? That is competely irrelevant to the discussion on this thread.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People can say whatever they want about you without knowing the facts.
They can criticize you without even knowing you, and hate you when they
don't even know you. All of a sudden, you're, like, the bin Laden of America.
Osama bin Laden is the only one who knows exactly what I'm going through."

- R. Kelly (Heaven, he needs a hug!)


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 05:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
26. "Incorrect"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

It has in fact EVERYTHING to do with the thread.

But one wouldn't realize that until one read a bit... and also gave whoever was staring at a computer and transcribing all of this (me!) some time to get a few more of them posted.

This is going somewhere man.

Do you think it's fair of you, afer a cursory glance, to tell me it isn't?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 05:18 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "that's not an answer"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

answer my question, and I might take a deeper look at it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People can say whatever they want about you without knowing the facts.
They can criticize you without even knowing you, and hate you when they
don't even know you. All of a sudden, you're, like, the bin Laden of America.
Osama bin Laden is the only one who knows exactly what I'm going through."

- R. Kelly (Heaven, he needs a hug!)


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 05:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "BECAUSE"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          



YOU, ME, The OKP's and the REST OF THE HUMAN RACE
are in the throws of a discussion on why we're here, how we got here, and who's responsible for all of it.

You seem to be contending (with your post) that there is NO creator.. that it all just BECAME somehow.

Yet you are ignoring the most obvious CLUE we have been given as to God's existence.

MORALITY.

Everyone always wants a "sign from God". etc.
I've been accused in this thread of "believing in something I can't see"... and I've been told how ridiculous and illogical that is. And that Atheism/Evolution is the LOGICAL standpoint.

Yet I would contend that if there is a creative force behind all of THIS, it could NOT reveal itself as part of THIS (i.e. what we would call a tangible, concrete, fact/clue).

But rather, it could only reveal itself to us in some other way.

-------------------------> MORALITY


Now... If you still believe that a discussion of the origins of human MORALITY is irrelevant to a discussion ot the origins of the universe... I'd urge you to think about it just a little bit more till you make the connection.

I'm not the enemy man.
I've found something I believe to be amazingly truthful, and I want to share it with you, cause you're my brother.

Please read the LEWIS posts. However, 4 is as far as I'm getting tonight. My wrists hurt.

peace.




--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 06:06 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: BECAUSE"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

>>Yet you are ignoring the most obvious CLUE we have been given as to God's existence.
MORALITY


Morality was not "given" to the human race...it, along with other ideals and values was developed over the massive time span that evolution has taken place.....Those first humans(Not adam and eve) that came about in Africa, were not born with morality....Over time they evolved, forming connections, and with that came these human concepts....

now i gotta get back to this physics lab write up.....

peace

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 01:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
33. "no"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          


Morality was not "invented".

Read the Lewis posts.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 01:44 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: no"
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

>>Morality was not "invented".
Read the Lewis posts


I never said it was invented...You're the one who said it was given to us, which is neither logical nor realistic. And i have read the lewis posts.....just more drivel. Stop wasting so much space on the board pushing your agenda....1 post would have sufficed, 5's pushin it.

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 04:02 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "Morality has NOTHING to do with this discussion"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

If you want to discuss the issue of the origins of human morality, then your CS Lewis posts are the perfect place for that. But it is entirely out of place in this thread.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People can say whatever they want about you without knowing the facts.
They can criticize you without even knowing you, and hate you when they
don't even know you. All of a sudden, you're, like, the bin Laden of America.
Osama bin Laden is the only one who knows exactly what I'm going through."

- R. Kelly (Heaven, he needs a hug!)


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 04:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "Thank You Thank You Thank You"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 05:01 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "no problem"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People can say whatever they want about you without knowing the facts.
They can criticize you without even knowing you, and hate you when they
don't even know you. All of a sudden, you're, like, the bin Laden of America.
Osama bin Laden is the only one who knows exactly what I'm going through."

- R. Kelly (Heaven, he needs a hug!)


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
soundsop
Charter member
12988 posts
Thu Sep-25-03 12:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
77. "Hov!"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

>the difference being that my
>explanation is scientifically plausible, while yours is not.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Mon Sep-29-03 05:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
100. "What makes you so certain"
In response to Reply # 19


          

that the physics that work within our universe would also work outside of our universe...if there is such a thing?


~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 12:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
116. "works either way"
In response to Reply # 100


  

          

if the physics is the same, then the current model is scientifically plausible; if the physics doesn't work the same, then you have no basis to say that it couldn't have happened via some extra-universal principle of physics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
johnny_domino
Charter member
17027 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 04:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "why does there have to be a creator though?"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

I think it's just tough for people to understand that we're just a lucky accident to be here, not part of some supreme being's grand plan. People think "it's such a complex system, it couldn't possibly be random chance". Well, why not? For me, it makes more sense to believe that it was all random chance, and scientific theory backs me up, even if they can't explain everything.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 04:11 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "not only that"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

but to even consider the possibility that it's just a lucky accident that we're here would send them tumbling into an existentialist dilemma on the sheer meaninglessness of life. It's just easier and more comfortable for them to dismiss that out of hand and never even consider or face that possibility - path of least psychological resistance, so to speak.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People can say whatever they want about you without knowing the facts.
They can criticize you without even knowing you, and hate you when they
don't even know you. All of a sudden, you're, like, the bin Laden of America.
Osama bin Laden is the only one who knows exactly what I'm going through."

- R. Kelly (Heaven, he needs a hug!)


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
tappenzee
Member since Sep 28th 2002
19839 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 02:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "God's creatures evolved..."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

i'm proving your point. i'm not by any means an athiest. i dont abide by one single religion, but i DO believe a god created life.

but evolution is supported by so much... im curious

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

thegrindingwheel
Member since Aug 10th 2003
1 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 02:05 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "RE: Disprove Evolution"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Take a look at the fossil record, from the Australopiths to, up to Homo habilis, to Homo Erectus to Homo Heidlebergensis, to Homo Sapiens, it's as obvious as can be. I mean the foramen magnum (hole in the base of the skull)does this neat little thing where it slides from the back of the skull to the center of the skull where it currently resides all while the brain case gets larger. Not to mention once we hit Homo Erectus the post-cranial (read: not the skull) is 100% modern (i.e. it looks like ours). This isn't to say that we wern't created for some other purpose, it is to say that evolution happened whether you want to agree with it or not. Anyway, I'll go back to lurking, which I do best.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
OkayContributor
Member since Sep 14th 2002
330 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 03:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: Disprove Evolution"
In response to Reply # 13


  

          

Why even debate with people who believe in a never before seen magician?

"It is a rare privilege to be born as a human being, as we happen to be. If we do not achieve enlightenment in this life, when do we expect to achieve it?"
Echu, Zen poet

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 04:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
21. "Please, EVERYONE"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


I'm putting up several new threads entitled C.S. Lewis (part 1,2,3, etc)

PLEASE READ THESE.

All the religious/atheist and creationist/evolutionist posts are gonna come roaring back up the board, in fact it's already started...

What I'm postint in these Lewis posts are the Christian position on the matter.

Please don't assume that you know it.

I would appreciate the feedback from ANYONE who takes a few moments and reads what this man has to say.

I'm typing as fast as I can... "Part 4" is comin.

peace.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
chasinanothertrane
Member since Aug 16th 2003
1072 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 02:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
44. "One more time man... IT'S NOT RELEVANT"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

"The revolution will not be apologized for."
-Aesop Rock

"Came to save the game like a memory card."
-MF Doom

"The revolution will not be apologized for."
-Aesop Rock

"The best MC with no chain you ever heard."
-MF Doom

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 09:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
59. "SPEAK UP"
In response to Reply # 44


  

          


It is relavent in the sense that I think it's fair to say a MAJORITY of those who say they believe in the concept of evolution, would say so as in "opposed to creation'.

Not all, but I think it's fair to say a majority.

By saying it's not relevant, are you suggesting that you're part of the group that very much believes in an ultimate creator, but still in an evolutionary process?

Or are you of the Materialists school?

You cannot just say "it's not relevant" providing some more information.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
chasinanothertrane
Member since Aug 16th 2003
1072 posts
Thu Sep-25-03 05:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
80. "40thStreetBlack explained why over and over again."
In response to Reply # 59


  

          

And all you did was use BS circular logic without even taking the time to really try and UNDERSTAND what he was saying... I've read Mere Christianity, I understand the ideas you cut and pasted by Lewis, they're just not fucking relevant to this discussion. Just because two things are linked in your mind doesn't mean that they are!

>You cannot just say "it's not relevant" providing some more
>information.

"The revolution will not be apologized for."
-Aesop Rock

"Came to save the game like a memory card."
-MF Doom

"The revolution will not be apologized for."
-Aesop Rock

"The best MC with no chain you ever heard."
-MF Doom

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat Sep-27-03 01:23 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
88. "he can listen to Jimi; he just can't *hear* Jimi"
In response to Reply # 80


  

          

don't sweat it trane, some people just like being irrational for whatever reason - can't really do anything about it, that's just the way it is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 04:47 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "fossil record show clear progression of horse evolution"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

The evolutionary sequence of horse fossils are on display at in New York City. A clearer on-line view of the evolutionary sequence of horse fossils can be seen . As the guy on that site says:

"How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People can say whatever they want about you without knowing the facts.
They can criticize you without even knowing you, and hate you when they
don't even know you. All of a sudden, you're, like, the bin Laden of America.
Osama bin Laden is the only one who knows exactly what I'm going through."

- R. Kelly (Heaven, he needs a hug!)


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

watdefok
Member since Jun 27th 2002
1443 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 05:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "Here's a theory"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Maybe God created something that evolved... nobody ever seems to consider that possibility.

Evolution is too close to being a fact to disregard IMHO.
Its definition is: genetic adaptations made by organisms to adapt to their environment. That has happened, still is.
Every time DNA replicates itself, little errors are made. Most of those errors are bad, but some turn out for the better. It's all about survival of the fittest, so the strongest DNA survives. And these beneficial errors make DNA stronger.
They're only minuscule changes. But over the course of millions of years, they can change a species completely, depending on the environment.

You can compare it to music. Music has evolved a lot over the years, but you can't make progress without deviating from the norm. And that usually starts with a mistake that happens to sound good. Some of the greatest compositions wouldn't have been made if the composers didn't fuck up somewhere.

But all that doesn't disprove the existence of God either. There are too many things left unexplained, and my feelings tell me there is some higher force.

So personally i like to believe that God created a model which evolves by itself. Maybe he makes some occasional adjustments now and then, but basically it grows by itself. Sort of like how a mathematical formula can create fractal images which you can magnify endlessly. Only a hell of a lot more complex...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
theGriddler
Member since Sep 29th 2002
1612 posts
Mon Sep-22-03 05:34 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
30. "RE: Here's a theory"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          

Don't forget, there is occasionally a big fuckup in the DNA replication that can create something either incapable of life--or something that is MORE capable. These lead to the occasional jumps in evolution, sometimes called macroevolution. Experiments have shown that certain variations in critical genes in common housefly DNA result in a radically altered body structure, one that looks extremely similar to a dragonfly. This experiment has also been tried on dragonflies, ending up with something that is more similar to a housefly. (I've tried to find a link, but I forgot my source. Amateur, I know, but I wasn't studying up for a discussion, just reading for pleasure. Just like yall to know i'm not just bullshitting, scout's honor)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.-George Orwell

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 04:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "I'm a Creationist..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

and I believe in evolution. Peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 08:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "don't really need to prove anything"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

when you consider that the best minds of the last 150 years have been trying to prove or disprove it-- and the overwhelming response from all of the empirical evidence is that evolution is a fact.

the only reason we still call it a 'theory' is because you can't make it happen in a test tube... i mean, it's still open, so if there was something that disproved it, it would be considered. but nothing's popped up for the last 150 years... i can't be bothered reiterating what's in every science textbook ever written.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 09:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
60. "So..."
In response to Reply # 40


  

          



On that logic... why isn't Theism taught in schools?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Tue Sep-23-03 11:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "E. Coli bacteria"
In response to Reply # 0


          

doubles its population size every 20 minutes...20 minutes per generation. Now let's just say we've been scientifically studying it for the past 40 years.

