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.

 

What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
Come on, biologically, humans are not special at all.


We're not biological special? Hmmm. How many species do you see around which can do all the things we humans can? How many animals can make cloathes. Physically. I'm talking motorics (or mechanics maybe in English) here. How many animals can fix a clockwork? How many species our size can balance on a line over the Niagra falls on a bike? Our bodily mechanics are supreme way above any other known species. And our ability to survive is also supreme. Our brains are far supreme.

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]




posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
But as to creationism being proved all of the world? I would like to see that proof please.


Well, gene manipulated corn, Dolly, medicine, you name it. Cloning, semi-cloning, DNA manipulation, stemcell research. And in another post you also mentioned how me feeling this is stuff Man should never be doing, I still mean that, it's straight out unethical.

"Since the birth of Dolly the sheep, research groups around the world have used the technique of nuclear transfer to clone cattle, sheep, goats and mice."
From www.bioscinet.bbsrc.ac.uk...



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
You call yourself a man of reason yet you deny the theory of Evolution that is one of the most logical things in the world?


As was the idea that the Earth is flat to the scientific community for thousands of years. Evolution theory just doesnt make any sense. As simple as that. Had the theory been published today, it would probably not even be mentioned in the magasine Science. It's bogus. A lie, in order to build a foundation for a world outside the Catholic iron fist.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by silQ

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
Well to me God is actually outside and inside the All.


EXACTLY! look at some of camel's previous posts! he claims that god used a clay and scanned it using some kind of machine!

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE BOOK!?!?!?

Hehe. I see you need to brush up on your Latin there, kiddo. Camelopárdalis is Latin for Giraffe. Well. Where does it say in the book? Well, the Bible isnt the only book about God. You also have traditions like the Kabbalah, you have the OT Pseudigraphica, the apocrypha etc. And ofcourse, I started my post saying "Well to me God is..." That is hardly a direct referance to any book as far as I can see. So go back to learning the alfabet. Here's another word for you to find out what means: Gardabha

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Shut up.

My responses:
1) y?
2) Ladies first
3) Deny ignorance
4) Freedom of Speech
5) I'm pretty sure u got a warning for this but ok...



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis

Well, your obviously not a master of sarcasm.

well obviously. ur not either so i guess we're even.


Yes, it was a compariso. And do you reamember what the comparison was between?

[quotePlus, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, all the old Mesopotamian religions, Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian for instance, most African Religions, Norse, the and probably the Maya, Azteks and the different Aborigine tribes, I know the North American tribes knew about the Creator too, every religion together with the rest of the religions, they all believe in a Creator. Infact the idea of a creator god who is above all and below all, who is everywhere, is one of the oldest pieces of written knowledge that exists. It's the whole idea of the Whole, the Universe, everything which is and Everyone, intellect, capacity, intelligence, humans can in theory end up conquering the whole galaxy, maybe the whole universe, our minds are quite powerful, and we are good mechanics and teachers too: "God Made All This! This Universe Was Once Like A Grain Of Sand In The Hands Of The Creator!!!" Well done. Now you're making me start writing like the Black Death too. Thank you!


uhhh...no but ok. i said, "i was comparing the fact as to how hard it would be to prove creationism with the fact that moving the earth with one sneeze is also impossible."


Well, they have other names of course them being other nations and languages etc. But Yes, basically. In ancient Mesopotamian legends we can read the story of Eden. Or Edin it is called there. Islam and Judaism both follow the same Adam tale as Christianity. Hinduism have a slightly different apprach, more Egypt like, but basically the same thing. In Babylon they remembered Eden ofcourse. You don't forget the place you come from you know.

But what about the native americans? u can't forget the native americans! hay how ah ya hey how ah ya hey how ar ya



Well, basically since you give Christianity the blame for what the Church and the kings of Europe and the Middle-East have done in the name of God.

