It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why teaching creationism is a horrible idea.

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Chief O
 


Chief O
Thanks for the reply,I have to say I strongly disagree with absolutely everything you have written in your previous post.
Teaching children organised religious belief in schools as ´fact´ seems to me to be extremely irresponsible and wrong-after all,as there is not one scrap of evidence for any of the fantastical claims for all the 3000+ religions alive in the world today,which organised religion creation myth should get dominion over the other?
When all said and done, all religious beleif is is ´opinion´-that´s it.
No one realy knows anything about god for sure let alone whether he/she/they actualy exist -it´s purely speculation,conjecture,opinion or for want of a better word...guesswork.

Maybe religion/creationism should be taught in a separate class entitled ´non scientific origin concepts´ where young students can learn all about creation myths from: Rastafarian,Eskimo,Viking,Pagan,Polynesian,Abrahamic,Hindu,Roman, Greek.. religions as well.
As for just teaching Abrahamic creation myth as fact just because it supposedly instills a sense of morality-this seems to me to be wholly incorrect (and a bit of a cop out).
Moral integrity is a human attribute and in no way a religious one-it´s also worth pointing out that the bible is literally overflowing with homicidal instruction,advocated genocide,rape,incest etc... some countries are now even describing the book as a ´graphic publication unfit for children´.
There is a school of thought which speculates that all ´extremist fundamental religious instruction´ actualy does is steer a child away from learning the positive values of enlightened free thinking and instead cultivates in the child a negative sense of myopic bigoty,fear of reason,delusions of grandeur ........
Indeed it can be argued that all ´extremist fundamental organised religion´ actualy does is breed ignorance and does mankind a great disservice by separating humanity into´warring cults´.
Cheers Karl


[edit on 01/12/01 by karl 12]

[edit on 01/12/01 by karl 12]




posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


It's not insulting to point out the fact that you clearly know very, very little about evolution. You've demonstrated that in each and every post you've made regarding it.

You want an intermediary fossil? No problemo! Read this and get back to me. Especially the "Misconceptions" part, which outlines the old, haggard, Creationists' "waah there are no transitional fossils!!! Darwin is teh dumb!" line.

In DNA, there are genes that describe how to form a limb, and there are genes that describe where limbs are. So once a creature has the DNA in it (whether it is dormant - as in not used, or if they actually have limbs already), it only takes a few mutations for a limb to appear. We can see that in whales, who have vestigial limbs at their rear - evidence that they once used to have limbs there, but which have since disappeared, most likely because they are a hinderance to their hydrodynamic profile. Whales with little legs at the rear, which will never walk on land, will slow it down. Therefor whales with those legs didn't feed as much, became less able to find a mate, and less likely to pass on their genes to their offspring. Whales with a mutation that slightly shrank their hind limbs found it easier to feed, and so were more able to find a mate, passing this "smaller hind limb" gene sequence on to their offspring. As more and more of these offspring (with smaller hind limbs) started breeding together, the trait became in-grained in the whale genome. This continues (as the smaller the hind limbs the better for the whale), until they have all but disappeared. It's not rocket science - it's highly logical, and makes perfect sense.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
It's not insulting to point out the fact that you clearly know very, very little about evolution. You've demonstrated that in each and every post you've made regarding it.

just because you disagree doesnt mean i dont know what im talking about.


You want an intermediary fossil? No problemo! Read this and get back to me. Especially the "Misconceptions" part, which outlines the old, haggard, Creationists' "waah there are no transitional fossils!!! Darwin is teh dumb!" line.


if the horse is such a shinning example of transitional form, then tell me, what order do they go in? why did alot of these "transitionals" live at the same time? if they are so clearly transitionals, why do thing like number of vertebre and teeth vary so wildly between them? wouldnt it be a smooth transition?

you just dont seem to get it do you? if one animal evolved slowly into another, the fossil record would clearly show a ton of transitionals for each animal. want to say that a species grew and extra toe and lost several vertebre, got 12 inches taller and a new set of teeth? then thos changes should be evident in the fossil record. but its not. thats the type of step we see from one "step" to the next. mutations have NEVER been seen to be that benifical, that drastic, that quick.

infact this is why mutation theory is prominent today. the fossil record just doesnt support gradualism plain and simple.

but now scientists dont have proof of mutations, they have speculation.

you want cold hard facts about mutations? look up the x-ray fly experiments.


In DNA, there are genes that describe how to form a limb, and there are genes that describe where limbs are. So once a creature has the DNA in it (whether it is dormant - as in not used, or if they actually have limbs already), it only takes a few mutations for a limb to appear. We can see that in whales, who have vestigial limbs at their rear - evidence that they once used to have limbs there, but which have since disappeared, most likely because they are a hinderance to their hydrodynamic profile. Whales with little legs at the rear, which will never walk on land, will slow it down. Therefor whales with those legs didn't feed as much, became less able to find a mate, and less likely to pass on their genes to their offspring. Whales with a mutation that slightly shrank their hind limbs found it easier to feed, and so were more able to find a mate, passing this "smaller hind limb" gene sequence on to their offspring. As more and more of these offspring (with smaller hind limbs) started breeding together, the trait became in-grained in the whale genome. This continues (as the smaller the hind limbs the better for the whale), until they have all but disappeared. It's not rocket science - it's highly logical, and makes perfect sense.


its also speculation...