40 years = 14,600 days (ignoring leap years)
14,600 days = 350,400 hours
350,400 hours = 21,024,000 minutes

At 20 minutes per generation, that would be 1,051,200 generations of E. Coli bacteria over a span of 40 years.

How long would it take for a primate to go through a million generations? Well let's choose 10 years per generation for the average primate (Human is like 30-40). So it would take primates 10 million years to go through a million generations.

Well, the oldest hominid skeleton is about . Let's put things together. 700,000 generations (7 million years / 10 years per generation) to go from ape-like to man...and nobody reports "evolution" like this in the 40 years of studying E.Coli!?!?

Either evolution (not adaptation) is a sham OR some of you 40 year olds out there better start worrying about that E. Coli that's been in your GI all your life. They might evolve into a sovereign nation...with guns.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 01:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "hahaha"
In response to Reply # 41


  

          

yeah, send that one to New Scientist magazine...especially that 'evolution is a sham' line, that'll change their minds for sure. what branch of evolutionary science did you get your honours degree in again??


..some things are best left to the experts...

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 02:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "Even the experts overlook things"
In response to Reply # 43


          

Show me a sciece textbook that had to change its 20 year photograph for anatomy of a bacteria because it evolved.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "hey, skippy"
In response to Reply # 45


  

          

Penicillin has evolved in the last half-century.

furthermore: evolution is cretaed through adaptation to change. no change = no need to evolve. try adding this into your little E.Coli model you got running in your bedroom.


Or even better, read this, and then email the author with any further questions you have. The article is pretty much the argument I want to make, but can't-- because I got better things to be doing with my time.

http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview9-23-02.htm


_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 07:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "Penicillin is a compound"
In response to Reply # 46


          

not an organism, how can it evolve? I'm a biochem grad...you're obviously out of your league.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 08:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "And as far as the two bit article goes"
In response to Reply # 46


          

>furthermore: evolution is cretaed through adaptation to
>change. no change = no need to evolve. try adding this
>into your little E.Coli model you got running in your
>bedroom.

Organisms adapt to their environments true. E. Coli and other bacterium will grow resistant to antibiotics...but guess what? When it's all said and done E. Coli is still E. Coli. It didn't and won't evolve into a flatworm.

You can mutate it...we do. You can introduce new genes into its genome so that it produces insulin for you...but it will always be E. Coli. You are NEVER going to find an article that says we found this new organism that seems to have evolved from this transformed E.Coli. And we transform E. Coli all the time.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
johnny_domino
Charter member
17027 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 08:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "well geez"
In response to Reply # 55


  

          

maybe that's because it takes billions of years to, with a few steps in between.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 08:20 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "RE: And as far as the two bit article goes"
In response to Reply # 55


  

          

you're on this earth for lets say 80 yrs on average....your brain is incapable of grasping the timespan over which things like evolution take place....We wont see ANY change in our lifespan, but come back in a few hundred million years, and you'd be surprised what has happened..

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
dyalekt
Member since Jul 24th 2002
110 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 10:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "RE: And as far as the two bit article goes"
In response to Reply # 57


  

          

I thought he touched on that in his original post about the life span of E.Coli?

The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils. -- William Shakespeare

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Thu Sep-25-03 12:26 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "Faulty logic"
In response to Reply # 41


  

          

The primary means of reproduction in E.Coli is binary fission, where one bacterial cell divides into two daughter cells, each containing a carbon-copy of the same DNA. Therefore the vast majority of your million generations of E. Coli are simply clones, which invalidates your comparison of them to hominid generations.

>Either evolution (not adaptation) is a sham OR some of you
>40 year olds out there better start worrying about that E.
>Coli that's been in your GI all your life. They might
>evolve into a sovereign nation...with guns.

No, but they might evolve into a Clone Army... with blasters.

"Begun, this clone war has." - Master Yoda

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Sat Sep-27-03 06:37 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. "Actually E.coli"
In response to Reply # 76


          

are able to transfer genetic material to one another. They have a form of "sex" (conjugation). So they are not just clones.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Sat Sep-27-03 07:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "Which begs the question"
In response to Reply # 86


          

Why do evolutionists feel that sexual reproduction was a necessary evolutionary step for diversifying the gene pool when it seems that binary fission coupled with conjugation would be the most efficient way to diversify a species' gene pool.

After all, the genetic material transfered during conjugation is immediately incorporated into the host's genome. There's no waiting for offspring to be birthed in order to realize any gains.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat Sep-27-03 02:33 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
91. "works fine for simple single-celled microorganisms..."
In response to Reply # 87


  

          

... not so fine for complex multicellular organisms - like, say, a hominid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat Sep-27-03 02:27 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
90. "the *primary* means of reproduction is binary fission"
In response to Reply # 86


  

          

Therefore the *vast majority* of your million generations of E. Coli are simply clones... I quite cleary explained this already.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Sun Sep-28-03 12:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "conjugation is independent of reproduction"
In response to Reply # 90
Sun Sep-28-03 12:47 AM

          

Bacteria reproduce only when conditions are right for them to do so. They don't reproduce until you see visible colonies. When they aren't reproducing, they can transfer genetic information via conjugation.

Conjugation can occur between species. Ever hear of the buzzword "Superbacteria"? If baceteria were simply clones of one another, we wouldn't be seeing this phenomenon. Bacteria have plenty of ways to diversify their genome. That clones stuff is old biology. Pick up a textbook or book written in the last 5 years and then we can discuss more.

And no, superbacteria aren't a proof of evolution (in the sense that the author of the thread seems to define it). The resistant bacteria didn't evolve into new species...they've simply adapted totheir environment.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sun Sep-28-03 12:37 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "genomic evolution mapped in close relative of E.Coli"
In response to Reply # 92


  

          

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/09_00/Buchnera.shtml

"Researchers have mapped the genomic evolution of a bacterium found in aphids. This parasite, called Buchnera, has shared a mutually beneficial relationship with the insect for about 250 million years. Buchnera does not behave like other bacteria because it relies on aphids for functions such as protection and reproduction. In return, the aphid depends on the bacteria to supply necessary proteins it cannot obtain on its own.

A team of researchers led by Hajime Ishikawa of the University of Tokyo's Graduate School of Science sequenced the Buchnera genome and found that it lacks the genes normally found in other bacteria. To find out why these differences have occurred, Ishikawa and his colleagues plotted the evolutionary position of Buchnera among other bacteria with a similar set of genes. Their results indicate that Buchnera fell away from the bacterial lineage of R. prowazekii, leaving Buchnera's closest relatives as E. coli and H. influenzae, with which it shares some genes. The results of this study are published in the current issue of Nature.

Buchnera is a small genome, resulting from years of evolutionary dependence on aphids. According to Ishikawa, "the gene repertoire of the Buchnera genome is so specialized to intracellular life that it cannot survive outside the eukaryotic cell."

"This study is the first case where genomic evolution of a mutualistic organism is revealed at the genomic level, " says Ishikawa in Nature."

From the :

"To evaluate the evolution of the characteristic gene set in Buchnera , we tried to reconstruct the history of Buchnera. First, we determined the evolutionary position of Buchnera among prokaryotes. We made orthologue groups of all ORFs in 23 complete prokaryotic genomes. For each group, we constructed a molecular phylogenetic tree and inferred the most plausible phylogeny of Buchnera and its relatives by searching for the most frequent sub-tree of the same topology that included one or more Buchnera genes or domains. The results indicate that after the speciation of R. prowazekii , Buchnera then diverged from the lineage to E. coli and H. influenzae, although a certain number of trees support the topology in which the closest relative of E. coli is Buchnera. To see whether the Buchnera genome is small because the genome of the last common ancestor (LCA) of Buchnera, E. coli and H. influenzae was as small as that of Buchnera, or because of gene loss in Buchnera after speciation, we inferred the gene set of the LCA. The gene set of Buchnera, excluding a few genes, is a small subset of that of the LCA, and many genes of the LCA were missing in Buchnera, such as those for non-essential amino-acid metabolism. In addition, no Buchnera -specific duplicated gene was found. These results strongly indicate that the small Buchnera genome is the result of reductive evolution."

- So yes, there is proof of evolution in bacterium, in a close relative of E. coli no less. Pick up a journal publication from the last few years and then we can discuss more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Sun Sep-28-03 04:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
97. "Ahh..."
In response to Reply # 94


          

The articles in Nature.

E Coli and B Aphidicola are in the same order...of course there's a common "ancestor", just like apes and man are in the same order. We have a mythical common ancestor with the other primates as well.

is the genome of a strain of B Aphidicola. As you click on different genes it will compare the sequence to the sequence of other bacteria. It would seem that B Aphidicola shares code with a lot of different bacteria species, not just E Coli.

It's amazing that we don't give God the same credit that we give ourselves. If we go into an art gallery, we can tell a Picasso painting because of the brush strokes he used, themes, colors. No one says,"oh these Picasso paintings are similar, they must've evolved from one picture!!" No, his idea of how to paint them may have evolved, his mood as he painted may have evolved, but each painting is a creation.

But when it comes to God's creation, everything that God did to prove one creator is a sign to us of things evolving from one thing to the next. What a funny world, we don't believe in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers that work on the same principles.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Tue Sep-30-03 03:24 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
103. "is that supposed to disprove the paper in some way?"
In response to Reply # 97


  

          

>The
>articles in Nature.

Unlike the claims of biblical creationists, nobody said the publications in Nature were "infallible" - if you can prove it to be wrong on a scientific basis, then by all means, do so. In addition to the great satisfation of winning an internet debate with an anonymous stranger, you will make a name for yourself in the field of genetics and should be able to parlay that into an NSF research fellowship or something equally impressive and rewarding in the field. So go for the gusto, man!

>E Coli and B Aphidicola are in the same order...of course
>there's a common "ancestor", just like apes and man are in
>the same order.

Is that supposed to do something to disprove the paper?

>We have a mythical common ancestor with the
>other primates as well.

And I suppose our REAL, non-mythical ancestors were named Adam and Eve, right? LOL, you're funny.


>is the genome of a strain of B Aphidicola. As you click on
>different genes it will compare the sequence to the sequence
>of other bacteria. It would seem that B Aphidicola shares
>code with a lot of different bacteria species, not just E
>Coli.

This is hilarious - that link is from the same people who published the Nature article... how is that supposed to disprove the paper?

>It's amazing that we don't give God the same credit that we
>give ourselves. If we go into an art gallery, we can tell a
>Picasso painting because of the brush strokes he used,
>themes, colors. No one says,"oh these Picasso paintings are
>similar, they must've evolved from one picture!!" No, his
>idea of how to paint them may have evolved, his mood as he
>painted may have evolved, but each painting is a creation.

That was a thouroughly unconvincing analogy.

>But when it comes to God's creation, everything that God did
>to prove one creator is a sign to us of things evolving from
>one thing to the next. What a funny world, we don't believe
>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>that work on the same principles.