Whoa whoa wait a sec. it was the CHURCH that put galileo on trial. it was the CHURCH who commanded the start of the crusades. not the kings. the kings were scarde sh*tless about the church cuz they might get excommunicated.


And no insults came from me either. Well done.

ahem.....i believe that u called me...what was it again? stupid was it?



I dodn't ask you about catholic school. Neither doid I ask you about Jehova's Witness School. I asked you about science pensum. Who designs the pensum for schools and other educational systems? Well, that's the government. Which country (appart from maybe the Vatican and certain Muslim nations etc.) even mention God in their demands?

aren't religious school all private schools so they can teach whatever they want?


Well. Is it possible to create an athmosphere on Mars with the current technology? If there is water, YES. Is it possible to create animals and humans on Mars when there is an athmosphere on Mars using the current technology? YES. Is it possible to redo everything God supposedly did, looking at the biblical creation stories, using today's technology? Well, not everything maybe, but most of it YES INDEED. Infact appart from stuff like how to make a universe is rather difficult, modern quantum physics/mechanics discribes it as both possible and likely. Etc

well that's only cuz everything is already here and all we need to do is bring them up there on a rocket. god was divine so therefore, he wouldn't need ANYTHING. it never said anything about god bringing us here from another planet or using genetic technology to create life. all it said was that god said, "Let there be (blank)" and there it was.


It's embrasing ignorance when I say that since man can't even control the science behind atomic energy and therefore shouldn't be allowed to go much further?

just because we can't control doesn't mean that we shouldn't research it further and find other, more practical uses for it.


Genesis was written down for the first time, i think it was around 1445 BC. Before that it was mostly an oral tradition. Why should I trust you in anything else?

because ORAL tradition tends to change over time. even though archeaologists found scrolls with bible stuff unchanged, how do u know that they didn't change when they were passed down orally?


We're not biological special? Hmmm. How many species do you see around which can do all the things we humans can? How many animals can make cloathes. Physically. I'm talking motorics (or mechanics maybe in English) here. How many animals can fix a clockwork? How many species our size can balance on a line over the Niagra falls on a bike? Our bodily mechanics are supreme way above any other known species. And our ability to survive is also supreme. Our brains are far supreme.
well how many animals do u know that can run at over 65 mph? (cheetah). how many can jump over 30 ft in one bound? (kangaroo). how many animals can withstand crushing pressures at thousand of feet below sea level? (sperm whale). sure we have a big brain that allows us to quickly solve problems, process information, and do other amazing stuff mentally. but when it comes to survival, we suck. if u took away every scrap of technology and stuck a random person in an unfit enviroment, such as the arctic, desert, etc. they would die within days, a few weeks tops. we need a social group. many other animals dont and they can survive very well. to say that animals are stupid is wrong. there is evidence in chimp families that they have culture. dr. jane goodall found out that in one group, the chimps hold hands while grooming. in another group, they swim in the river, splash around just for fun and not for survival. the only thing we have is an amazing ability to solve problems and be creative (although being creative might not be limited to humans).


Well, gene manipulated corn, Dolly, medicine, you name it. Cloning, semi-cloning, DNA manipulation, stemcell research. And in another post you also mentioned how me feeling this is stuff Man should never be doing, I still mean that, it's straight out unethical.

Those still aren't in the book. where does it say that god used all this stuff? besides, if they're unethical and god did them, are they really unethical?


As was the idea that the Earth is flat to the scientific community for thousands of years. Evolution theory just doesnt make any sense. As simple as that. Had the theory been published today, it would probably not even be mentioned in the magasine Science. It's bogus. A lie, in order to build a foundation for a world outside the Catholic iron fist.
but the earth being flat...that was untested until later. evolution has been tested. also, y would any1 want to be in an iron fist of any kind? especially catholic? i'd want TOTAL freedom. if we had to chose between a free world and the "catholic iron fist," i'm pretty sure most of us would choose free world.