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


No, I can see that you don't know what you're talking about because you are asking questions even a cursory biology education can answer.

The fossil record supports evolution whole-heartedly. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

And no, it's not speculation. It's observed. It's known to science.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. Please at least try to understand something before you try to rip it apart, otherwise you look a bit silly.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

The fossil record supports evolution whole-heartedly. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

And no, it's not speculation. It's observed. It's known to science.


lol, someone needs to look up scientific process.

saying one set of bones is related to another is not proof, its speculation. there is no way to prove it. its nothing more than some smart guy saying that they are related.

if wrong, show me. maybe they devised away to test the bones in the past few months that i dont know about.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SlyCM
 


Good post,although the pic at the link underneath is designed to be quite humourous I think the text underneath it says quite a lot about how unimpartial,non objective people arrive at their own preconceived conclusions.
thebizzare.com...
Cheers Karl



[edit on 01/12/01 by karl 12]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Someone needs to know there is no such thing as proof in science, except in the field of mathematics, which this isn't.

The overwhelming evidence is that similar skeletons are indeed related. We know that from studying DNA, where the genes responsible for skeletal development have been studied in great length. When DNA is present, we can use that to match similar organisms, and to tell which ones came from which others, adding considerable weight to the findings.

Trying to poke tiny, tiny little holes in this theory that will outlast you is pointless. May I suggest you read up on evolution and DNA, and stop asking these amusing questions? I learned the answers to them at school well over 10 years ago. What kind of science education did you have? "Jesus did it"?


Any way you look at it, evolution (even if you think its flawed) is the most supported theory out there on how species get created. There is actual evidence for it, even if you think it's shabby (which the entire field of biology doesn't). If you consider the other hypotheses out there (biblical creation for example) there is not one single jot of evidence in support of it. To believe creationism over evolution is the height of irrationality.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Someone needs to know there is no such thing as proof in science, except in the field of mathematics, which this isn't.


lol, yes there is.


The overwhelming evidence is that similar skeletons are indeed related. We know that from studying DNA, where the genes responsible for skeletal development have been studied in great length. When DNA is present, we can use that to match similar organisms, and to tell which ones came from which others, adding considerable weight to the findings.


listen to yourself.... DNA?!

i thought fossilized bone isnt suppose to have DNA! if it does then its not completely fossilized or its not as old (even in the least) as evolution dictates.

so explain to me how a 25 million year old fossil has DNA.

its supposition, there is nothing to connect these bones, except they look alike. that is complete conjecture.


Trying to poke tiny, tiny little holes in this theory that will outlast you is pointless. May I suggest you read up on evolution and DNA, and stop asking these amusing questions? I learned the answers to them at school well over 10 years ago. What kind of science education did you have? "Jesus did it"?


apparently my science education is a little better if you didnt know that fossils dont have DNA.


Any way you look at it, evolution (even if you think its flawed) is the most supported theory out there on how species get created. There is actual evidence for it, even if you think it's shabby (which the entire field of biology doesn't). If you consider the other hypotheses out there (biblical creation for example) there is not one single jot of evidence in support of it. To believe creationism over evolution is the height of irrationality.


height of irrationality? really?

consider this.. what would the fossil record look like if all life was created? just consider it for a moment...

it would look choppy. species would appear in the fossil record from seemingly nowhere. you would have gaps between similiar species.

isnt that what the fossil record does look like? and im the irrational one.


if evolution was true and it matched what the fossil record is telling us, then mutations, (specifically beneficial mutations) should be rampant.

but what do we find. after 60 years of zapping fruitflies, invoking 100 million years worth of mutations, we still have the same dull fruitfly. sure its changed, but always to its detriment.

this was cold hard science performed by people who are trying to prove evolution is true. and those stubborn little bugs wont cooperate and evolve!

the evidence points in a certain direction, but you dont like that so you convince yourself otherwise.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


No, there is not.

And yes, fossils usually don't have DNA. It's very, very rare for any biological matter to survive the fossilisation process. It does happen, though.

The fossil record, by its very nature, will always be incomplete, because it's very difficult to make a fossil.

And as for your "well flies are still flies" nonsense, fruit flies in labs have indeed been given superior abilities through mutation. The starch/sugar experiment is a great example of that, where flies are naturally modified to survive on different foodstuffs.

Then there's the London Underground mosquito - if God created them ages ago, why did they suddenly spring into life after the London Underground was created? They can't breed with other mosquitos, and yet there they are.