Um, nobody is building quantum computers on the principles of an omniscient god... drugs are bad, mmmkay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Tue Sep-30-03 04:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
105. "You presented the article"
In response to Reply # 103


          

>Unlike the claims of biblical creationists, nobody said the
>publications in Nature were "infallible"

as if it were truth.

>- if you can prove
>it to be wrong on a scientific basis, then by all means, do
>so.

It wasn't my intentions to prove that article false. I was just showing that the researching methods of Nature articles have been shown to be faulty before.


>>E Coli and B Aphidicola are in the same order...of course
>>there's a common "ancestor", just like apes and man are in
>>the same order.
>
>Is that supposed to do something to disprove the paper?

No, it was supposed to draw parallels of proclaiming things without definite proof.

>And I suppose our REAL, non-mythical ancestors were named
>Adam and Eve, right? LOL, you're funny.

No, they're mythical as well (get a dictionary)...it's just that they were created. But here's a thought, before you attack what you assume to be my beliefs. Let me reveal them to you first, you'll seem less of an ass, then to attack something I've never said or hinted at.

>This is hilarious - that link is from the same people who
>published the Nature article... how is that supposed to
>disprove the paper?

Being a biochem guy, I thought it was neat. It was information that can be proven...unlike the assumption made in the article. The fact that alot of the same genes were used by different species according to the blast results was just to relate to what I was going to say next.

Are paintings an evolution...or are they creations? An artist will leave their impression on a piece of art. Multiple pieces of art created by the same artist will share the same impression. This impression, whatever it may be, is how you seperate the works that were done by this artist from the works done by another.

You call it evolution...I call it God's impression.

>Um, nobody is building quantum computers on the principles
>of an omniscient god... drugs are bad, mmmkay?

Based on the principle of being ominiscient...not based on an omniscient God. Reading is good, mmmkay?

In a quantum computer a "bit" would hold both a zero and a one at the same time. It would know every outcome...is that not the definition of being omniscient?

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Tue Sep-30-03 08:08 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
107. "I presented it as science showing evolution in bacteria"
In response to Reply # 105


  

          

nothing more, nothing less.

>It wasn't my intentions to prove that article false. I was
>just showing that the researching methods of Nature articles
>have been shown to be faulty before.

Those articles were challenged very shortly after they were published, within a matter of several months tops; the Buchnera paper was published 3 years ago - if the research methods were likewise faulty, it would've been challenged in the same manner a long time ago.

>No, it was supposed to draw parallels of proclaiming things
>without definite proof.

Human evolution is not based merely on apes and man being in the same order, just as Buchnera evolution is not based on it merely being in the same order as E. coli - so you are drawing parallels to irrelevant points.

>No, they're mythical as well (get a dictionary)...it's just
>that they were created. But here's a thought, before you
>attack what you assume to be my beliefs. Let me reveal them
>to you first, you'll seem less of an ass, then to attack
>something I've never said or hinted at.

I was referring to you calling our common ancestor with primates "mythical", as if all the scientific evidence supporting this were on the same standing as an old biblical fairy tale - you are the one making an ass out of yourself by posing your creationist nonsense as being scientific.

>Are paintings an evolution...or are they creations? An
>artist will leave their impression on a piece of art.
>Multiple pieces of art created by the same artist will share
>the same impression. This impression, whatever it may be,
>is how you seperate the works that were done by this artist
>from the works done by another.
>
>You call it evolution...I call it God's impression.

No, you deny that it is evolution and call it creationism. The "God's impression" thing is more along the lines of LK1 and others who reconcile God and evolution, not people like you who try to dismiss evolution as a sham and a myth.

>>Um, nobody is building quantum computers on the principles
>>of an omniscient god... drugs are bad, mmmkay?
>
>Based on the principle of being ominiscient...not based on
>an omniscient God. Reading is good, mmmkay?

Uh, that's not what you said, mmmkay?

>In a quantum computer a "bit" would hold both a zero and a
>one at the same time. It would know every outcome...is
>that not the definition of being omniscient?

no, it would not "know every outcome"; each qubit would just be able to hold multiple values at the same time via the principle of superposition - that is quantum physics, not omniscience.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 07:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
113. "RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact"
In response to Reply # 107


          

>nothing more, nothing less.

How is it showing evolution? Explain the article to me. It is assuming evolution. If there was a painting called E Coli and a painting called B Aspirida that shared common features. You wouldn't say that they evolved from one painting. You would say that's proof that one artist did both paintings.

>Those articles were challenged very shortly after they were
>published, within a matter of several months tops; the
>Buchnera paper was published 3 years ago - if the research
>methods were likewise faulty, it would've been challenged in
>the same manner a long time ago.

Clock's still ticking.

>>No, it was supposed to draw parallels of proclaiming things
>>without definite proof.

>I was referring to you calling our common ancestor with
>primates "mythical", as if all the scientific evidence
>supporting this were on the same standing as an old biblical
>fairy tale - you are the one making an ass out of yourself
>by posing your creationist nonsense as being scientific.

Evidence without proof isn't evidence. Fairly tales can be proven false, I've yet to see someone prove the bible wrong.

>>You call it evolution...I call it God's impression.
>
>No, you deny that it is evolution and call it creationism.
>The "God's impression" thing is more along the lines of LK1
>and others who reconcile God and evolution, not people like
>you who try to dismiss evolution as a sham and a myth.

I'm not trying to reconcile anything. My point is that the fact that organisms share a lot of the same features is proof of creation. Why would God create a perfectly good metabolism pathway only to change things from species. It would seem to me that if was left to evolution there would be multiple ways of getting energy from sucrose...why only have TCA cyles?

>Uh, that's not what you said, mmmkay?

This is what I said:
>What a funny world, we don't believe
>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>that work on the same principles.

People find it impossible that God know all possible outcomes, yet we are building quantum computers that work on the same principles.

>no, it would not "know every outcome"; each qubit would just
>be able to hold multiple values at the same time via the
>principle of superposition - that is quantum physics, not
>omniscience.

So a qubit would hold simultaneously a zero, a one, both a zero and one, and nothing...and you wouldn't know what value was until you accessed it. So if I had a memory module that was 4 qubits wide, and my computer wanted the value 0101 from ram...it would already be there. What about the value 1010? 0001? 0010? 1100? 1001? 0110? I see because, of quantum physics every outcome possible (from the computers point of view) is already stored in memory. Sort of like it knows all. That principle sounds familiar.

But let's get back to why humans evolved so much over ~700,000 generations, yet E Coli haven't. Experiments are being run on the very subject. I wouldn't call adapting evolution, though. We get a new hominid species with every new skull found. The bacteria in the experiments are still called E. Coli.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 11:59 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
115. "RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact"
In response to Reply # 113


  

          

>How is it showing evolution? Explain the article to me. It
>is assuming evolution. If there was a painting called E
>Coli and a painting called B Aspirida that shared common
>features. You wouldn't say that they evolved from one
>painting. You would say that's proof that one artist did
>both paintings.

Why do you need me to explain it to you - I thought you were supposed to be a biochem guy? It is explained in the excerpt I posted; if you have a biochem background then you should be able to understand what the article is saying, and if it is wrong or if its conclusions are of dubious validity, you should be able to refute them with more convincing arguments than some bogus painting analogy.

>Clock's still ticking.

Don't hold your breath.

>Evidence without proof isn't evidence.

??? I think you are having a little difficulty with semantics there.

> Fairly tales can be
>proven false, I've yet to see someone prove the bible wrong.

I thought you said Adam and Eve were mythical? Well, which is it? If they're mythical, then the bible is wrong.

>I'm not trying to reconcile anything. My point is that the
>fact that organisms share a lot of the same features is
>proof of creation.

Funny how you deride genomic mapping which shows strong scientific evidence for reductive evolution as invalid proof, yet you think this hand-waving argument is somehow "proof" of creationism - that is not very objective, now is it?

>Why would God create a perfectly good
>metabolism pathway only to change things from species. It
>would seem to me that if was left to evolution there would
>be multiple ways of getting energy from sucrose...why only
>have TCA cyles?

Maybe bc it worked fine and there was no need to change from an evolutionary standpoint.

>This is what I said:
>>What a funny world, we don't believe
>>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>>that work on the same principles.

Right - you said it works on the "same principles" (plural) of "an omniscient God"; you did not specify that it was only the principle (singular) of being ominiscient - RIF.

>So a qubit would hold simultaneously a zero, a one, both a
>zero and one, and nothing...and you wouldn't know what value
>was until you accessed it. So if I had a memory module that
>was 4 qubits wide, and my computer wanted the value 0101
>from ram...it would already be there. What about the value
>1010? 0001? 0010? 1100? 1001? 0110? I see because, of
>quantum physics every outcome possible (from the computers
>point of view) is already stored in memory. Sort of like it
>knows all. That principle sounds familiar.

It cannot store "every possible outcome", just a great, great # of outcomes - however, it is not an infinite #. And anyway, being able to store a great # of multiple values at the same time does not equate to infinite knowledge of all things everywhere; therefore "omniscience" is quite a misnomer for this.

>But let's get back to why humans evolved so much over
>~700,000 generations, yet E Coli haven't. Experiments are
>being run on the very subject. I wouldn't call adapting
>evolution, though. We get a new hominid species with every
>new skull found. The bacteria in the experiments are still
>called E. Coli.

Your premise is inherently flawed bc you are presuming an equivalent 1-to-1 correlation between E coli and hominid generations. For starters, the degree of clonality in E coli populations is not 1 (more like ~ .5), therefore each generation does not encompass a complete genetic shuffling as with sexual reproduction and thus cannot be directly compared to hominid generations on a 1-to-1 basis for the purpose you are suggesting.

Furthermore, your method of calculating all the E coli generations over 40 years or whatever for comparison is faulty bc all of those generations are not in the same population - 5,000 generations studied and terminated in 1960 and another 5,000 generations studied and terminated in 1990 does not give a sum total of 10,000 sequential generations in the same population. So you cannot come up with some theoretical number of E coli generations over 40 years or whatever and compare this to sequential generations of hominids over whatever millions of years.

In short, your fuzzy math simply doesn't add up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
nonaime
Charter member
3030 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 11:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
120. "RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact"
In response to Reply # 115


          

>Why do you need me to explain it to you - I thought you were
>supposed to be a biochem guy? It is explained in the excerpt
>I posted; if you have a biochem background then you should
>be able to understand what the article is saying, and if it
>is wrong or if its conclusions are of dubious validity, you
>should be able to refute them with more convincing arguments
>than some bogus painting analogy.

Because I don't think you understand the article. They DON'T have have proof. They are ASSUMING that since they share common genomic code that there must be a common ancestor. You don't like paintings, fine cars. It's all the same concept.

It's like saying all cars evolved from the model T. No the ideas may have evolved, but each car is a creation. If we weren't the creators of our cars, buildings, whatever--by evolutionists' logic they would all be proof of evolution. You see all computers evolved from this Babbage Computer and then about blah years ago there was an event that caused a phylogenic split resulting in risc and cisc architectures...

>>Evidence without proof isn't evidence.
>
>??? I think you are having a little difficulty with
>semantics there.

The "evidence" is all circumstanstial. There is no proof. They don't have the bacteria's common ancestor...and they sure haven't found man's.


>I thought you said Adam and Eve were mythical? Well, which
>is it? If they're mythical, then the bible is wrong.

Mythical adj. 2. Of or existing in myth.
Myth n. 1a. A traditional story originating in a preliterate society dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heros that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world.

That sense of the word says nothing about truth or fiction...like I said earlier, get a dictionary. Nobody has proved the bible to be false.

>Funny how you deride genomic mapping which shows strong
>scientific evidence for reductive evolution as invalid
>proof, yet you think this hand-waving argument is somehow
>"proof" of creationism - that is not very objective, now is
>it?

