evolution: The greatest conspiracy

Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by Alpha Arietis

 

What he?she? said!

And no I don't believe that the earth is only thousands of years old. I don't really believe it's trillions of years old either.

I tend to think it's somewhere between 50,000,000 - 200,000,000 years old. Just my thoughts on the matter. No scientific data to back up my thoughts just.. thoughts.

Another problem of dating... Science can't even accurately predict a growing stalagtite! I was visiting Mammoth Cave as a child and the guide there was telling us about a passageway in the cave.
In that passageway (which had been opened about 40 years previous) a stalagtite was growing over the steps.
The guide told us that scientist estimated it would take 200 years for the stairs to be covered...
They were already almost half-way covered!

I asked the guide about it and she was just like... uhhhhh...
Later, I tried writing a science magazine about it... I don't remember which. It was a LONG time ago and I got no response.

And that is when I lost much of my respect for some sciences.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]

You lost your respect from for the sciences because a misinformed guide that probably mixed up information 500 tours ago gave bad info?

And this is obviously where you go wrong. First off, a guide is a minimum wage paid tour guide, not a geologist.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I just wanted to add an interesting tidbit I learned reading up on child developement: that chimps and children develope exactly the same emotionally and educationally till about the age of four.

Then human children quickly start surpassing the chimp.

reply to post by nomorecruelty


Exactly why shouldn't there be other monkeys, apes and etc on the Earth?
I am looking forward to hearing this explinantion.

Judgment Day -- Intelligent Design on Trial: Nova
PBS Nova Documentary on the Dover school district trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover) and the ramifications it has for being able to keep Intelligent Design (creationism) out of science classrooms. Ken Miller and many others.
video.google.com...#
=================
The court looked at all the evidence. Intelligent design is a science stopper. Evolution theory is valid. It is still theory - but it is valid. End of story.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by Welfhard

 

Sure "man" wrote the Bible - and what they wrote was inspired by God.

I wish I had a nickle for every time I've heard that one though - "Well, God Himself didn't write the Bible" - I guess b/c He didn't take a pen and paper and physically write it, then it doesn't count?

Let me say this though - I don't know you, or any other non believer that comments on this thread. So if all of you reject Jesus, that is entirely up to you. I don't mean this to sound crass but it's not going to affect me one way or the other, per say.

But I am scared for any person that chooses to reject Him though - the Bible writes of Noah's days, and Sodom and Gomorrah's days - and the wrath they suffered due to their sins and refusing to repent.

And Daniel, and Revelation, tells us, in great detail, what His wrath will consists of in our very near future.

So all I can do is pray that all of you will choose to accept Him.

As a human, I'm limited - I can only pray to God and let Him handle things.

Yet you also stated humans are sinners and no one is perfect except Jesus. So why are you accepting ideas from such a flawed and obviously human source?

reply to post by nomorecruelty



It is a sad and desperate tactic to refute someone's evidence, and start with the personal bashing.especially since the group of trolls here can't provide their own.
and it is an action of a last resort.

Andrew, stop bothering with this group.

You have to ask yourself why such hardcore Christians are hanging out on a conspiracy site.

On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an angry response without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally, merely as a ludibrium. Though technically different from flaming, which is an unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree, or sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere.

link

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by andrewh7
Survival of the fittest is a reality.

Men invented self-ruling governments with laws because we came together as a people and decided that we didn't want to worry about be murdered or robbed. Killing a man to take what he has is certainly adaptive for some species but we are a SOCIAL SPECIES. We survived by working together as a team, trusting one another with our lives. Evolution is clearly not evil if it can create something so amazing.

One interesting question I would have for those supporting evolution is "Are social behaviors a genetic trait that's influenced by evolution?" Let's take ducks flying South for the Winter. Where is the knowledge to fly South encoded at? Obviously this knowledge isn't a specific gene that you can manipulate, but this information must be contained somewhere.

I'm hoping for more than the standard "Those that didn't fly were not as likely to survive". That isn't an answer, but merely a statement about an observation. It doesn't explain where this knowledge is contained.

They can tell by the changes in daylight, vegetation, movement of the stars, and food sources getting scarce. The same way all animals know fall is coming.