The evidence for evolution is there. It's staggering. It is unquestionable. Unless you haven't got the foggiest clue, and cherry-pick evidence to suit your point. Which is exactly what you are doing. You seem to not want to read studies that disprove your pre-existing beliefs, and concentrate on the studies that ask questions, even when those questions are neatly solved by the existing theory.

Don't have a pop at my scientific understanding when there are massive holes in yours. And yes, you are the irrational one. Nice work.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
And yes, fossils usually don't have DNA. It's very, very rare for any biological matter to survive the fossilisation process. It does happen, though.


and what have they found?¿



Professor Stringer adds: "We've now got about 10 Neanderthal specimens of around 40-50,000 years old that have yielded DNA that is clearly distinct from anyone alive today."


so something that was taught for ages as being an ancestor of ours now has proof that its not.











[edit on 6-9-2008 by miriam0566]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


BEHOLD THE MIRACLE OF SCIENCE! - this might scare you somewhat, but scientific teachings change based on available evidence. One change does not disprove the entire field of science, or any other scientific discoveries. So, even if what you claim is true, it does absolutely nothing to discredit anyone, apart from your obvious ignorance of the scientific method.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
apart from your obvious ignorance of the scientific method.


are you capable of having an intelligent thought that doesnt insult people, or are you just bitter because some of the stuff im saying makes sense?

what happens when they test the cro-magnon? or do you think they are too scared too? what if they find out we are not related to them either?

you want science? the connections in the fossil record are pure speculation....

there are scientists that connect the dots based on similarities in the skeleton, but its not hard science. its like taking 2 people that look alike and claiming they are siblings based on nothing more than they look alike. and yet they could be from completely different families.

if you want to see how sloppy this process is, look at the horse´s ¨ancestors¨. they are all over the place, they arent even sure what order to put them in. you´d would think if evolution were true it would be clear cut, but it isnt. there is no sequential order.

for the most part they are organized by how scientists think the feet evolved. but then the back bone gets screwed up which the number of vertebra fluctuating wildly from species to species. even the teeth are out of order with species losing teeth and gaining them back later. no seguence.

you ignore these little discrepancies (or more likely you didnt even know about them) because evolution is what you want to believe. you want to believe it so bad that your willing to ignore the fact the the pieces just.. dont.. fit..

the house fly mutation experiments (carried out by evolutionist themselves) should be damning enough to idea that mutations cause evolution. but you cant comment on them can you? the only thing you could think of was to claim that i know nothing about science.

go read a book



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by dave420
apart from your obvious ignorance of the scientific method.


are you capable of having an intelligent thought that doesnt insult people, or are you just bitter because some of the stuff im saying makes sense?


Miriam, the problem here is that you are not really digesting the information being presented to you.

What you are saying does not make sense, but you won't accept that it doesn't.

You're just saying "I don't believe it, it doesn't prove anything" every time you're presented with evidence. That's fine, you don't have to, but it's like saying "I don't believe my mash was made from potato" and the cook showing you the empty sack of potatoes and the peal, and saying "well, it was", and you still claiming that no potatoes went into your mash.

Read this: en.wikipedia.org...

Frankly I find a fish-quadraped hybrid somewhat disturbing, especially the wrist-like fins, but the evidence shows this is what it was.

Ultimately, you don't have any other explanations either. There is no absolute in science, unlike ID/religious explanations, which are simply "it happened, accept it" answers, which will benefit noone. All they do is teach ignorance, and I can't accept them at all.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Read this: en.wikipedia.org...

Frankly I find a fish-quadraped hybrid somewhat disturbing, especially the wrist-like fins, but the evidence shows this is what it was.


and yet this type of fish still exists today...

taking evolution abit slow?

www.aquarist-classifieds.co.uk...


Ultimately, you don't have any other explanations either. There is no absolute in science, unlike ID/religious explanations, which are simply "it happened, accept it" answers, which will benefit noone. All they do is teach ignorance, and I can't accept them at all.


you doing the same thing you accuse me of.

want evidence? ask yourself, what would the fossil record look like if ¨god¨ created all animals?

seriously ask your self that. if animals were designed, what would that look like?

wouldnt you have animals appearing in the fossil record out of nowhere? wouldnt you have components that are so intricately put together that it would make ¨random¨ mutations so unlikely? (eye, wings, immune system just to state a few)

that isnt evidence to you?

instead evolutionists spend countless time trying to explain these phenomenon. forcing the square peg in the round hole.

has it ever occurred to you that if life occurred without a ¨creator¨, that abiogenesis would be alittle clearer? at the very least, one should be able to replicate it in a lab.

but then that is a whole other monster is it? evolution is from simple to complex, but the first life was just suddenly complex.

doesnt all this pushes us in a logical direction?

i think evolutionist look at the fossil record and see what they want to see, which is fine. you can believe in whatever you want, but then dont present it as ¨fact¨



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

and yet this type of fish still exists today...

taking evolution abit slow?

www.aquarist-classifieds.co.uk...