Evolution makes all things possible, you can get rid of genes/sequences you don't need...yet Eukarotic cells seem to have lost that ability all those damn introns. We have life growing in areas that we would never had thought life could survive...yet we can't find proof of life on our closest neighbors.

The reasons for life and the reasons for no life doesn't add up when you look at the world through the eyes of evolution. It sounds more like something made a conscious decision on bounds and limits of life. I ask why aren't there different ways to get energy from sucrose and you say:

>Maybe bc it worked fine and there was no need to change from
>an evolutionary standpoint.

All that energy in sucrose and all we can get is a net of 36 ATP/GTP molecules per mole. You mean to tell me there's no other process to match that effieciency, it certainly isn't very efficient. Sounds more like a decision rather than an evolutionary standpoint.

>>This is what I said:
>>>What a funny world, we don't believe
>>>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>>>that work on the same principles.
>
>Right - you said it works on the "same principles" (plural)
>of "an omniscient God"; you did not specify that it was only
>the principle (singular) of being ominiscient - RIF.

Only because I was going to also post about an experiment that showed a particle being in two places at once, but I couldn't find the link...so I removed omnipresent.
>It cannot store "every possible outcome", just a great,
>great # of outcomes - however, it is not an infinite #. And
>anyway, being able to store a great # of multiple values at
>the same time does not equate to infinite knowledge of all
>things everywhere; therefore "omniscience" is quite a
>misnomer for this.

