Evolution is FACT!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
can anyone tell me how the bombardier beetle evolved without blowing itself up?




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Evolution has been called fact by the intelligent scientists foa really long time now. The regular public, religious, and ignorant call it a theory. It is a fact. As you've shown in your examples, we watch microevolution happen all the time. But we of course can't see macroevolution, or speciation, because that does take hundreds of thousands of years. But not millions of years, like most people think.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chainmaker

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
reply to post by Chainmaker
 




Hm, perhaps the required leap of faith to accept the evolution of whales from a 4-legged ancestor is something which does not require that much effort. A google-search is all you need to find convincing fossils, which document the evolution of whales.


I could spend lots of time cutting and pasting and showing you how bunk all that whale stuff is, but it wouldn't change your mind.

"Reconstructions" galore. Here let me hold up this bone shard to the light and if I cock my head to the right and squint real hard I believe I can envision the entire skeleton of a whale missing link and now I will go sculpt a fake skeleton and put it in a row with some more "reconstructions" and I just proved evolution.

lol.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

You seemed not to have followed the links I posted. Otherwise you should have noticed, that the found whale fossils are not just single bones. A complete skeleton of Dorudon atrox has been found. From the fossil skeletons of Basilosaurus and Ambulocetus more than half the bones and nearly intact skulls have been found.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
The one problem I have with evolution is the lack of all the "missing link" fossils. In other words, from the process of ape into man, there had to have been a decent amount of time and creatures that were half and half.


Every single organism is such a link, lpowell. As I explained earlier, there are no leaps from one type to the other, it's a steady progression of very similar individuals that are still different from the individuals at either end of the line. There are no "half and half" creatures because of this.


Evolution does not mean going to bed as an ape and giving birth to a human. Evolution is a very long, complex process that would undoubtedly have to produce many "mistakes" and such before the "perfected" species we see now.


From a design standpoint, the majority of life on earth is terribly, terribly far from perfect. Take the human body. If you think we're designed, you also have to think said designer was a kid with downs syndrome who was distracted by his favorite cartoon at the time. Seriously. For starters, our blood vessels are nearly random. Our major ones follow a reliable enough path, but even then they vary individual to individual. In most mammals, the circulatory system resembles that wad of christmas lights you pulled out of the attic this year. it's very inefficient, compared to say, fish, who have a much more sensible pattern to their blood vessels.

Next, we have this nerve, the recurrent laryngeal nerve. This is the nerve that controls your layrinx's muscles, enabling you to speak. Were you or I a designer of a critter, we would take this nerve, and we would send it a few inches forward, through the skull into the brain. if we didn't mind a slightly slower impulse (in microseconds, no big whup) we could shorten it even further by connecting that nerve to the spinal cord in the neck. But that's not what happens. Instead, this nerve starts at the larynx, travels down into the chest cavity, loops around the aorta, and then travels back up to connect with the vagus nerve, which connects to the brain. In humans, this is a detour of several inches. In giraffes, it's a detour of fifteen feet. For a sauropod... Well, you're talking several meters on that one.

"Perfect" species, huh? Look at you, man, your spinal column can't handle the stress of walking upright, your hips (or your wife's, if you're a male) are so narrow and your head so big that without medical intervention, childbirth would be the deadliest thing humans do to themselves, your eyes see everything upside-down and backwards, you're covered in hair that does nothing practical at all, and, if you're a guy, your testicles loop around your kidneys like freaking trapeze artists rather than just settle in where they're supposed to go. You are FAR from resembling perfect.


If we can find dinosaur fossils, dating back to before humans existed (I'm sticking to the text book history), then we should certainly be able to find fossils representing upright walking half ape / half man. Just as there should be fossils representing Earth-bound walking creatures with wings. In order for birds to have evolved, there would have had to be a long period of "wing" development. Where are all of these creatures with too small to fly wings? They should be as plentiful as all of the fossils predating their existence at the very least.


The odds against any individual creature fossilizing are extremely low, highly dependent on manner, time, and location of its death, and a generous dose of luck. Finding that fossilized creature is then 100% luck. It's a really big planet, and the odds of us finding a specific creature fossilized somewhere on it are very slim to none. Especially if we imagine (and it's no leap of the imagination) that said creature had a very small, localized population. A million years from now, will the humans of the day believe that the kiwi ever existed? It's a pretty ludicrous bird, and it lives in moist forests, on a single island in the world. We know it exists, but the odds of it fossilizing are next to nothing, and who would think to look on this small chunk of land for such a fossil anyway?