That is an entirely different sort of animal all together.


Originally posted by miriam0566you doing the same thing you accuse me of.


Not at all. All the evidence is there, you are simply willfully ignoring or distorting it - for example, if you'd tried the coelacanth as your anti-evolution example, you'd have actually had an argument.


Originally posted by miriam0566seriously ask your self that. if animals were designed, what would that look like?

wouldnt you have animals appearing in the fossil record out of nowhere? wouldnt you have components that are so intricately put together that it would make ¨random¨ mutations so unlikely? (eye, wings, immune system just to state a few)

that isnt evidence to you?


This is what I'm talking about, Miriam. There are no "appearances from nowhere" in the fossil record. Everything can be traced back to it's logical forbear, you are just saying it can't. That doesn't mean you are right.

For example, the development of the eye has been traced back to light-sensitive cells in worms. This then developed into a concave shape, which eventually aquired a jelly-like "lense" to focus the light. This eventually, via evolutionary trial-and-error, became the eyes you are reading this with now.

Is that not evidence to you?



Originally posted by miriam0566instead evolutionists spend countless time trying to explain these phenomenon. forcing the square peg in the round hole.


No.

What has happened is we have looked at the evidence that has been presented to us, and drawn logical conclusions.

The earliest fossils we have are very simple, proto forms of the life we have today. It's obvious, as given with my Tiktaalik example. This is an animal that has gained adaptations to living partially on land from living entirely in water. These half-way adaptations are blatant. And in later animals that evolved from this one, we can see these half-way adaptations become full adaptations, a natural occurance as the best one for the job will be the most prolific.


Originally posted by miriam0566has it ever occurred to you that if life occurred without a ¨creator¨, that abiogenesis would be alittle clearer? at the very least, one should be able to replicate it in a lab.


Whoa, slow down.

1. We aren't talking about abiogenesis, we are talking about evolution. They are not one in the same.

2. Our scientists are not your God. It isn't as easy for them; they can't just snap their fingers and the world suddenly appears.

Have a read of this

The Earth was lifeless for 600,000,000 years. Not a sausage. Then, 4 billion years ago, single-celled organisms popped up. It then took 3 billion years for multi-cellular organisms to occur.

That is an incredibly long period of time, when you consider the Earth was ripe for conquest by these new organisms as there was nothing out there for them to compete with but each other.

After that, it still took another 400,000,000 years to get to simple animals.

And you want to know why a forty-year-old scientist working for ten years in his lab have failed to create new and fully-independant life? Come on, pull the other one, it has bells on.


Originally posted by miriam0566but then that is a whole other monster is it? evolution is from simple to complex, but the first life was just suddenly complex.


I think I just showed that no, the first life was not complex and remained incredibly simple for an incredibly long period of time.

You have simple assertions because you do not know the full facts of the matter. This is forgivable only if you are prepared to actually listen to the people who do know. It is not a sin to change one's mind through logical and rational discourse.



Originally posted by miriam0566i think evolutionist look at the fossil record and see what they want to see, which is fine. you can believe in whatever you want, but then dont present it as ¨fact¨


All we can tell you is what is there. You can ignore it if you want, but when we tell you what the facts are, please don't simply deny them out of hand because you don't know any better.



Originally posted by miriam0566want evidence? ask yourself, what would the fossil record look like if ¨god¨ created all animals?


I left this till last because it is a fascinating question I had not asked myself, until now.

What would things look like if God had actually created them manually, bit by bit?

Well, for starters, you wouldn't have vestigial appendages. There are a lot of those around, starting with your tail bone and appendix.

Secondly, unless God had a learning curve (implying he is fallible), everything would turn out perfectly every time. This means we wouldn't see as the fossil record shows us - the complexities of organisms developing gradually.

Third, there could be no parallel or convergent evolution - as we see many times in the fossil record - unless God was running out of ideas.

Fourth, there are a LOT of different species. Staggering amounts of flying insects alone...I think you get my point. Did God need this many tries to get it right? Why are they all slightly different? What would be the point? There should be one form that exemplifies the best way of performing the function the animal is designed for, and one alone.

Fifth, why would you use energy so inefficiently? I can't remember the exact figures atm (I'm at work, so heavy research isn't an option) but plants only absorb a fraction, but not all, of the energy provided by sunlight, which is then eaten by cows, losing energy in the process, which is then eaten by us. There is a lot of energy going to waste here, and you wouldn't expect it from a flawlessly-designed system.

Sixth, is creating carnivores not an evil act? Creatures that can only survive on the dead flesh of others alone sounds quite evil to me, if premeditated by some omnipotent super-being. I wouldn't worship a god who created something like that. Why would he do so?