From the computer's pov, which is what I said, a zero or an one are the only outcomes. Every qubit would have both outcomes already, so from the computer's pov it would know all the outcome...the principle is what I said it would posses.

~~~~~~~~
A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat Oct-04-03 01:35 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
121. "RE: I presented it as science showing evolution in bact"
In response to Reply # 120


  

          

>Because I don't think you understand the article. They
>DON'T have have proof. They are ASSUMING that since they
>share common genomic code that there must be a common
>ancestor. You don't like paintings, fine cars. It's all the
>same concept.

I understand the artice fine, and I also understand that it is far more scientifically valid than your supposed 'proof' of creation: "My point is that the fact that organisms share a lot of the same features is proof of creation" - talk about assumptions that don't prove anything. It's funny how you dismiss the Nature article, yet think your scientifically unfounded hand-waving argument somehow constitutes valid proof.

>It's like saying all cars evolved from the model T. No the
>ideas may have evolved, but each car is a creation. If we
>weren't the creators of our cars, buildings, whatever--by
>evolutionists' logic they would all be proof of evolution.
>You see all computers evolved from this Babbage Computer and
>then about blah years ago there was an event that caused a
>phylogenic split resulting in risc and cisc architectures...

No it's nothing like saying that; cars and computers don't replicate themselves and adapt to their environments - comparing living organisms and mechanical devices in this manner is an absurd analogy. Really, you need to drop this nonsensical argument.

>The "evidence" is all circumstanstial. There is no proof.
>They don't have the bacteria's common ancestor...and they
>sure haven't found man's.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for creation, let alone proof.

>That sense of the word says nothing about truth or
>fiction...like I said earlier, get a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster defines mythical as:

1 : based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history
2 usually mythical : existing only in the imagination : FICTITIOUS, IMAGINARY

synonym see FICTITIOUS

- so GTFOOHWTBS.

Furthermore, by the defintion that you gave, your use of the word "mythical" to describe humans' common ancestor with other primates is incorrect, so your argument is wrong on multiple levels - way to go, dictionary boy. Also, your definition of mythical would mean that the bible represents "a primitive view of the world" - couldn't agree with you more on that one.

>Nobody has
>proved the bible to be false.

Of course they have - and have proven many things in the bible to be false. The bible is about as historically valid as the Illiad and Arthurian legend - the only reason you don't acknowledge this is willful ignorance.

>All that energy in sucrose and all we can get is a net of 36
>ATP/GTP molecules per mole. You mean to tell me there's no
>other process to match that effieciency, it certainly isn't
>very efficient. Sounds more like a decision rather than an
>evolutionary standpoint.

No, it sounds like a stupid decision for an all-powerful creator to make - are you calling God stupid?

>Only because I was going to also post about an experiment
>that showed a particle being in two places at once, but I
>couldn't find the link...so I removed omnipresent.

woulda, coulda, shoulda...

>From the computer's pov, which is what I said, a zero or an
>one are the only outcomes. Every qubit would have both
>outcomes already, so from the computer's pov it would know
>all the outcome...the principle is what I said it would
>posses.

You know, while you were so busy with all that dictionary stuff, you should've taken 2 seconds to flip over to the definition of omniscient:

- Function: adjective
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

- so unless all those quibit outcomes can tell you if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop, it ain't omniscient. And it isn't working on the same principle either - note the definition referring to awareness, understanding, insight & knowledge ... raw data does not these things make.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Sep-30-03 06:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
106. "you are so, so, so, so, right."
In response to Reply # 103


  

          

>Um, nobody is building quantum computers on the principles
>of an omniscient god...


correct...

the world is falling apart in pain and anguish while it denies him.

but hey, at least we have quantum computers, or will, HOPEFULLY!

maybe they'll stop the suffering huh?



--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ICON
Charter member
364 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 01:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "RE: Disprove Evolution"
In response to Reply # 0


          

i think the important difference to understand, is that even creationists believe in a form of evolution. There are fossil records to prove it, and only the most stubborn refuse to see it. but that is an evolution within one species. horses evolving into somewhat different horses, etc. what most creationists do not believe however is evolution from one species to another. apes to humans for example.

the crucial piece of evidence for me is; in all the fossils and remains that have been uncovered, there has never been found any fossils or evidence of a link or missing link. not one fossil of a creature evolving from one species to another. with the thousands or millions of years it would take to evolve, it seems that there would be many so called links.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
tappenzee
Member since Sep 28th 2002
19839 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 08:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "just to clear things up"
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say we came from apes

we came from simpler forms of ourselves, not another species altogether

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 11:26 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "Archaeopteryx: clear 'missing link' bet. bird &dinosaur"
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

http://www.gwu.edu/~bygeorge/march19ByG!/evolution.html

"Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being about 150 million years old. It was the first reptilian fossil found with clear evidence of feathers, a trait long considered the key distinction between birds and “non-birds.”

“Scientists have argued, ‘feathers are unique. They can only evolve in birds. If you have feathers you are a bird,’ ” says Clark. “Now you have dinosaurs with feathers.”

Scientists quickly recognized this member of the therapod family as the potential “missing link” between birds and more primitive reptiles. Like many dinosaurs, archaeopteryx had a bony tail, teeth, and clawed fingers, and a hyperextendable claw on each foot. However, this species also had several features similar to birds such as its feathers, wings, wishbone, and reduced tail vertebrae. Many scientists believe these feathers may have originally evolved for insulation and later were co-opted for flight."

more info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#features
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:06 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "record shows horses evolved from one species to another"
In response to Reply # 42
Wed Sep-24-03 05:10 PM

  

          

>but that is an evolution within one
>species. horses evolving into somewhat different horses,
>etc.

That is incorrect - the fossil record for horses shows evolution within the same *family* (equid) into different species (and genus for that matter). Only the modern genus Equus contains the species that can be identified as a true "horse" (Equus caballus); the others in the fossil record are distinct and seperate species from the modern horse. So the fossil record does indeed show that horses evolved from one species to another.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"A horse is a horse, of course, of course" - Mr. Ed


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
47. "MY QUESTION..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

can scientists create even the simplest lifeform from scratch? an amoeba, any protozoa? from scratch....and imbue it with life?

there is a difference between a living being and a dead being...they can be identical physically and structurally...but the 'life' cant be pinned down to any atoms, molecules, or strands of DNA...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "they're working on it"
In response to Reply # 47


  

          

http://www.cnn.com/1999/HEALTH/12/10/simplest.cell/

but this hasn't got anything to do with the debate, cos there weren't any scientists standing around in the primordial soups 4 billion years ago, releasing single celled organisms.


_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
51. "thanks...but..."
In response to Reply # 48


  

          

to me its the question can inorganic matter turn into organic matter and then become 'live' on its own...

even the most basic living organism is PRETTY DAMN complex....so even if we imagine that through random events and environmental happenings that physically something like a cell is formed...

can u just fit the physical materials together and the cell will take life on its own?

add some carbon, nitrogen, phosphates, and oxygen...piece them together...will this organism automatically start ingesting material for food, know how to reproduce, etc etc...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
poetx
Charter member
58773 posts
Sun Sep-28-03 01:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "it doesn't necessarily HAVE to have worked out the"
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

way it did here. carbon is a building block for life on earth. it could be silicon or a completely different element somewhere else.

we don't know the mechanism that 'started' what we think we know as evolution. it could have been random, or it could have been directed by forces which we cannot comprehend, or at least have not been able to detect.

evolution could very well be the mechanism for 'creation'. it almost assuredly did NOT go down literally the way it says in the bible... unless we serve a Loki trickster god who goes burying dinosaur bones all over the place just to mess with our heads.

7 days to God could be billions of years to us. but even if evolution is the mechanism of creation, that still doesn't say WHOSE God. and, as mentioned above, its all circular, and limited by our ability to perceive physical reality and imagine metaphysical reality. if some beings infinitely more complex than us created our whole universe as an experiment, are they 'God'. or is what created them 'God'?


peace & blessings,

x.

"I'm on the Zoloft to keep from killing y'all." - Iron Mike

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
malang
Member since Oct 18th 2002
7081 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 04:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
108. "HEY!"
In response to Reply # 96


  

          

>way it did here. carbon is a building block for life on
>earth. it could be silicon or a completely different element
>somewhere else.

i'm always wondering about this...these scientists are always wondering big about presence of water on mars and other planets....in part to determine if it could support 'earthly' life, BUT ALSO to see if life exists within those planets...

i always thought, what if their life doesnt need water? what if their life thrives under 300 degreees celsius?

anyway, random thoughts....

but yeah i agree with you.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "micro vs macro"
In response to Reply # 0


          

first there needs to be some clarifacation, there are different forms of evolution. One being micro (within the species) and the other being macro (from species to species).

Micro evolutoin does exist, one can see the different changes that may occur within a specific species. The hard part for evolutionist to prove, is evidence of evolution occuring between different species.

For example fossils of a half snake, half bird or something. And there is also differences between goules evolution and darwinian evolution as well. Me myself am a creationist, I think that is the safest bet.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 06:58 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "this is why people choose to believe in creationism.."
In response to Reply # 50


  

          

>> Me myself am a creationist, I think that is the safest bet.


Its the safe bet...its a way to appease yourself by trying to deny the fact that the inhabitants of this giant rock hit the jackpot, right place, right time, right conditions....and its certainly not the only place in the universe where it is occuring as we speak.....Its easier to chalk it all up to a nonexistant being rather than trying to deal with the fact that yes, maybe we are failry inconsequential in the big picture....Tough pill to swallow for many i suppose

peace

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 09:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
61. "I am trying to maintain composure but..."
In response to Reply # 53


  

          


You don't make ANY sense?

WHAT hit the jackpot?

WHAT universe?

You act as if Creationsts believe that there WAS a UNIVERSE, THEN God created MAN?

You can't be serious.

Do you think a universe full of stars and planets is NOTHING?

And then Man arrives and that's SOMETHING?

You're in over your head kid!!!!!!

Listen... I'm gonna say it slowly... EVERYTHING... how did it get here?

Why is this concept to hard to communicate to people?

Are you being hard-headed or am I?

It's like I'm asking you how there is LIGHT in the room, and you're calling me an idiot while pointing at the light switch!!

You're missing the whole concept!

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 10:15 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "RE: I am trying to maintain composure but..."
In response to Reply # 61


  

          

>>You don't make ANY sense?
I make far more sense than a person who chalks the complexity of the universe up to a nonexistant God....we'v

>>WHAT hit the jackpot?
The creatures, plants, and organisms that exist on this floating rock....right place, right time....

>>WHAT universe? You act as if Creationsts believe that there WAS a UNIVERSE, THEN God created MAN?

The Correct outlook is There was a Universe, and eventually MAN CREATED GOD

>>You can't be serious.
Again, your putting the complexity of the universe into the hands of essentially what amounts to the boogeyman....So who's not serious about this shit?

>>Do you think a universe full of stars and planets is NOTHING?
I dont think it was created, i think it came about....Man is nothing but a miniscule speck on the history of space and the universe. We are just too full of ourselves to admit it

>>And then Man arrives and that's SOMETHING?
Man didnt "arrive" We developed over hundreds of millions of years...

You're in over your head kid!!!!!!

First off, im not a kid, second off, dont tell me im in over my head. I amcurrently having an argument with a God crazed idiot, who makes no sense....trust me, im done with you after this post. You havent brought anything to even open my eyes to the potential viability of Creationism. You are just further proving with each post, that you and the people who believe in this shit dont have a leg to stand on in this arguement...no time to do circles with the special ed kids...sorry

>>Listen... I'm gonna say it slowly... EVERYTHING... how did it get here?
yeah, i know, you can continue to ask the same question over, post after post, like you have been doing for 3 days,making yourself think you're smarter than you are....But you're doing nothing but hurting your TIRED ASS argument

>>Why is this concept to hard to communicate to people?
Because its pretty much an insane way to look at things...I feel for you, i truly do... I dont know how you guys can have evidence piled up in your face and still keep a straight face when claiming one day we just appeared on earth, in a garden....

>>Are you being hard-headed or am I?
You're being hard headed, im being logical

And with that,im through with this crap...I got far too much important stuff to get done this week, rather than get preached at by some halfwit....

peace


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
dyalekt
Member since Jul 24th 2002
110 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 11:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "RE: I am trying to maintain composure but..."
In response to Reply # 62


  

          

You were so quick to dog inVerse that you missed osoclasi issue of macro-evolution...that is the intriguing part of this argument not the fact that inVerse is questioning EVERYTHING.

The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils. -- William Shakespeare

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 11:30 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "see post 66"
In response to Reply # 65


  

          

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 06:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
73. "you can't be through"
In response to Reply # 62


  

          


can you?

because you still havn't offered a viable option to Creationism.

You say we "came about".

You say "something" can come from "nothing".

You apparently are not grasping what is being implied by the word "nothing".

It's a hard concept for man to fathom. It requires quite a bit of thought. That kind of thought where your brain just starts to hurt and you have to think about something else... the idea of "eternity" does that to me as well.

I'm suspecting the idea of "nothingness"... the lack of anything is doing that to you because you keep implying that "something" came from "nothingness".

I don't wish to aggrevate you. I know I already have. I know I'm pursuing this argument very fervently, but it's that important to me. I'm sorry to have upset you.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "Same thing - one is just an extention of the other"
In response to Reply # 50
Wed Sep-24-03 05:33 PM

  

          

>The hard
>part for evolutionist to prove, is evidence of evolution
>occuring between different species.

There is abundant evidence of this - see post #68. It is not hard for evolutionists to prove, it is just hard for creationists to accept.

>For example fossils of a half snake, half bird or something.

I'll do you one better - half-bird/half-dinosaur - see post #66

> Me myself am a creationist, I
>think that is the safest bet.

"That path leads ever down into stagnation." - Muad'dib, 'Dune'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
dyalekt
Member since Jul 24th 2002
110 posts
Thu Sep-25-03 01:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "RE: Same thing - one is just an extention of the other"
In response to Reply # 69


  

          