P.S. plz point out as to where in the other books it says that genetic engineering was used to create life as well as using computers and models to make life. if the stories in all the books aren't consistant, it's pretty safe to say that it's false.


[Edited on 6-5-2004 by silQ]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
well, i don't agree, but i do agree that that is the party line.

remember the brontosaurus!!!



????? and your point?

the Brontosuarus was simply a mistake in classification. One that was corrected through the process of self correction that is inherent in science.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
lol....i have no clue wtf ur talking about billy. plz clarify.

o yea! and to clear things up, i use to be a christian. that is....until i became more educated in various fields of science. personally, i believe that buddhism is the best religion of all. they practice peace and harmony and becoming one with the universe yet they still practice martial arts for spiritual enlightenment. they never use it to fight. also, one branch sees buddha as a teacher. not a god. now that's my kind of religion. becoming one with ur body and mind.


ME

posted on May, 6 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
WoW!

Lot's of goood stuff in here. Gunna havta re~read
this thread.

Food for thought . . .

If there is a creator, then would not this creator need an avenue or means of creating? Possibly laws? . . .

Hows about Creation via Evolution + Intervention . . .

THIS works at all angels, and the best thing is , it fits . . . .


. . . .Peace



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
It's actually hard to believe that so many can somehow turn the Bible into science.

I guess God lies to us all with the literally rock-solid evidence of the evolution of life, all over the planet.

Belief is one thing, actual knowledge is quite another. Also, disproof of one theory does not prove any other hypothesis. One needs to use God-given reason.

BTW, there is no proof for biblical stories either. Simply stating that the Bible proves itself is inherently false; such meandering is merely circular reasoning.

The proof of evolution and a very ancient Earth is overwhelming. Personally, I've witnessed much of evidence first-hand. And of course, I chose to evaluate the data with my mind and not through the myopia of an ancient tome.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Well, on this topic i almost agree completly with Byrd and some of the other members. But, do not take Phil Plait ( the bad astronomer) too seriously, he has been known to have no idea of some astronomical discoveries.

In some cases he has been clueless, as he was asked in interviews, of some information on astronomy when the information has been around for a couple of years.

As for the Big Bang, well, there could have been one sure, but before that one there was most probably another, and before that one there was another and another, and so on.

I'll leave it to one of the best scientific minds we had in the 20th century. He can still explain it better than me, even thou he passed on in 1995.

"Alfvén VERSUS THE BIG BANG

For 30 years, based on plasma physics, Alfvén and his colleagues proposed an alternative cosmology to both the Steady State and the Big Bang cosmologies. While the Big Bang theory was preferred by most astrophysicists for nearly 30 years, it is being challenged by new observations, especially over the last decade. In particular, the discovery of coherent structures of galaxies hundreds of millions of light years in length and the large-scale streaming of superclusters of galaxies at velocities that may approach 1,000 kilometers per second present problems that are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the Big Bang theory.

To Alfvén, the problems being raised were not surprising. "I have never thought that you could obtain the extremely clumpy, heterogeneous universe we have today, strongly affected by plasma processes, from the smooth, homogeneous one of the Big Bang, dominated by gravitation."

The problem with the Big Bang, Alfvén believed, is similar to that with Chapman's theories, which the scientific community accepted mistakenly for decades: Astrophysicists have tried too hard to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard. The appeal of the Big Bang, said Alfvén, has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world - what perfect principles must have been used."

To Alfvén, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

But if there was no Big Bang, how -and when- did the universe begin? "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfvén explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion he said. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not, he admited, be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200" he noted. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

Alfvén admited that his plasma universe theory may take a long time to penetrate the popular consciousness. "After all," he asserted to a group of physicists, "most people today still believe, perhaps unconsciously, in the heliocentric universe." The group, at first incredulous, quickly nods in agreement as Alfvén continueed, "every newspaper in the land has a section on astrology, yet few have anything at all on astronomy."

Excerpts taken from.
public.lanl.gov...