Seventh, there would be a marked increase in general operational efficiency, surely? I mean, would bones be as easily breakable? Would childbirth be such a hazard?

Eighth, there would be no great extinctions. Why would God want to eradicate mindless animals, such as the dinosaurs or the giant mammals? And if he did, for some reason, wish to annihilate these animals, who - lets remember - he created to act in the way he acted, why would he create the same basic animals again and again, only to repeatedly eradicate them?

And finally, I have a question to you:

Why wouldn't God use evolution?







[edit on 9-9-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
For example, the development of the eye has been traced back to light-sensitive cells in worms. This then developed into a concave shape, which eventually aquired a jelly-like "lense" to focus the light. This eventually, via evolutionary trial-and-error, became the eyes you are reading this with now.

Is that not evidence to you?


no, and ill tell you why.....

if the ¨evolution¨ of the eye were true, you would have this neat little line progressing from simple to complex.

instead every version of the eye, from light sensitive cells to fully developed eyes is present from cambrian explosion onward. interesting huh? no evolution, just there.

not to mention that every version of the eye exists today, the nautilus is still moping around with the same pinhole eye it have millions of years ago.



The earliest fossils we have are very simple, proto forms of the life we have today.


except for our little nautilus friend whos still chugging. and dont forget all the other ¨living fossils¨ around today. oh and then theres vertebrate fish which are mostly the same, oh yea and turtles, and horseshoe crabs.

its interesting that most evolutionists cannot admit that life was complex from the beginning.



1. We aren't talking about abiogenesis, we are talking about evolution. They are not one in the same.


i know that we aren´t. but why ignore it? if the implication is that live developed without the aid of a designer, then that implies it exists at random.


2. Our scientists are not your God. It isn't as easy for them; they can't just snap their fingers and the world suddenly appears.


so intelligent beings are unable to produce life, but instead chemicals can do the job randomly. yea, this sounds like a very logical theory



The Earth was lifeless for 600,000,000 years. Not a sausage. Then, 4 billion years ago, single-celled organisms popped up. It then took 3 billion years for multi-cellular organisms to occur.

That is an incredibly long period of time, when you consider the Earth was ripe for conquest by these new organisms as there was nothing out there for them to compete with but each other.

After that, it still took another 400,000,000 years to get to simple animals.

And you want to know why a forty-year-old scientist working for ten years in his lab have failed to create new and fully-independant life? Come on, pull the other one, it has bells on.


if you took war and piece, cut the binding and through the pages in the air, then rushed to put all the pages together, the probability of all the pages falling in numerical order is so astronomically low, that if you were to be doing a toss every minute (which is really fast) and you started at the beginning of the universe, you would still tossing the pages today and probably would for trillions of years to come.

the book is trivial and the order of the pages isnt a millionth as complex as the most simplest cells. yet in a scant 600.000.000 years, randomness pulled it off. logic right?




I think I just showed that no, the first life was not complex and remained incredibly simple for an incredibly long period of time.

You have simple assertions because you do not know the full facts of the matter. This is forgivable only if you are prepared to actually listen to the people who do know. It is not a sin to change one's mind through logical and rational discourse.


single cell life is very complex. especially when compared to non-organic matter. the fact that you think it ¨simple¨ shows that you dont appreciate what your are looking at.



All we can tell you is what is there. You can ignore it if you want, but when we tell you what the facts are, please don't simply deny them out of hand because you don't know any better.


there is a difference between a fact and a supposition. i have met lots of evolutionists that do know the difference. unfortunately not on this site. you like to tote around ¨facts¨ all the time, but the fact that you dont know when it is or isnt a fact hurts your credibility.

like you´ll tell me the ¨fact¨ that the eye evolved. and yet simply put thats not what the record shows. it shows several creatures having different types of eyes living at the same time from the beginning. again any rational and logical person would realize that something else is going on here.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   


Well, for starters, you wouldn't have vestigial appendages. There are a lot of those around, starting with your tail bone and appendix.


the tail bone has a very real function with the muscles in the lower back and butt. its not ¨extra¨. as for the appendix...



Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies:

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.



Secondly, unless God had a learning curve (implying he is fallible), everything would turn out perfectly every time. This means we wouldn't see as the fossil record shows us - the complexities of organisms developing gradually.


is the nautilus imperfect? supposedly its been around since the cambrian, hasnt changed at all. its ¨simpler¨ by your definition.


Third, there could be no parallel or convergent evolution - as we see many times in the fossil record - unless God was running out of ideas.
Fourth, there are a LOT of different species. Staggering amounts of flying insects alone...I think you get my point. Did God need this many tries to get it right? Why are they all slightly different? What would be the point? There should be one form that exemplifies the best way of performing the function the animal is designed for, and one alone.


i put these 2 together because they are along the same lines.

why would variety be a problem? if anything variety is further testament of god´s hand in things. why would 2 species in the same environment ¨evolve¨ differently?