Your two references (bird/dinosaur & horse) while a good start, in no way even scratches the surface. I do not claim to be a scientist, I can claim though that I am an observationist and in my observations I have seen a great multitude to species around the world. If they all evolved from a one or even a few organisms don't you think that there would be more evidence of this macro-evolution brought up earlier. I am straddling the fence here trying to see where the stronger argument lies and at this point you haven't begun tipping the scale, though you think your proof in infallible.

The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils. -- William Shakespeare

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Thu Sep-25-03 11:47 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "whatever"
In response to Reply # 74


  

          

Why ask for evidence if you're just going to dismiss it out of hand when it's presented to you? You want a fossil record showing a clear, sequential evolutionary progression from one species to another? you got it with the horse. You want a 'missing link' transitional form that is half-way between 2 very distinct *orders* of animals (like birds & reptiles), let alone species? You got that with Archaeopteryx. Any "observationist" can clearly see that... so what the fuck more do you want? There IS more evidence of macro-evolution - whale evolution, for example; I just went with those 2 off the top of my head. And those references more than "scratches the surface", it blows a fucking hole right through your hand-waving objections.

And furthermore, I didn't say my proof was "infallible" - that is for religious zealots, not science... but that is the beauty of science, there is no rigidly set "infallible" dogma; it is falsifiable, so if you can provide scientific evidence that disproves the theory, then the theory is proven to be invalid. For example, if you can find a 55 million years old fossil of Equus Caballus (the modern horse), then you would have a valid argument against the current theory of horse evolution. Or if you can find a 150 million year old fossil of a fully modern bird, like a hawk or something, then you would have a valid argument against Archaeopteryx being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. However, if all you have is empty rhetoric and weak hand-waving arguments - which is all your post amounts to - then you should keep your ignorant ass out of the debate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Sep-25-03 04:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "archaeopteryx is a bird, not dinasour"
In response to Reply # 69


          

First of all since creatures within a family, order, or class are so highly variable, it would be predicatable on the basis of the creation model that animals in different orders and classes would have some charecteristics in common. ( although those horses seemed to be in the same species to me, but I did not look very closely.) I'd be more convinced if someone would show me a half reptile/half horse. All those looked like to me was fossils of different horses found in different parts of the world who had gone through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate, not some jump between species. They looked to all belong to the same family. Hence micro not macro evolution.


Many claim that Archaeopteryx has teeth, a long tail, claws and wings, which are all reptilain charecteristics. However, Archaeopteryx did not have reptile teeth, but teeth that were uniquely bird like, having unserrated teeth with the constricted bases and expanded roots, while theropd dinosaures (its alleged ansector) had serrated teeth with straight roots. Futhermore it is not suprising that some birds had teeth, since this is true of all other vertabrates. The long tail is supposed to be a reptillain feature, but not all reptiles have long tails.

Also Archaeoptrys fossil gave no evidence of a bony sternum, which lead many palentologist to believe that he could not fly, however, a seventh species was reported that in cluded a bony sterunum. Thus proving that the bird was suitable for flying as any modern bird.

Finally one must believe that scales evolved into feathers for flight, this idea no matter how many millions of years one gives it is simply far fetched.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sat Sep-27-03 02:04 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "semantics - it is still a clear transitional form"
In response to Reply # 78
Sat Sep-27-03 02:12 PM

  

          

Saying that "it is a bird, not dinosour" is just putting a human classification on it - it could just as easily be classified as a reptilian bird, or an avian reptile. Paleontologists classify it as a bird because the taxonomical classification system forces it to be put in one category or the other; however, these same paleontologists do not deny that it has clear reptilian characteristics as well as avian characteristics, and agree that is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. If you want to argue that Archaeopteryx is really just a bird, and not a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, how do you explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which it exibits?

"Apart from the feathers, however, Archaeopteryx exhibits a number of characteristics which are not birdlike at all, but are shared by the therapod dinosaurs--and some of these are found in no other group of animals. Among the dinosaurian characteristics exhibited by Archaeopteryx are: simple concave articulation points on the cervical vertebrae, rather than the elongated saddle-shaped articulation found in birds; vertebrae in the trunk region which are free and mobile, rather than fused together as in birds; the presence of gastralia, or abdominal ribs, which are found in reptiles and therapods but not in birds; a rib cage which lacks uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum, rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum articulations found in all birds; a sacrum consisting of only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds; mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers, rather than the fused joints found in birds; a shoulder socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than outward like a bird's; solid bones which lack pneumatic sacs, rather than the hollow air-permeated bones found in birds; and a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than the short fused pygostile found in birds;

The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae" in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in reptiles but not in birds; a thin straight jugal bone as in reptiles; a preorbital bar separating the anteorbital fenestra and the eye socket (a reptilian characteristic); an occipital condyle and foramen magnum that are located above the dorsal end of the quadrate bone as in therapods, rather than below the quadrate as in all other birds; and a brain structure which exhibits elongated and slender cerebral hemispheres which do not overlap the midbrain (in birds, the cerebral hemispheres are heavy and extend over top of the midbrain)." - www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm

- The evidence clearly and unmistakably shows that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form - part bird, part dinosaur... you simply cannot logically argue otherwise.

>First of all since creatures within a family, order, or
>class are so highly variable, it would be predicatable on
>the basis of the creation model that animals in different
>orders and classes would have some charecteristics in
>common. ( although those horses seemed to be in the same
>species to me, but I did not look very closely.) I'd be more
>convinced if someone would show me a half reptile/half
>horse. All those looked like to me was fossils of different
>horses found in different parts of the world who had gone
>through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate,
>not some jump between species. They looked to all belong to
>the same family. Hence micro not macro evolution.

First of all, how are you going to presume to come to such a conclusion when you admit that you did not look very closely at the fossils? They are indeed very different - I already which explains this in detail. And btw, as I already explained, they do all belong to the same family, equid, but they are all different species - just like how dogs and foxes are different species, but are in the same family, Canidae.

Your argument holds no water - you are making a hand-waving argument that has no scientific validity. If I showed you the skeletal fossils of a dog and a fox, you would make the same argument - that it just looks like fossils of different dogs found in different parts of the world who had gone through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate, not some jump between species - and you would be wrong for the same reason.

As for saying that you would only be convinced by something like a half reptile/half horse... well, 2 things: 1st, evolution is what it is - it does not follow the path or pattern that *you* want to see to be convinced, especially since you are basing your objections on personal opinion, not scientific principles. 2nd, if you're not convinced by a half dinosaur/half bird, then I doubt you'd be convinced by a half reptile/half horse even if it did exist anyway - you'd just deny that it was such and say it is a reptile, not a horse, or some other such nonsense.

>Many claim that Archaeopteryx has teeth, a long tail, claws
>and wings, which are all reptilain charecteristics.
>However, Archaeopteryx did not have reptile teeth, but teeth
>that were uniquely bird like, having unserrated teeth with
>the constricted bases and expanded roots, while theropd
>dinosaures (its alleged ansector) had serrated teeth with
>straight roots. Futhermore it is not suprising that some
>birds had teeth, since this is true of all other
>vertabrates.

You are probably using outdated sources, because in the last decade they have found a theropod dinosaur with unserrated teeth etc. - :

"Byronosaurus is a troodontid theropod known from a fragmentary skull and postcranial bones... The unserrated teeth closely resemble those of Archaeopteryx in form, with a constriction between the root and the base of the crown." - www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinob.htm (scroll to bottom of page)

(also of interest to note: "Similar to birds, Byronosaurus has a chamber in the snout where air enters from the nostrils before passing through to the mouth, with a connection between the nasal passage and the antorbital fenestra through the interfenestral bar")

>The long tail is supposed to be a reptillain
>feature, but not all reptiles have long tails.

And no birds have long bony tails like Archaeopteryx. In birds, vertebrae at the tail end of the backbone are fused into a structure called a pygostyle; Archaeopteryx's tail, like other reptiles, has free unfused vertebrae up to the tip, with no pygostyle. Hence, the structure of the Archaeopteryx tail is clearly reptilian, not avian.

>Also Archaeoptrys fossil gave no evidence of a bony sternum,
>which lead many palentologist to believe that he could not
>fly, however, a seventh species was reported that in cluded
>a bony sterunum. Thus proving that the bird was suitable
>for flying as any modern bird.

That is still up for debate, but Archaeopteryx was most likely incapable of fully powered flight, for numerous reasons , including wing flexibility, muscle mass, etc. Furthermore, the 7th specimen w/ bony sternum has been classified as a separate species - Archaeopteryx bavarica.

>Finally one must believe that scales evolved into feathers
>for flight, this idea no matter how many millions of years
>one gives it is simply far fetched.

Again, this is nothing more than an empty hand-waving argument. The evidence says otherwise: small theropod dinosaurs have been found which are covered with over its entire body, as well as theropods which had .

- on the similarity of the filamentous structures to feathers:

"There are three basic types of filamentous structure: single fibres, long 'sprays' of fibres that resemble the plumulaceous feathers of Protarchaeopteryx, and fibres oriented around a central axis in a herring-bone pattern that resembles the remiges of Caudipteryx. ...On the arms, distally a tight herring-bone pattern appears to be organized around a central rachis. This is the same as the pattern seen in Caudipteryx zoui. ...The herring-bone appearance of the preserved impressions indicates that some organizing pattern, such as the barbules of modern birds, must have been present.

Because feathers are the only integumental covering in vertebrates that have a tufted or branched structure the occurrence of similar structures in NGMC 91, coupled with its phylogenetic position near the base of birds, is strong evidence that these structures are feather homologues."

- on the dinosaurs with true modern-style feathers:

"A clump of at least six plumulaceous feathers is preserved anterior to the chest, with some showing well-developed vanes. Evenly distributed plumulaceous feathers up to 27 mm long are associated with ten proximal caudal vertebrae. Twenty-millimetre plumulaceous feathers are preserved along the lateral side of the right femur and the proximal end of the left femur.

Parts of more than twelve rectrices are preserved attached to the distal caudals. One of the symmetrical tail feathers extends 132 mm from the closest tail vertebra, and has a long tapering rachis with a basal diameter of 1.5 mm. The well-formed pennaceous vanes of Protarchaeopteryx show that barbules were present. The vane is 5.3 mm wide on either side of the rachis. At midshaft, five barbs come off the rachis every 5 mm (compared with six in Archaeopteryx), and individual barbs are 15 mm long. As in modern rectrices, the barbs at the base of the feather are plumulaceous."

- on the evidence that the filamentous feather-like structures evolved into true feathers:

"Recent models of feather evolution based on development predict that feathers went through evolutionary stages of unbranched ules, followed by the development of a rachis and finally barbs. The shape of the filaments on NGMC 91 meet these predictions, as several of these patterns are present on the specimen.".

- on the fact that these feathered theropods are not birds, but in fact true dinosaurs:

"Phylogenetic analysis shows that both Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx lie outside Avialae and are non-avian coelurosaurs. This indicates that feathers are irrelevant in the diagnosis of birds. It can no longer be certain that isolated down and semi-plume feathers discovered in Mesozoic rocks belonged to birds rather than to non-avian dinosaurs. Furthermore, the presence of feathers on flightless theropods suggests that the hypothesis that feathers and flight evolved together is incorrect. Finally, the presence of remiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feathers on non-avian theropods provides unambiguous evidence supporting the theory that birds are the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs."

- Thus, there is indeed strong evidence that feathers evolved from reptilian scales (as well as that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs). This should not be so surprising, as scales and feathers are both composed of the same substance, keratin. Furthermore, the evidence strongly suggests that feathers originally evolved to provide insulation, and were only later adapted for flight.

More on the feathered dinosaurs:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/museum/tempexhib/dinobirds/introduction/index.htm

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDintro.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 04:23 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
109. "still a bird"
In response to Reply # 89


          

>Saying that "it is a bird, not dinosour" is just putting a
>human classification on it - it could just as easily be
>classified as a reptilian bird, or an avian reptile.
>Paleontologists classify it as a bird because the
>taxonomical classification system forces it to be put in one
>category or the other; however, these same paleontologists
>do not deny that it has clear reptilian characteristics as
>well as avian characteristics, and agree that is a
>transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. If you want
>to argue that Archaeopteryx is really just a bird, and not a
>transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, how do you
>explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which
>it exibits?

Response: Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I am moving right now and my internete will be down for awhile. However, back to the subject there are certain differances that Archeopteryx has that dinasoures do not. And it does have qualities that are similar to both, but the problem is that their are certain charecteristics of it,that cannot be reptillian at all. Futhermore, simply illustrating similarities is not enough to overide it's differences.
>
>"Apart from the feathers, however, Archaeopteryx exhibits a
>number of characteristics which are not birdlike at all, but
>are shared by the therapod dinosaurs--and some of these are
>found in no other group of animals. Among the dinosaurian
>characteristics exhibited by Archaeopteryx are: simple
>concave articulation points on the cervical vertebrae,
>rather than the elongated saddle-shaped articulation found
>in birds; vertebrae in the trunk region which are free and
>mobile, rather than fused together as in birds; the presence
>of gastralia, or abdominal ribs, which are found in reptiles
>and therapods but not in birds; a rib cage which lacks
>uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum,
>rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum
>articulations found in all birds; a sacrum consisting of
>only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds;
>mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers,
>rather than the fused joints found in birds; a shoulder
>socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than
>outward like a bird's; solid bones which lack pneumatic
>sacs, rather than the hollow air-permeated bones found in
>birds; and a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than
>the short fused pygostile found in birds;

Response: First of all many people do not regard it as a transitonal form, because it has no transitional structure. Even though it does share chareteristics of both bird and dinasour, scales and feathers are entirely different. Here is a link comparing scales verses feathers in detail.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/1201.asp

One cannot simply say that scales of a reptile can transform into wings due to some sort of chemical chance.

>The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in
>structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae"
>in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not
>birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined
>forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the
>tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in
>reptiles but not in birds; a thin straight jugal bone as in
>reptiles; a preorbital bar separating the anteorbital
>fenestra and the eye socket (a reptilian characteristic); an
>occipital condyle and foramen magnum that are located above
>the dorsal end of the quadrate bone as in therapods, rather
>than below the quadrate as in all other birds; and a brain