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Alfvén admited that his plasma universe theory may take a long time to penetrate the popular consciousness. "After all," he asserted to a group of physicists, "most people today still believe, perhaps unconsciously, in the heliocentric universe." The group, at first incredulous, quickly nods in agreement as Alfvén continueed, "every newspaper in the land has a section on astrology, yet few have anything at all on astronomy."


HA! I did EXACTLY what that paragraph said as I read through the paragraph! My eyes opened wide and my mouth dropped, wondering how someone, obviously a genius, could believe that, until I read the rest of his sentance! Good job!



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Yes, he was a genius. I agree with him that there definetely is no need for a beginning and an end for the universe and multiverse to exist. Not only Buddhism shares this view. Hinduism also teaches that there are only beginning and endings to each individual cycle we go through, but these cycle add up to infinity, a never ending sucession of cycles. When one ends a new one begins, and so on.

But the idea that everything was created out of nothing, does not make sense. If there was nothing at the beginning, then there was no God since there was "nothing." if there was nothing at one time, then even Sophia, or the word/thought could not have existed, because there was "nothing."

It is my firm belief that the construct of the "religious God" was and is a way to try to explain something that most people can not even fathom. It is called "infinite," something with no beginning and no end, just never ending cycles in the multiverse.

Some people still think the multiverse is just science fiction, but it is not so.

Check this link if you are interested in learning about the multiverse. Even thou there are some points in that site that i do not completly agree with. Like not being able to see into the future.
Under the right circumstances a person can see future and past events, much like quantum computers could, theoretically, share all the information found in the multiverse, or even multiverses.
www.newscientist.com...



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Apparent religious 'thought' sickens me. For one thing, no proof is required for belief. On the other hand, none is sufficient to quell skepticism. Also, disproving one theory does not provide proof for any other hypothesis. As for me, I look at facts and form my own conclusions.

How can evolution be 'full of holes' with evidence so plain, literally set in stone? The postion of refuting evolution is completely untenable in the light of the progression of taxa seen through the fossil record. Such an hypothesis is crushed beneath megatons of rock strata.

Of course I was not swayed by the very small sampling of peoples' opinions tendered here. As I wrote previously, that I observe evidence and formulate appropriate explanations. Moreover, I note what 'holes' are apparent in competing theories. Certainly the Bible is rife with gaps and inconsistencies, not to mention the outright contradictions. For example, in the beginning, so to speak, the world already existed, according to the Genesis mythology. Then if it was created, albeit in a void, formless state, why isn't that event mentioned? Of course, there were already 'waters' as well, weren't they created too? Unfortunately, these and a myriad of other questions (holes) have no sufficient answer. No evangelist has answers to logically address them or the many hundreds of others that arise from the Bible. While pretense of a priori status of Biblical writings leads to self-justifying conclusions, they simply do not stand to reason. Once again, I must point out that no evidence is required for faith. Despite what St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) wrote as to invisible evidentiary requirements, actual truth simply does not operate in such a fashion, though belief does. Whatever he meant by such ambiguity escapes logic, as does much of the Bible.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by silQ

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
You don't forget the place you come from you know.

But what about the native americans? u can't forget the native americans! hay how ah ya hey how ah ya hey how ar ya


Funny that you should mention that. Well, there are two things. Firstly I believe that Eden infact may have been somewhere on the American continent. That Noah during the flood sailed from the Americas over the Atlantic and settled somewhere in West Africa or even in Spain. But the world may have looked a whole lot more different that we may imagine. For the Earth was in great change around Noah. Just a couple of generations after Noah came the generation of Peleg, in whose time the Earth was split. This may be a description of sudden continental drift, perhaps as a direct result of the Flood.

Secondly, North American natives are probably of mixed North European and East Asian origin. I have a friend whos half Norwegian half Philippine. He looks just like Geronimo.



Well, basically since you give Christianity the blame for what the Church and the kings of Europe and the Middle-East have done in the name of God.