Fifth, why would you use energy so inefficiently? I can't remember the exact figures atm (I'm at work, so heavy research isn't an option) but plants only absorb a fraction, but not all, of the energy provided by sunlight, which is then eaten by cows, losing energy in the process, which is then eaten by us. There is a lot of energy going to waste here, and you wouldn't expect it from a flawlessly-designed system.


im sure there are factors we dont know about.


Sixth, is creating carnivores not an evil act? Creatures that can only survive on the dead flesh of others alone sounds quite evil to me, if premeditated by some omnipotent super-being. I wouldn't worship a god who created something like that. Why would he do so?


god told noah that all the animals serve as food for him, so im not sure how it is evil...


Seventh, there would be a marked increase in general operational efficiency, surely? I mean, would bones be as easily breakable? Would childbirth be such a hazard?


bone have the strength they need, they only break in extreme circumstances, even then they heal.

as for childbirth, do you mean humans or animals?


Eighth, there would be no great extinctions. Why would God want to eradicate mindless animals, such as the dinosaurs or the giant mammals? And if he did, for some reason, wish to annihilate these animals, who - lets remember - he created to act in the way he acted, why would he create the same basic animals again and again, only to repeatedly eradicate them?


well maybe if humans actually did their job and werent wrecking up the place, god wouldnt have to use a flood to clean up everything.


And finally, I have a question to you:

Why wouldn't God use evolution?


very good question.

i believe he does to a certain extent. i believe in microevolution because it can be tested and the results ARE fact.

we see examples of moths changing colors or birds beak sizes changing within several generations. but even genetically, there are limits.

i dont have a paper off hand and still too early to remember all the details, but a scientist located a gene, and tried to manipulate it in a certain insect to change the number something (i honestly cant remember).

what he found was that there were upper and lower limits to the change he was producing.

in other words, each species can change, but within limits. ¨according to their kind¨

would it be a problem if god used evolution? no. not at all. but im being completely honest with you, i dont think that is what the fossil record is showing us.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
no, and ill tell you why.....


You don't, and I'll show you why you don't, but without SOURCES or FACTS you'll make pig-headed assertions that you are right despite the complete lack of supporting evidence.

But lets read on...


Originally posted by miriam0566if the ¨evolution¨ of the eye were true, you would have this neat little line progressing from simple to complex.

instead every version of the eye, from light sensitive cells to fully developed eyes is present from cambrian explosion onward. interesting huh? no evolution, just there.


media-2.web.britannica.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, this is absolutely what we find

Where on Earth are you getting your "facts"? Do you have some creationist website that directly contradicts scientific evidence?


Originally posted by miriam0566
not to mention that every version of the eye exists today, the nautilus is still moping around with the same pinhole eye it have millions of years ago.


Erm, no, as the first link I gave you above shows, the same version of the eye isn't static for all creatures at all.

The nautilus is in a similar ecological niche as the shark or the crocodile, and is a similar case with convergent and parallel evolution.

There are best ways of doing a job. This is why we see repeated evolutions of certain creatures, such as sabre-toothed cats, and this is why some animals have no changed for vast periods of time, like the shark or crocodile. They don't need to change because there are no external pressures requiring that they either change or die - they can exist perfectly happily as they are. If there's no reason to change, it doesn't normally happen.



Originally posted by miriam0566except for our little nautilus friend whos still chugging. and dont forget all the other ¨living fossils¨ around today. oh and then theres vertebrate fish which are mostly the same, oh yea and turtles, and horseshoe crabs.


Covered above - these are obviously the best form for the job, arrived at early in the evolutionary timescale.


Originally posted by miriam0566its interesting that most evolutionists cannot admit that life was complex from the beginning.


Because you're talking about the Cambrian Explosion. I'm actually talking about life before that.

The first life forms were Prokaryote. These are extremely simple cells. They don't have a nucleus (the "brain" of the cell) and they don't have organelles (specialised "organs" of the cell).

These developed 2 billion years later when the first eukaryote cells developed - cells with nucleai and organelles separated by cell membranes. This was such a huge leap it took two billion years to evolve. That is a lot of trial-and-error. Perhaps God just couldn't think of what to do next, eh?


Originally posted by miriam0566
i know that we aren´t. but why ignore it? if the implication is that live developed without the aid of a designer, then that implies it exists at random.


Because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it. It has no scope for how life started, it merely regards the obvious changes that have happened to life on earth since it's inception.


2. Our scientists are not your God. It isn't as easy for them; they can't just snap their fingers and the world suddenly appears.




Originally posted by miriam0566so intelligent beings are unable to produce life, but instead chemicals can do the job randomly. yea, this sounds like a very logical theory


Don't get faceteous. You KNOW what I am saying is we cannot physically exist for a long enough period of time to allow all these things to take place. They do not happen overnight, they do not happen over the course of a lifetime, they do not happen over the course of the history of the human #ing race. For life to have occured on Earth, we'd have to wait three times the duration that human's have walked this planet for.