It is genetic encoding. Even humans have it. Babies are born with reflexes to survive. One of the more shocking is the moro reflex. Where if a baby is not supported, they freeze. If you turn them on their side, it shuts it off. Also how all mammals look for teats and know how to suck when they are born.

it is a theory that knowledge can be passed on. Like a fear of spiders, heights, and snakes. The theory behind fear of mice and rats is genetic printing carried down from the black plague generated by rats during the medieval times.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by John Matrix

If I am wrong, at the end of my life I will suffer the loss of a delusion....Big Harry Deal.

If I am right, the atheist/evolutionist suffers eternal death.

I'm not stupid enough to take that gamble and join the ranks of the

evolutionists.

And it we're both wrong? Christianity isn't the only religion in the world.

reply to post by John Matrix


More statistical evidence for classical evolution.



[edit on 10-10-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

QFT

The faith in evolution is equal to the faith in creation by the adherent of either belief structure. BUT... the evolutionist faith has greater risk IF there is a Creator there is a loss of future prospect for life, IF there isn't no loss at all.

It's a faith based system that is gambling your future eternal life, and that is pretty huge.

It's a good thing then that science operates with evidence instead of faith.

Religion tells you what to believe, science examines the natural world and develops hypotheses to explain the observations, tests those hypotheses and the ones that are accurate become theory, then as new evidence is unearthed, theories that can be are updated.

Religion is absolute in it's presumptions, Science advances as more becomes known.

The latter doesn't require faith.

reply to post by nixie_nox



Genomic imprinting and epigonemics.
Wiki
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Genomic imprinting has functional differences on specific genes derived from paternal versus maternal development. One is expressed, the other is silenced.

Epigonemic phenomena is well established in mice and now uncovered in primates. Paternal and maternal affect different behaviours, however, how this works in humans is yet to be studied to its fullest. Modificatoins of the human geonome imprint happens, though not enough information is out.

Imprinted genes are monoallelically expressed in a parent-of-origin dependent manner. Whilst the full functional repertoire of these genes remains obscure, they are generally highly expressed in the brain and are often involved in fundamental neural processes. Besides influencing brain neurochemistry, imprinted genes are important in the development and function of the hypothalamus and pituitary gland, key sites of neuroendocrine regulation. Moreover, imprinted genes may directly modulate hormone-dependent signalling cascades, both in the brain and elsewhere.

Much of our knowledge about imprinted gene function has come from studying knockout mice and human disorders of imprinting. One such disorder is Prader-Willi syndrome, a neuroendocrine disorder characterised by hypothalamic abnormalities and aberrant feeding behaviour. Through examining the role of imprinted genes in neuroendocrine function, it may be possible to shed light on the neurobiological basis of feeding and aspects of social behaviour and underlying cognition, and to provide insights into disorders where these functions go awry.

www.epidna.com...

Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, and other chromatin-remodeling events, are critically important in mediating precise neural gene regulation. This review focuses on discussing the role of DNA methylation and histone modifications in neural lineage differentiation, neural behavior, and synaptic plasticity.

www.epidna.com...

So if the epigenetic changes are our current behavioural modifcations, there is the strong possibilty that previous behaviours of ancestors esp regarding food intake and obsessives are in our underlying imprints.

If Epigenetic molecular mechanism can potentially alter underlying lifelong and transgenerational perpetuation of changes in gene expression and behavior induced by environment, then it is yet to be proven fully how these over time were imprinted on DNA.





[edit on 10-10-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by zazzafrazz


Thanks Zazz! I was trying to find information on it but I couldn't find much. It is an interesting topic to look into.

reply to post by sisgood


If you have time (and of course if you haven't read this story before) I highly recommend that you read "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov.

Considering what you wrote in your post I think that you may like it.