Whoa whoa wait a sec. it was the CHURCH that put galileo on trial. it was the CHURCH who commanded the start of the crusades. not the kings. the kings were scarde sh*tless about the church cuz they might get excommunicated.


Read what I wrote again: You give the CHRISTIANS the blame for what the political institutions (the Church and kings) have done. That's like giving the Germans the blame for what Hitler did. And not all kings were scared #less by the pope, but that's a totally different story. And what this has to do with Evolution and Creationism defies my explanation. Please, again, stay on topic.


ahem.....i believe that u called me...what was it again? stupid was it?


Not in that post. Besides, nevermind.


aren't religious school all private schools so they can teach whatever they want?


Not whatever they want. Their stuff has to be "blessed" by the state. Atleast it's like that in EU and Norway. Can't really speak for USA since I don't know much about the school system over there.



well that's only cuz everything is already here and all we need to do is bring them up there on a rocket. god was divine so therefore, he wouldn't need ANYTHING. it never said anything about god bringing us here from another planet or using genetic technology to create life. all it said was that god said, "Let there be (blank)" and there it was.


Duh? And when we read the Book of Genesis, about these STARTRAVELERS, who comes FROM HEAVEN, who CAME HERE and made this place. If they can travel through space, don't you think that they can also have computers etc? You don't honestly believe that someone could create this with two bare hands, do you? It's not hokus pokus you know.


just because we can't control doesn't mean that we shouldn't research it further and find other, more practical uses for it.


Well, then that's YOUR opinion.


because ORAL tradition tends to change over time. even though archeaologists found scrolls with bible stuff unchanged, how do u know that they didn't change when they were passed down orally?


I don't care if there were flaws to the oral traditions. It is correct, the numbers and stuff, it is the right numbers. The age of the universe, the coarse of history the last 6000 years, how the climate at Earth has changed etc. It's all there. And again. Creationism/Evolutionism? And civilisation traces it's history about 6000 years back in time. How on Earth you manage to find written material further back baffles me. The fist alfabet was invented about that many years ago. The alfabet, the ability to read and write, was probably the fruit of the Tree of Wisdom.


well how many animals do u know that can run at over 65 mph? (cheetah).


The cheetah. And soon, you and me. Using a Russian invention, special hydraulic boots, diesel driven. Can't remember but you could atleast reach half that speed. With a couple of years training and developing I guess a human could easily outrun a cheeta. Besides. Who needs seven mile boots, when we have motorcycles, cars, planes etc.


how many can jump over 30 ft in one bound? (kangaroo).


This starts to remind me about the Book of Job. And humans using a simple rod.


how many animals can withstand crushing pressures at thousand of feet below sea level? (sperm whale).
¨

And humans in subs.


sure we have a big brain that allows us to quickly solve problems, process information, and do other amazing stuff mentally. but when it comes to survival, we suck.


Which other primate you know about is able to survive a trip to the Antarctic, Mount Everest, space, swim across the English Channel etc.?


if u took away every scrap of technology and stuck a random person in an unfit enviroment, such as the arctic, desert, etc. they would die within days, a few weeks tops.


OK, so you say that since we are dependent on technology to survive we don't count? Monkeys also use technology and many other animals do. Is this wrong?



Well, gene manipulated corn, Dolly, medicine, you name it. ...I still mean that, it's straight out unethical.

Those still aren't in the book. where does it say that god used all this stuff? besides, if they're unethical and god did them, are they really unethical?


Since when was God a book anyway? And since he was infact the one who developed the technology he used, he started with simple organisms, he wrote the genetic operation system. He made us, why shouldn't he be allowed and have exclusive rights to do it? The book describes this stuff, or similar stuff: And then God said: "Let us create humans in our own image and likeness". What if it had been translated using modern terms: "Hey let's clone ourselves folks!"


but the earth being flat...that was untested until later. evolution has been tested. also, y would any1 want to be in an iron fist of any kind? especially catholic? i'd want TOTAL freedom. if we had to chose between a free world and the "catholic iron fist," i'm pretty sure most of us would choose free world.