Stop being so obstinant and try and learn something.


Originally posted by miriam0566if you took war and piece, cut the binding and through the pages in the air, then rushed to put all the pages together, the probability of all the pages falling in numerical order is so astronomically low, that if you were to be doing a toss every minute (which is really fast) and you started at the beginning of the universe, you would still tossing the pages today and probably would for trillions of years to come.


And you got this piece of claptrap from where? Where is it that someone has calculated this? How do you know their reasoning is infallable?

And, here's the kicker, what motivation would any of the pieces have to become more than they are, after the first line has been reassembled? Exactly, absolutely none, whereas once the first proto-lifeforms have appeared, they have all the motivation in the world to keep going, bettering themselves and becoming more than they are - the same reason you do, in fact. They would do it simply because they are alive.


Originally posted by miriam0566the book is trivial and the order of the pages isnt a millionth as complex as the most simplest cells.


Back this up, or it's rubbish. You don't know how complex the simplest cells are, you just assume you do and you assume they are very complex. They aren't.


Originally posted by miriam0566yet in a scant 600.000.000 years, randomness pulled it off. logic right?


You think 600 million years is scant? You think that each 365 day year, with hundreds of billions of bacteria, the only thing populating the Earth at the moment, interacting and breeding and changing, is worthy of being described as scant?

How many interactions, mutations, reproductions and deaths do you think happened in 600 million years?


Originally posted by miriam0566single cell life is very complex. especially when compared to non-organic matter. the fact that you think it ¨simple¨ shows that you dont appreciate what your are looking at.


Aaaactually no it isn't. It's quite simple. Even in amoeba, a modern-day single-celled organism, the structure is surprisingly simple. So damn simple, it's summed up in one paragraph on the article.

Then look at something like the lymphatic system and tell me that they are complex.


Originally posted by miriam0566there is a difference between a fact and a supposition. i have met lots of evolutionists that do know the difference. unfortunately not on this site. you like to tote around ¨facts¨ all the time, but the fact that you dont know when it is or isnt a fact hurts your credibility.


You're attacking my credibility when your entire argument is "God did it"?


Originally posted by miriam0566like you´ll tell me the ¨fact¨ that the eye evolved. and yet simply put thats not what the record shows. it shows several creatures having different types of eyes living at the same time from the beginning. again any rational and logical person would realize that something else is going on here.


As I've answered this above, I'll just conclude with:

Again, you just assume it isn't because you aren't aware of it, or are being wilfully ignorant of it. There is perfect evidence to suggest this is the case which is why kids are taught it in schools and why it is accepted by the academic community and anyone suggesting "God did it" would get laughed out of a debate.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

the tail bone has a very real function with the muscles in the lower back and butt. its not ¨extra¨. as for the appendix...


Which is why it has not disappeared entirely.

That doesn't mean it isn't the vestigial tail from when human's were monkeys.

There are plenty of examples in humans, please acquaint yourself with them.


Secondly, unless God had a learning curve (implying he is fallible), everything would turn out perfectly every time. This means we wouldn't see as the fossil record shows us - the complexities of organisms developing gradually.



Originally posted by miriam0566is the nautilus imperfect? supposedly its been around since the cambrian, hasnt changed at all. its ¨simpler¨ by your definition.


You can't possibly be suggesting that because a few animals, such as the nautilus, crocodilians, sharks etc, filled their ecological niche early in evolutionary history, means the sheer wealth of other fossil creatures - that don't exist today - were perfect. You can't be, because that'd be really, really dumb, and I am certain you aren't that stupid. After all, I'm spending my time explaining this to you, so I must believe you are capable of comprehension, despite a lifetime of theological conditioning.


Originally posted by miriam0566
why would variety be a problem?


Because parallel and convergent evolution shows us that there are ideal body shapes for specific niches.

If there are wild amounts of variety it means two things: lots of different animals competing for the same resource managed to reach it in similar, but not identical, ways, or God did not know the best way to do it. There is no point to variety except as a result of competition.


Originally posted by miriam0566if anything variety is further testament of god´s hand in things. why would 2 species in the same environment ¨evolve¨ differently?


Because they aren't exactly the same species to start with. Different evolutionary paths brought them to converge to the point where they will evolve along the same lines, for example, the thylacine and the grey wolf have almost identical skulls, despite not sharing a common ancestor.


Originally posted by miriam0566im sure there are factors we dont know about.


No, there are factors you don't know about. For me, the question is rhetorical. The whole system is clearly a hodge-podge of various organisms grasping at any method to survive.


Originally posted by miriam0566god told noah that all the animals serve as food for him, so im not sure how it is evil...


This is actually you're response to carnivores? This is it? You can't see how the wilful creation of creatures who's sole method of survival is by the slaughter and consumption of other creatures would not be evil?