I think that it is an absolute cracker ...

www.multivax.com...

edit - to add link

[edit on 14/10/09 by Horza]

If i throw a ball and know its precise velocity, angle, wind velocity, gravity, aerodynamics, i can reasonably predict where the ball can land. What makes you people think god cant predict which species of animal will evolve next? So only humans have the capability to make predictions. Evolution is real. God is real. He created the universe and all that is in it. He made the rules of physics,chemistry and biology. What we are seeing is his work. Wake up people. God is real.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If i throw a ball and know its precise velocity, angle, wind velocity, gravity, aerodynamics, i can reasonably predict where the ball can land. What makes you people think god cant predict which species of animal will evolve next? So only humans have the capability to make predictions. Evolution is real. God is real. He created the universe and all that is in it. He made the rules of physics,chemistry and biology. What we are seeing is his work. Wake up people. God is real.

God said it didn't happen that way. He also says his book is the truth. Are you calling god a liar?

Also, the predictions aren't the same. Predicting a few billion years of random chance is slightly harder than predicting the curve of a ball. To do this, god would have to be controlling every single step along the way. If a god is real, it would be possible, but seems like a stupid thing to have to do.

If god is so real, why would he make people who believe in him so stupid, and those that don't so smart? (On average, see the research on IQ and religious beliefs)

Hi, I'm God. I created the universe, and I made you all. The ones that I made that are smarter than the rest don't tend to believe in me. Oops.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by xelamental]

reply to post by Horza


Thx for the link!
Isaac Asimov is a great writer and the Last Question is my favourite story.

reply to post by xelamental


His books, namely the bibles have been altered by people for their own benefit. He first created the heavens,then the sun and earth, then life, and lastly humans. Look at paleontology and the history of earth based on science. They both verify each other.

Predicting a few billion years of random chance is slightly harder

Yea its harder for humans, but an omnipotent being,not so hard.
You show humans a few thousand years ago an iphone, and an f-117 stealth fighter,and tell them that we have been on the moon, and the world is not flat They are going to tell you its hard and impossible.


Im not stupid,and I believe in god, oh yea i have a degree in physics, to change your stereotype.


[edit on 15-10-2009 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by xelamental

 

His books, namely the bibles have been altered by people for their own benefit. He first created the heavens,then the sun and earth, then life, and lastly humans. Look at paleontology and the history of earth based on science. They both verify each other.

Not sure what you are on, but I'm an athiest. If you believe that any part of the bible is untrue, while god says its true, then anything is up for grabs. How about peters apocalyse? Look it up if you dont know.

Yea its harder for humans, but an omnipotent being,not so hard.

It is if he gives us free will. Think about that. If he could tell every step along the way, is it really free will or just an illusion?

Im not stupid,and I believe in god, oh yea i have a degree in physics, to change your stereotype.
[edit on 15-10-2009 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

I've known people whose phd's were not worth the paper they were written on. And if you know physics, you would have studied at least elementary statistics. I'm talking about averages, with relatively large standard deviations.

Assuming evolution to be true, surely you would have noted that no Creature developed more intelligence than it needed to survive.

Can anyone explain why one creature would grow physically weaker and less able to survive the environment?
Why did it become weaker?

How many of you would survive if suddenly all technology, including clothing and crude tools were to vanish?

The dog has been with us for eons and and yet he has not changed.
Dogs that live indoors all the time still grow heavy coats in the winter.
He could survive without us.

Originally posted by OhZone
Assuming evolution to be true, surely you would have noted that no Creature developed more intelligence than it needed to survive.

Can anyone explain why one creature would grow physically weaker and less able to survive the environment?
Why did it become weaker?

The pen is mightier than the sword. (Smarts trumps strength).

How many of you would survive if suddenly all technology, including clothing and crude tools were to vanish?

Some would, some wouldn't. I like being naked, don't you?

The dog has been with us for eons and and yet he has not changed.
Dogs that live indoors all the time still grow heavy coats in the winter.
He could survive without us.

Dogs have changed a lot, and not just by humans intervening with selective breeding. Australian Dingos have evolved since humans brought them to Australia from Southeast Asia.

Humans breeding dogs for specific purposes is an 'unnatural' selection and traits are selected for the benefit of humans, not the dog. Natural selection works much to slowly for indoor dogs to lose their long coats in the short time they have been 'confined'. And anyway, those indoor dogs are individuals not the entire population of the breed. Populations evolve, not individuals.

Furthermore, even though some breeds of dogs are spend almost their entire lives indoors, humans continue to breed for the long hair attribute.