And your point was?


P.S. plz point out as to where in the other books it says that genetic engineering was used to create life as well as using computers and models to make life. if the stories in all the books aren't consistant, it's pretty safe to say that it's false.


Well, let's start with the Bible which has alot about this. Let's look at the Hebrew words used and look at some of their alternative meanings etc.

The Bible says that when Adam asked God to create a woman to him, God first put him to a deep sleep. Today we would call this narcosis. Then he removes a RIB from Adam, and from that RIB he BUILT Woman. The word rib is also used by builders etc. and today also geneticists. It basically means a small room or a CELL. It even says here in the text that God even changed the genetic code of Man, who originally had mixed genitals, he was created a malefemale. But God "filled up the shameful wound down there with flesh, and closed it".

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Great post about Australlia Junglejake


Another thing about carbon dating is the dino's. In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences’ laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an Allosaurus and an Acrocanthosaurus were among those sent to the university’s testing facilities to undergo a “blind” dating procedure (which means that the technicians performing the tests did not know that the bones had come from dinosaurs). Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented “evolutionary bias,” and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). I have located—on the official stationery of the University of Arizona—a copy of the test results for the Allosaurus bones (see reproduction at right, sample B). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the Acrocanthosaurus fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils.


What idiot would use C14-dating on dinosaur bones? You can't date old fossils with C14-dating. Other radiometric dating methods with isotopes that have a longer lifetime might work, but not C14-dating.


Are There Things That Can't Be Carbon-Dated?

Yes. The method doesn't work on things which didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures, since their carbon might (for example) come from dissolved carbonate rock. That causes a dating problem with any animal that eats seafood.

We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.

We can't date oil paints, because their oil is "old" carbon from petroleum.

We can't date fossils, for three reasons. First, they are almost always too old. Second, they rarely contain any of the original carbon. And third, it is common to soak new-found fossils in a preservative, such as shellac. It is also standard to coat fossils during their extraction and transport. Acetone is sometimes used while extracting fossils, because it dissolves dirt. In short, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you should assume that most of the carbon in a fossil is from contamination, and is not originally part of the fossil.

We also can't date things that are too young. The nuclear tests of the 1950's created a lot of C14. Also, humans are now burning large amounts of "fossil fuel". As the name suggests, fossil fuel is old, and no longer contains C14. Both of these man-made changes are a nuisance to carbon dating.

If you hear of a living tree being dated as a thousand years old, that is not necessarily an example of an incorrect dating. Trees only grow on the outside. Wood taken from the innermost ring really is as old as the tree.


(source)



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
We're not biological special? Hmmm. How many species do you see around which can do all the things we humans can? How many animals can make cloathes. Physically. I'm talking motorics (or mechanics maybe in English) here. How many animals can fix a clockwork? How many species our size can balance on a line over the Niagra falls on a bike? Our bodily mechanics are supreme way above any other known species. And our ability to survive is also supreme. Our brains are far supreme.


Other primates use tools as well. Just look at all the similarities I gave in the post you only quoted a small part of. If you look at the level of cells, tissues or organs, we are very similar to other mammals. The development of the embryo is similar. Humans were not always technically advanced. If you compare a human living in the forest hunting and gathering, I doubt you find much difference with any other primate.

I will not reply to any more posts about whether humans should be considered an animal, because I think I have given plenty of arguments (>20).

BTW, it is Camélopardalis according to my Latin dictionairy and this was originally a Greek word.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Heeey. There's a great difference between knowing how to crush a nut with a rock and use a straw to eat ants, to putting together a computer, or for that matter communicate with the ape using his own body language, in order so he could lend you his rock for a box of raisins, then use the rock as a hammer so you could build a three story house with it.