>structure which exhibits elongated and slender cerebral
>hemispheres which do not overlap the midbrain (in birds, the
>cerebral hemispheres are heavy and extend over top of the
>midbrain)." -
>www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm

Response: Again, the differences are too great, check out this qoute.

For example, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote an encyclopedic book on living and fossil birds.5 He pointed out much evidence against the dinosaur-to-bird theory, including the huge differences in lung and embryonic thumb structure. Also, dinosaurs have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs and short forelimbs. And the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are ‘dated’ by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds.

This is inexcapable evidence that dinasours cannot evolve into birds.
>
>- The evidence clearly and unmistakably shows that
>Archaeopteryx is a transitional form - part bird, part
>dinosaur... you simply cannot logically argue otherwise.

Response: Yes, I can. Even National Geographic recanted its view on Archeopteryx. Note the following.

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor , I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’1

>>First of all, how are you going to presume to come to such a
>conclusion when you admit that you did not look very closely
>at the fossils? They are indeed very different - I already

Response: Because they all looked like horses, and even you called them horses, and the article called them horses. And I never said they were the same.

>this link] which explains this in detail. And btw, as I
>already explained, they do all belong to the same family,
>equid, but they are all different species - just like how
>dogs and foxes are different species, but are in the same
>family, Canidae.

Response: And that is absolutely fine, God told Noah to all the animals of their KIND on the Ark. What we want is some sort of transitional form, between two entirely different species (outside of family).
>
>Your argument holds no water - you are making a hand-waving
>argument that has no scientific validity.

Response: LOL, define science. Be careful how you do it, because science has a hard time defining itself. This should be good, most of what is classified as science self refutes itself.

If I showed you
>the skeletal fossils of a dog and a fox, you would make the
>same argument - that it just looks like fossils of different
>dogs found in different parts of the world who had gone
>through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate,
>not some jump between species - and you would be wrong for
>the same reason.

Response: And what reason would that be? Futhermore, you should be able to provide a half rat,half dog or something. Since, that would be macro evolution.
>
>As for saying that you would only be convinced by something
>like a half reptile/half horse... well, 2 things: 1st,
>evolution is what it is - it does not follow the path or
>pattern that *you* want to see to be convinced, especially
>since you are basing your objections on personal opinion,
>not scientific principles.

Response; LOL, define science. And be careful not to wipe out most of the other fields that are called science but by definition are not.


>You are probably using outdated sources, because in the last
>decade they have found a theropod dinosaur with unserrated
>teeth etc. -
>the
>Byronosaurus>:

Response: Now, I did not know that one. Sure I'll check that out. by the way I never said there were no dinasoures with no feathers. I am saying that scales do not evolve into feathers.

Another problem dealing with birds verses reptiles is the lung structure of birds.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 04:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
112. "oh yeah before"
In response to Reply # 109


          

I get myself in trouble. Since I am not a scientist. The guys in my article argue that all those dinasoures with wings are birds. I have not examined them. Nor am I claiming to be qaulified to do such, so if there are some with wings, I will argue that they to are created.

And I am interested in how both of you define science.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Mon Oct-13-03 02:07 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
122. "Still a transitional form"
In response to Reply # 109


  

          

>Response: Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I am
>moving right now and my internete will be down for awhile.
>However, back to the subject there are certain differances
>that Archeopteryx has that dinasoures do not. And it does
>have qualities that are similar to both, but the problem is
>that their are certain charecteristics of it,that cannot be
>reptillian at all. Futhermore, simply illustrating
>similarities is not enough to overide it's differences.

Yeah, I've been pretty busy too. Anyway, yes, there are certain characteristics of Archaeopteryx that are not reptilian - there are also certain characteristics that are not avian. That is exactly why it is an excellent example of a transitional form.

>Response: First of all many people do not regard it as a
>transitonal form, because it has no transitional structure.
>Even though it does share chareteristics of both bird and
>dinasour, scales and feathers are entirely different. Here
>is a link comparing scales verses feathers in detail.

First of all, almost every paleontologist in the world regards it as a transitional form. And what do you mean "it has no transitional structure"? Besides the fact that the whole organism is a transitional structure exhibiting a mixture of reptilian and avian features, there are plenty of independent transitional structures:

"There are also some features present in Archaeopteryx which are present in primitive form in the therapods but in more advanced form in the birds. In the therapods, for instance, the hallux, or big toe, is located on the back of the foot and forms a short claw that doesn't reach the ground. In birds, this toe is greatly elongated and is used for perching. In Archaeopteryx, the hallux is reversed, but is elongated to an extent midway between the therapods and the birds. In therapods, the fingers of the front arms are long; in birds, the fingers are reduced to tiny nubbins. Archaeopteryx is midway between these conditions, In birds, the wings are supported by the furcula, or wishbone, which is composed of the two fused clavicles, and Archaeopteryx also possesses a fused furcula (though not as strong as that in modern birds). A few of the therapods had clavicles, including such birdlike species as Velociraptor. And a therapod species known as Oviraptor is believed to have possessed a fused furcula, as in birds." www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm

- As I said in the last post, if it is not a transitional form, then how do you explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which it exibits, as well as the transitional structures listed above?

>One cannot simply say that scales of a reptile can transform
>into wings due to some sort of chemical chance.

That is not what I or anyone else said. You have avoided my whole discussion of the feathered dinosaurs and dinosaurs with filamentous feather-like structures, and the evidence that these structures are proto-feathers that evolved into true feathers. And there is no need for "some sort of chemical chance" bc as I already said, scales and feathers are both composed of keratin.

(as for feathered dinosaurs, you brought up Archaeoraptor, but the ones I was discussing are Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, which are not fakes and are dinosaurs with true feathers.)

>This is inexcapable evidence that dinasours cannot evolve
>into birds.

"inexcapable evidence"? Hardly. University of California Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian points to the lack of convincing evidence for the embryonic thumb structure argument: "Their embryonic argument is weak because they have no evidence of a first finger forming at all." - i.e., they have no evidence that the structure they are discussing actually corresponds to a thumb. Padian adds that their argument is based on assumptions that they admit don't apply to theropod dinosaur fingers. Thus they do not have substantial evidence on which to base their claims.

Padian also explains that the evidence for radical differences in lung structure is equally suspect: "There are no fossil lungs," he says. "Their interpretation of hard and soft tissues in these fossils is strongly contested by paleontologists." - i.e., they are inferring the structure of soft and hard tissue solely from skeletal structure, and thus it is only speculation that is not backed up by hard evidence.

As for the anatomy for developing flight, that argument is contradicted by the anatomy of Unenlagia comahuensis, a dinosaur that could flap its arms like a bird:

"The structure of the forelimb suggests that the avian mode of the forelimb folding, and the extensive forelimb elevation necesssary for powered, flapping flight, was already present in cursorial, non-flying theropod dinosaurs. Unenlagia does resemble Archaeopteryx in important details of its forelimb and hip. Foremost among these is the structure of the shoulder joint, which indicates that the animal could hold its arm directly outward, like a bird, as well as fold it against its body. This posture suggests that it could flap its arm, although Unenlagia was much too heavy to fly with such a short wing." - www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Tabu/U012.htm

As for the dating, all that shows is that those specific species of feathered dinosaurs did not directly evolve into those specific species of birds, it in no way suggests that dinosaurs could not evolve into birds. On the contrary, they provide strongly compelling evidence that birds did evolve from dinosaurs, since the dino-feathers are so structurally similar to feathers of modern birds, as the Nature article explained: "Finally, the presence of remiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feathers on non-avian theropods provides unambiguous evidence supporting the theory that birds are the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs."

So much for your "inexcapable evidence."

Furthermore, you should know that even the people you are referencing who are making these arguments (Feduccia and Ruben, the lung guy) fully believe in evolution - they just don't think that birds evolved directly from therapod dinosaurs, but instead likely evolved from other kinds of reptiles or early dinosaurs that pre-dated therapods. Here's a quote from your boy Feduccia:

"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. , and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing."

>Response: Yes, I can. Even National Geographic recanted
>its view on Archeopteryx. Note the following.

The recant in National Geographic is about Archaeoraptor, not Archaeopteryx.

>Response: Because they all looked like horses, and even you
>called them horses, and the article called them horses. And
>I never said they were the same.

No, I referred to horse evolution in general, but both the article and I clearly stated that only the modern genus Equus contains the species that can be identified as a true "horse", Equus caballus. And you said that they seemed to you to be in the same species, which is what I was referring to.

>Response: And that is absolutely fine, God told Noah to all
>the animals of their KIND on the Ark.

LOL - yeah, great scientific evidence there.

What we want is some
>sort of transitional form, between two entirely different
>species (outside of family).

First of all, transition between species in the same family still represents macroevolution - it doesn't have to be outside of family. Secondly, you have a transitional form between two entirely different CLASSES in Archaeopteryx - reptiles and birds... that is two stages of difference beyond family. Of course you don't believe this, but that is irrelevant.

>Response: LOL, define science. Be careful how you do it,
>because science has a hard time defining itself.

Briefly, following scientific methodology. Therefore, your statement "those horses seemed to be in the same species to me, but I did not look very closely" has no scientific validity, bc "they kinda looks the same" is invalid methodology upon which to base a scientific conclusion that they are the same species.

> This
>should be good, most of what is classified as science self
>refutes itself.

LOL, most of what is classified as religion refutes itself.

>If I showed you
>>the skeletal fossils of a dog and a fox, you would make the
>>same argument - that it just looks like fossils of different
>>dogs found in different parts of the world who had gone
>>through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate,
>>not some jump between species - and you would be wrong for
>>the same reason.
>
>Response: And what reason would that be?

Basing your conclusion on a cursory glance at outward appearance instead of deeper investigation of form, structure, etc.

>Futhermore, you
>should be able to provide a half rat,half dog or something.
>Since, that would be macro evolution.

Why do you keep bringing up this dumb shit? As I already explained, that is not necessary to prove macroevolution - the fact that *you* want such a proof is completely irrelevant.

>Response; LOL, define science. And be careful not to wipe
>out most of the other fields that are called science but by
>definition are not.

As I said, "those horses seemed to be in the same species to me, but I did not look very closely" is not an argument grounded on valid scientific principles.

>Response: Now, I did not know that one. Sure I'll check that
>out. by the way I never said there were no dinasoures with
>no feathers. I am saying that scales do not evolve into
>feathers.

Then how did dinosaurs get feathers? And why are there dinosaurs with filamentous proto-feather structures? And why are the dino-feathers so structurally similar to bird feathers? And why is it only the birdlike therapod dinosaurs with feathers, instead of big monster dinos like Brontosaurus and Stegosaurus and such?

This is what I'm talking about, you make these claims based on no scientific principles or evidence whatsoever, just your personal opinion. If that is your personal opinion based on your religious beliefs, then fine - but the fact remains that they have no scientific validity, so stick to the religion and leave the science alone.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

JSYM7
Member since Jul 31st 2003
219 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 05:59 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "Evolution exsists"
In response to Reply # 0


          

It is obvious evolution exsists but this doesn't take away from the fact that their has to be a source to set the rules by which these universal laws take place.

My question has never been does God exsists or who God is but my Question is What is God. And I do not simply mean creator,father in heaven or any other obivous titles I mean What is God?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Humzaki
Charter member
505 posts
Wed Sep-24-03 10:27 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "RE: Evolution exsists"
In response to Reply # 52


  

          

I agree it does and it doesn't conflict of the existance of God. Infact I think it further proves God. I also think that the concept of evolution doesn't equal the men from apes concept.

Peace
H

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Sep-25-03 04:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "a qoute from stephen gould"
In response to Reply # 0


          

This is a qoute from leading evolutionist Stephen Gould.

" The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secrete of paleontology. The evolutionary tree that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inferance, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Some other problems for evolutionist is explaining how the conscience,will and emotion evolved. And weird animals such as the woodpecker who hits with the force of 6g's. Enough force to knock it's brains out, but just happens to have a cartilage tongue long enough to wrap around it and prevent his brains from flying out. How could that evolve? (it does not get to many chances to get it right.) Or the bombader beatle which has acids inside its body, that are kept seperate in different chambers and mix only when he spits out the venom. If they were to connect it would kill itself.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
johnny_domino
Charter member
17027 posts
Fri Sep-26-03 02:37 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "GTFOOHWTBS"
In response to Reply # 79
Fri Sep-26-03 02:40 AM

  

          

>This is a qoute from leading evolutionist Stephen Gould.
>
>" The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
>record persist as the trade secrete of paleontology. The
>evolutionary tree that adorn our textbooks have data only at
>the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inferance,
>however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Fossils don't exactly just pop up out of the ground by themselves y'know. It's lucky when we find some, and we can't go digging everything up just to prove to you how everything evolved. It is very lucky when a fossil does survive millions of years, but no, we're not finding enough to make you happy. Of course it's based on inference, compiling a complete fossil record would probably be impossible, given the vast number of species that died without leaving their skeleton in a place that leads to fossilization.
>

>Some other problems for evolutionist is explaining how the
>conscience,will and emotion evolved.
Take that to the Lewis post. Seriously. Conscience and will are social constructs that we're fortunate enough to have and be able to debate because our brains are so damn evolved. Emotion exists in species beyond just humans. Part of it is survival instinct, but we've managed to develop a lot of different shades of it because we have the luxury of doing that, and because our brains and language capacity are quite evolved.


And weird animals such
>as the woodpecker who hits with the force of 6g's. Enough
>force to knock it's brains out, but just happens to have a
>cartilage tongue long enough to wrap around it and prevent
>his brains from flying out. How could that evolve? (it does
>not get to many chances to get it right.)
Well maybe it didn't used to hit with such a force? Did you ever think of that?

Or the bombader
>beatle which has acids inside its body, that are kept
>seperate in different chambers and mix only when he spits
>out the venom. If they were to connect it would kill
>itself.
Yeah, and I bet a lot of beetles died along the way. Evolution has produced many specialized animals, plants, insects, any living thing, you could list 'em all day, but you're not really doing anything to disprove them, scientifically.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sun Sep-28-03 12:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "exactly"
In response to Reply # 81


  

          

great quote btw - that was hilarious. Actually, *anything* Christopher Walken does is hilarious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
johnny_domino
Charter member
17027 posts
Mon Sep-29-03 04:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