And your reason is....drumroll..."God did it". Of course he did. Brilliant. The circular argument comes back around again.



Originally posted by miriam0566bone have the strength they need, they only break in extreme circumstances, even then they heal.


Waffle, complete waffle. I had a friend who was rollerblading home one night. He slipped, fell over, got up, went home, went to sleep and woke up the next morning with a slight, dull ache in his arm. Two days later he discovered it was broken from the fall.

That isn't extreme circumstances. Hell, even saying something as vague and undefined as "extreme circumstances" shows you don't have an answer for this one.

They heal because they have to. They heal because it is a wise evolutionary adaptation to be able to regenerate damage. Nothing more, nothing less.



Originally posted by miriam0566as for childbirth, do you mean humans or animals?


Since I used the word "child", I would have thought it was self-evident I was referring to humans.


Eighth, there would be no great extinctions. Why would God want to eradicate mindless animals, such as the dinosaurs or the giant mammals? And if he did, for some reason, wish to annihilate these animals, who - lets remember - he created to act in the way he acted, why would he create the same basic animals again and again, only to repeatedly eradicate them?



Originally posted by miriam0566well maybe if humans actually did their job and werent wrecking up the place, god wouldnt have to use a flood to clean up everything.


Don't you think you're reaching with this? I mean, I can see how your arguments are stretched but this one takes the cake.

Humans DID NOT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME AS THESE ANIMALS and yet "God" decided he'd wipe them out, for being non-sentient and doing exactly what he'd told them to do? Give me a break, you can't be this thick. I refuse to believe the evidence of my own eyes - I think I've become religious! I'm a freaking prophet!



Originally posted by miriam0566i believe he does to a certain extent.


Except for your massive arguments against the cause.


Originally posted by miriam0566i believe in microevolution because it can be tested and the results ARE fact.


I'm glad we can agree on something, but don't you think micro-evolution will eventually, with enough micro-changes, become macro-evolution? In fact, cut the question mark from that, I'm simply telling you it will now.

You can't believe in one without the other.


Originally posted by miriam0566we see examples of moths changing colors or birds beak sizes changing within several generations. but even genetically, there are limits.


Why not try waiting a "scant" 600 million years and see what has happened to our beloved moth then?


Originally posted by miriam0566
what he found was that there were upper and lower limits to the change he was producing.

in other words, each species can change, but within limits. ¨according to their kind¨


Don't quote scripture, it's all redundant.

The man was changing one single pair of alleles on the gene out of probably hundreds. This is a very, very small segment of the research it would take to achieve the changes he'd make, and probably why you cherrypicked this out of the wealth of scientific information out there that goes completely against creationism.


Originally posted by miriam0566would it be a problem if god used evolution? no. not at all. but im being completely honest with you, i dont think that is what the fossil record is showing us.


I don't care what you think any more, you're just wrong. You've driven me to it. The Papacy has accepted evolution, and the fossil record is something you are wildly ignorant of. Do you know better than the scientists who do this for a living, or the Pope himself? You have decided "this is my position, I won't listen to anything else" and thus are not reading the sources I'm giving you or providing any of your own.

Evolution doesn't prove your Aten, your Egyptian sun-god, does not exist. If anything, it proves that even an omnipotent diety would think that knowing everything sucked and could liven-up the Earth by letting things free-wheel for a while.

I think I'm probably about done about now. Please, please don't let my efforts be wasted. I don't even want a reply. Just read, overcome the natural instinct to shout "God did it!" even louder, and digest. Go away, think about it, and then get on board with the modern human race. We're waiting for you.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]

[edit on 10-9-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by miriam0566
no, and ill tell you why.....


You don't, and I'll show you why you don't, but without SOURCES or FACTS you'll make pig-headed assertions that you are right despite the complete lack of supporting evidence.

But lets read on...


no, this is why i dont go on. because i get tired of wasting time with people like you.

you wouldnt know what a fact is if it came up a bit you in the ass.

i went to the london museum of natural history and on the second floor of the balcony to the right is an exhibit on ¨our place in evolution¨

very interesting exhibit. i say interesting because for it to claim to be scientific was absolutely ludicrous.

for example there was a cast replica of lucy´s bones. right next to it was a ¨lifesize¨ mannequin of what lucy would have looked like. it was the shape of a short woman with an ape head and some hair added to make it look more ¨primate¨. when say the body of a short woman, i mean the body of a short woman. full upright, same proportions, same muscles, and breasts, but with an apes head.

it wouldnt have struck me a such a glaring piece of propaganda if it was sitting next to a copy of the actual bones. the proportions were IGNORED. if thats scientific for you, then you dont know much about science.

and like i said before, if this is what people think should be taught in school, then go ahead think what you want to think. but dont turn around and say that creationism is illogical. there is plenty of evidence.

im not responding any more to this thread because frankly its sapped my will to continue and i just dont have the energy for it. i apologise



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join