And. Part of the point with classes within biology is that they are similar creatures. We all have mostly the same bones etc. we have bodies which are made using the same type of cell he used to create the animals. But we are not animals. Our superior ability to communicate with tongue and pen, our ability to design and costruct incredibly great and wonderful things, our ability to understand the universe and comprehend the laws of nature. Our ability to reach every corner of Earth, and survive in the toughest conditions. You don't see a monkey do that. That's my point. And since we are now able to read and understand the language of the genes, that we have a good understanding of chemistry, physics, well soon enough we will be able to redo whatever God apparently has been doing for more than 17 billion years according to Genesis.

And me putting the accent above the a instead of the e is intended. It makes me happy atleast. For I'm not REALLY a giraffe you know. But cool that you noticed. The giraffe is a constellation. And originally, it was called the spotted camel, and according to the myth, it was this spotted camel, ehhrrrm, giraffe which brought Rebecca to Isaac. I don't know, but I think that Camelopardalis in Greek means simply spotted camel, but in Latin it is giraffe.

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Apparent religious 'thought' sickens me. For one thing, no proof is required for belief. On the other hand, none is sufficient to quell skepticism. Also, disproving one theory does not provide proof for any other hypothesis. As for me, I look at facts and form my own conclusions.

How can evolution be 'full of holes' with evidence so plain, literally set in stone? The postion of refuting evolution is completely untenable in the light of the progression of taxa seen through the fossil record. Such an hypothesis is crushed beneath megatons of rock strata.

Of course I was not swayed by the very small sampling of peoples' opinions tendered here. As I wrote previously, that I observe evidence and formulate appropriate explanations. Moreover, I note what 'holes' are apparent in competing theories. Certainly the Bible is rife with gaps and inconsistencies, not to mention the outright contradictions. For example, in the beginning, so to speak, the world already existed, according to the Genesis mythology. Then if it was created, albeit in a void, formless state, why isn't that event mentioned? Of course, there were already 'waters' as well, weren't they created too? Unfortunately, these and a myriad of other questions (holes) have no sufficient answer. No evangelist has answers to logically address them or the many hundreds of others that arise from the Bible. While pretense of a priori status of Biblical writings leads to self-justifying conclusions, they simply do not stand to reason. Once again, I must point out that no evidence is required for faith. Despite what St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) wrote as to invisible evidentiary requirements, actual truth simply does not operate in such a fashion, though belief does. Whatever he meant by such ambiguity escapes logic, as does much of the Bible.


Why do you continue to bring up the Bible in your posts? I personally have not quoted the Bible in any of my posts to argue against evolution and I can count on one hand the posts that contain references to the Bible.

Scientific creationism is not based on Genesis or any other religious teaching. One can present the scientific evidences for creation (and against evolution) without referring at all to the Bible or to any type of religion.

Entire books have been written on scientific creationism without a single quotation from the Bible and without basing any argument on Biblical authority or doctrine. Such arguments deal with genetics, paleontology, geology, thermodynamics, and other sciences with theology or religion. Indeed, the scientific case for creation is based on our knowledge of DNA, mutations, fossils, and other scientific terms and concepts which do not even appear in the Bible. Furthermore, creationist scientists many who were formerly evolutionists made a thorough study of the scientific evidences related to origins and are firmly convinced (not by religious faith but by the scientific evidences) that the scientific data explicitly support the Creation Model and contradict the Evolution Model.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   
At this point in the discussion, there is an important detail that deserves attention. The simple fact that DNA cannot be created by non-design. An error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:


A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.


The number 4^1,000 is the equivalent of 10^600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number.

The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way:


We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.


For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process:


An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.


Seriously People, evolution is not science! Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested or observed. Evolution is a blind faith. As time marches on Evolutionist's continue to backtrack towards less and less evidence and make excuses for not producing the evidence that the theory demands.(Examples: Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism)

We all need to move on from evolution and look for the true origin of life because evolution is not it. Instead of defending a dead idea scientist should direct their attention toward finding a new theory.




top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join