98. "did you see the one"
In response to Reply # 95


  

          

where he did "Pranksters"? It was ridiculously funny too. And did you know that I myself dabbled in pacifism at one time?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Tue Sep-30-03 03:48 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
104. "nah I missed that one"
In response to Reply # 98


  

          

but even when he's just talking normally it's funny - that weird cadence to his voice, his quirky mannerisms... it's just funny somehow, even when he's not trying to be.

You ever see Jay Mohr's impersonation of him? That shit is funny as hell.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 04:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
110. "RE: GTFOOHWTBS"
In response to Reply # 81


          

>Fossils don't exactly just pop up out of the ground by
>themselves y'know. It's lucky when we find some, and we
>can't go digging everything up just to prove to you how
>everything evolved.


Response: Excuses, excuses. There should millions of those things everywhere. The fact that you can't find any should show you something.

It is very lucky when a fossil does
>survive millions of years, but no, we're not finding enough
>to make you happy. Of course it's based on inference,
>compiling a complete fossil record would probably be
>impossible, given the vast number of species that died
>without leaving their skeleton in a place that leads to
>fossilization.

Response: Yep, if you say so.
>>
>
>>Some other problems for evolutionist is explaining how the
>>conscience,will and emotion evolved.
>Take that to the Lewis post. Seriously. Conscience and will
>are social constructs that we're fortunate enough to have
>and be able to debate because our brains are so damn
>evolved.

Response: You call this an arguement? And what excately did our minds evolve from? And tell me the process.

Emotion exists in species beyond just humans. Part
>of it is survival instinct, but we've managed to develop a
>lot of different shades of it because we have the luxury of
>doing that, and because our brains and language capacity are
>quite evolved.

Response: So why are'nt animals and other species persons? Why don't they respond as humans do?
>
>Well maybe it didn't used to hit with such a force? Did you
>ever think of that?

Response: Rolling my eyes.
>
>Yeah, and I bet a lot of beetles died along the way.
>Evolution has produced many specialized animals, plants,
>insects, any living thing, you could list 'em all day, but
>you're not really doing anything to disprove them,
>scientifically.

Response: Define science.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
johnny_domino
Charter member
17027 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 11:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
114. "can't even argue with you"
In response to Reply # 110


  

          

Because you have no content. Since you don't seem to understand what a fossil actually is or the conditions that form one (or the work involved in digging one up), I suggest you read those books that kindergarteners read on dinosaurs, before you attempt to debate. You also seem to have no understanding of how evolution works, as animals gradually build up the capabilities that we see today (the human ability of speech, and the highly evolved brain, the woodpecker you're so fond of that hits with such a force, the toxic beetle, etc.), so maybe you should do some basic reading on that too.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26674 posts
Sun Sep-28-03 11:44 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "out of context;discussing gradual evol vs punct equilib"
In response to Reply # 79


  

          

The quote that you so aptly took out of context to further your agenda was specifically discussing the lack of transitional forms as would be expected from the old idea of gradualism in evolution; as you should know, Gould was one of the leading evolutionists bc he was one of the founders of the punctuated equilibria theory: that evolution largely moves foward in rapid bursts in small, isolated populations - as opposed to the old idea of slow, steady changes of entire populations w/ smooth gradual transitions from one form to another. THAT is the issue he was discussing in that qoute: that the fossil record points to evolution via punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradual evolutionary transitions, *not* that there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record.

Some more quotes from Gould that put this issue in the proper context, and render your argument null and void:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy."

"If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory."

- so as johnny_domino said, GTFOOHWTBS.

As for some of the other supposed "problems" for evolutionists you mentioned:

- conscience,will, emotion, etc., likely arose with the development of language - the ability to formulate & communicate abstract thoughts & ideas. Either way, it is not a "problem" for evolutionists as you put it, bc it is not needed for evidence of human evolution.

- as for woodpeckers, that is :

"The unusual appearance of the woodpecker’s "tongue skeleton" has inspired creationists to use it as an example of a structure too bizarre to have evolved through chance mutations which produced functional intermediates. As the following information shows, however, the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by mutations and natural selection."

- an explanation for how the bombadier beetle mechanism could have evolved is also .

So again, like johnny_domino said, these "problems" that you mentioned aren't doing anything to disprove them scientifically. However, there are many problems for creationists that cannot be scientifically explained, such as all of the clearly reptilian characteristics of the 'bird' Archaeopteryx, as well as the existence of the feathered dinosaurs Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx. And as I posted before, there is the problem of the sequence of the horse fossils:

"How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 04:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
111. "RE: out of context;discussing gradual evol vs punct equ"
In response to Reply # 93


          

First of all Black, I did not qoute him for my agenda. I qouted him to be funny. You did not have to go through such great lengths to refute me. LOL.

>- conscience,will, emotion, etc., likely arose with the
>development of language - the ability to formulate &
>communicate abstract thoughts & ideas. Either way, it is
>not a "problem" for evolutionists as you put it, bc it is
>not needed for evidence of human evolution.

Response: Rolling my eyes. So again why are'nt animals or other species persons? Let me guess they have not evolved to that status yet? And can you explain why we can formulate ideas and others cannot? And language has nothing to do with conscious, that arguement makes no sense.

>
>"The unusual appearance of the woodpecker’s "tongue
>skeleton" has inspired creationists to use it as an example
>of a structure too bizarre to have evolved through chance
>mutations which produced functional intermediates. As the
>following information shows, however, the strange tongue of
>woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that
>found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how
>anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by
>mutations and natural selection."

Response; That is a non response. It still does not explain how it evolved? They would keep on killing themselves by the amount of force used to wack the tree. They could'nt mutate if they were dead.
>
>- an explanation for how the bombadier beetle mechanism
>could have evolved is also
>described
>here>.

Response: LOL, now this is rich. This guy is giving us "a guess" on how it could have evolved, and is not using any kind of scientific method. Ya know emperical or falsifable. All he is doing is painting a scenario, and you are using this a an arguement. Where is the scientific data??
>
>So again, like johnny_domino said, these "problems" that you
>mentioned aren't doing anything to disprove them
>scientifically. However, there are many problems for
>creationists that cannot be scientifically explained, such
>as all of the clearly reptilian characteristics of the
>'bird' Archaeopteryx, as well as the existence of the
>feathered dinosaurs Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx. And
>as I posted before, there is the problem of the sequence of
>the horse fossils:

Response: These are'nt problems because scales don't evolve into feathers. Those dinasours with feathers, don't prove that. They demonstrate a creator, who designed them. Archaeoptryx is still a bird. My article shows that.
>
>"How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if
>you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of
>which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable
>sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create
>Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some
>Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the
>intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus
>and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve"
>into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create
>Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus
>intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off
>Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to
>the species that came just before and came just after?
>
>Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known
>horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is,
>without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just
>Like Evolution Happened" Theory."

Response: I explained it already. Micro evolution.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

McDeezNuts
Member since Jun 03rd 2002
5663 posts
Fri Sep-26-03 05:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
82. "we were created, then we evolved"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

They are not mutually exclusive. I know no one from either camp is going to change their mind, but here's my take:

Science has proven that animals/organisms evolve over time. I will not argue this point - I don't have the time, patience, or temperament to try to prove that here in this post.

And anyone who believes God or Satan "planted" fossils and other evidence of evolution to fool us is so blinded by faith as to not be worth entering into discussion with.

That said, I do believe in God. I think God created the Big Bang, or the primordial ooze, or whatever we came from way back at the beginning of existance. He designed it intentionally, knowing it would eventually evolve into sentient beings. That's my thoughts on the matter.

The only puzzle left is - where did God come from? I don't know how this question can ever be answered.

I can definitely see how for atheists, this puzzle is logically equivalent to asking where WE originally came from... so I don't have a problem with that view even though I disagree with it.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Buddy_Gilapagos
Charter member
47322 posts
Fri Sep-26-03 08:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
83. "Hey Debate Club members?"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri Sep-26-03 08:22 AM

  

          

Ever heard the expression you can't prove a negative?

Changing points completely. there is a compelling scientific argument for creationism. As the arguument goes the complexity of the universe and all the improbabilities that go against the development of human life suggest that there must be some "Intelligent Design" behind it all.Did you know that at the start of light element production in the universe, the mass density and the expansion rate were in balance by 16 orders of magnitude? And that we needed this to be true in order for us to exist? We need a galaxy that contains the debris from exploded supernovae, and time for those debris to collect into a solar system with heavy elements -- because we're made from those elements.Another example. if you threw all the supplies necessary to build a model car into a box and shook it up, whats the chances that it would randomly assemble into a workable car? now take that probability and multiply it by 100 and you sould see why the "Intelligent Design" is a compelling argument.

However there is a retort to that argument, that I will keep to myself for now.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

lightyeargroover
Charter member
2493 posts
Fri Sep-26-03 08:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
84. "RE: Disprove Evolution"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I'd rather just gaze upon your avatar.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MANHOODLUM
Charter member
27788 posts
Fri Sep-26-03 08:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
85. "Maybe I can...kind've....softshoe in here a bit"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri Sep-26-03 09:23 AM

  

          

First a formost, I believe in Evolution...to an extent. I don't believe everyone, and everything, just happen to grow from random clumps of goo. I believe things evolve, on a large and small scale, to better themselves. We evolve from children to adults (as far as learning), so evolution does exist.

I also don't think super, conflicting vacumes just happen to create everything over a long period of time. Obviously, as people who have just made it to the moon in the under 40 years ago, I think there is alot we cannot grasp. I'm sure we can all agree, even the "religious" heads, that we don't have a giant Santa Claus molding planets out of giant clay, and I'm sure most evolution heads can't really believe something exploded billions of years ago, and made pretty girls and puppy dogs.

I guess people seem to think since we had Shakespeare and Einstein, that we should have things "on lock".

We don't, and it's going to be a long time before we will. Physics, and studying your Bible isn't going to tell you everything. You know Jesus walked on water, and you know how worm holes come about...now what?

Here's the funny part.

Let's say we face a conspiracy buffs wet dream. A giant worm hole opens up in the sky, and out emerges a flying, solid gold pyramid, filled with Greys, and whatever singing joyously, and living in perfect harmony. They come down, and they tell you they have had the answers to the mysteries of the universe for trillions of years, and they're going to share with us.

Can we believe them? Would you believe them? Well, we COULDN'T believe them, 'cause it would be putting faith in them. We weren't THERE, so there's really noway of actually telling, is there?

Then, you die. When you die, your greeted by a dread in a turban, holding a cross, sitting in a yoga position. He tells you the universe was created by a giant moose god, and something about yogurt...can you believe him? No, 'cause again, you weren't there. Your debating brain will rationalize that you might not be on the more enlightened PLAIN of after-life existence, and this deity/god might not have the WHOLE story strait *gasp*

The point is, even if winged babies floated down here, playing horns, and throwing rose pedals and books of knowledge AT your ass, SOMEONE will ALWAYS find SOMEWAY to QUESTION it...why? Yes, because you WEREN'T THERE.

*cue spacey music*

Avatar?
E-Boogs and Nayi

MANHOODLUM
Most sig'd okp.
No Aliases.

MANHOODLUM via Twitter
MANHOODLUM@live.com
MANHOODLUM@yahoo.com
Tommy Moran @ Facebook
MANHOODLUM@tmo.blackberry.net

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

johnny_domino
Charter member
17027 posts
Tue Sep-30-03 07:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
101. "101 and having fun"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Zorasmoon
Member since Aug 30th 2002
37997 posts
Tue Sep-30-03 02:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
102. "102 no thanks to you."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

.


http://www.youtube.com/user/kimmayluv

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

SoulCrates
Member since Nov 13th 2002
7 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 12:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
118. "RE: Disprove Evolution"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Well,

One objection against creationism is this: if god DID create the universe because you can't simply have something that appears by itself, then...what created god? This was also Hume's problem/dilemma I believe.

and even if you attempted to use the whole "what created us" as a proof for god, realize that it can be a double edged sword. because if it worked, it would also in theory prove MULTIPLE gods, not just one god.

And positing god as an explanatory concept by itself doesn't work unless you define or describe what god is? Is he knowable? If so, describe him and his attributes (not to mention how you came to these conclusions). Is he unknowable? If that's true, than an even bigger can of worms is opened.

Me? I'm a dude who's decided to stop ghosting because he's bored as hell at work. bwahaha.

"Girl I dig you like a mole, I wanna hump you like a camel." -Mountain Brothers

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Deflectic7
Member since Oct 01st 2003
226 posts
Wed Oct-01-03 06:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
119. "HEAR ME OUT"
In response to Reply # 118


  

          

First of all to disprove evolution we must not think like humans, of course it is impossible but think this way...

Humans always believe that there is a begining and end to everything, we think of time and say that it ends when we die, we think of the universe and say it began with a big bang, or we even think of god and ask when he began, who created god?, this is our mindset of course

in stephen hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" , hawking says the big bang indeed was not the begining, but rather the continuation of a cycle, all matter in the universe was compunded so massively that it just exploded, and thus the big bang...but what we do not see is that the big bang was the result of all matter condensing in the first place
from yet another previous universe

...the blue shift red shift theory states that the universe is currently expanding still from this theoretical big bang, but no force is greater than gravity correct?, therefore the universe will once again compound on itself towards an unknown "center of the universe", and once again will explode in yet another big bang...<big bangs are results from other big bangs>

we are here because fortunately the earth is just the right distance from the sun and all that ish, but were we so lucky in previous versions of the universe? to disprove evolution we must understand the universe and its cycles...we are creations merely continuing the cycle...humans are part of this cycle now...we do not evolve but rather humans are universal accidents which result from the natural cycle the universe has...we cannot argue a begining or an end because evolution has none, therefore evolution cant be disproved

-
peacetoallthehiphopsoulheadsworldwide

astheworldturns,mysoulstandsstrong,lifebyday,musicbynight...
-

www.myspace.com/bdiaz

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #3805 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com