I just find it difficult to accept as fact without the necessary fossilized evidence to back it up.


Well, it's a good thing that fossils are simply the icing on evolution's cake. There is enough evidence in all the existing organisms alive today to make evolution a certainty - that funky nerve I mentioned to you? it makes perfect sense in fish - their body is plainly arranged in "segments" but in "higher" animals, who have stretched out and altered shape from fish (such as developing necks) this nerve gets stretched and shaped with it. It can't just sudenly close the gap and go straight to the brain - and truthfully there wouldn't be much gain if it did. A couple grams of nerve tissue would be saved, but it's not enough to make or break a species' survival.

If that weren't enough, we have the molecular biology to show us what's related to what, the constant mutation rate, and even what each gene does in those species we've mapped.

Evolution doesn't need fossils. They're nice to have, and htye make a nice visual point when speaking to people who pretend that the rest of biology doesn't exist. But we could live in a world without fossils, and we'd still be literally full of evidence for evolution.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsympl
can anyone tell me how the bombardier beetle evolved without blowing itself up?


Why do you not just start with a look at the bombardier beetle wikipedia page? You will find a short entry on the evolution of the defence mechanism. The part may be a bit short, but 2 sources are quoted. Both links are still working. Read the explanations, if you find, that these explanations are lacking, please point to the parts which you find questinonable.
www.talkorigins.org...
ncse.com...



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chainmaker
In order to change from one kind, not species, to another, new irreducibly complex features would have to occur, and they don't.


Because there is no such thing. It's often asked, "what good is half a wing?" Well, half a wing is still pretty good for gliding. It's useful for steering while running around. It's VERY handy for mating displays (Ask an ostrich), and it's still useful for short bursts of hop-flying, which as goofy as it would look, is still a pretty good escape method.

One must remember, the proto-wing very possibly was not used as a wing. That's the hangup you guys keep having, the assumption that a dinosaur with feathery arms would have no use for those feathered arms.


All you have is variation on themes, and no proof of transition between the distinct themes.


Except for fossils, molecular and biological evidence, etc. Your earlier example was that you believe that a leopard, tiger, and housecat were "all the same thing." That's pretty dang horrible biology on your part - none of these three can breed together and make fertile offspring (The leopard and tiger could make an infertile hybrid, but both are completely incompatable with the housecat) and are thus, even by the most bare-bones, stripped-down version of the idea of "species" that even creationists buy, are three different species.

Now, they share a common ancestor. The leopard and tiger share a more recent common ancestor with each other than they do with the housecat. And hte three do follow what, to our perceptions is a "theme" (they're feline) but internally, molecularly, geographically, and historically, all three are very very different creatures.


Macro-evolutionary theory is a joke, it is a crutch for non-believers. But since we are arguing religious beliefs, not science, it is very hard for people to objectively look at the evidence.


I'm just going to let you marinate in the irony here


We are arguing whether or not God actively had a hand in designing creation, and a lot of people have a strong aversion to believing in God so they will ignore the lack of evidence and call their godless creation theory fact simply for their own religious comfort.


well, if you could show me some evidence of something resembling a god, that would be awesome, and I'd see if it could be worked into the theory. At this point though, there is simply no evidence of a god - or space aliens, or a virtual reality universe, or what have you for a "designer" - and so including such a thing adds unnecessary baggage.


The platypus has mammalian, avian, and reptilian DNA, and that blows your theory out of the water right there.

Supposedly mammals evolved from reptiles and birds evolved from dinosaurs which evolved from reptiles. How is DNA from 2 completely divergent lines avian and mammalian present in the platypus?

Oh, I know, all that DNA was present in the common ancestor. Bullcrap. Avian and Mammalian DNA did not exist until it evolved according to your theory. Now you will tell me that DNA evolved 3 directions simultaneously in one reptilian common ancestor?


How is it possible? Well, that's easy to answer. It's not, and whoever's telling you that the platypus has "three kinds of DNA" is lying to you and making you look pig-ignorant. A platypus has platypus DNA.


A Billion gazillion generations of single-celled organisms have been grown in labs for hundreds of years. Not once has any new irreducibly complex feature been observed forming, much less a multi-cellular organism. You show simple adaptation of a virus to its environment and claim that as proof that man came from an ape. Ridiculous.


Viruses aren't really alive, and so don't really evolve. They're a weird bunch of somethings. Speaking of though, care to tell me why your god chose to create the ebola virus, and design it specifically so that it would turn the inside of a human being into blood-and-viscera stew, which is then expelled in explosive, bloody diarrhea? Being an indian, I also have a few questions about this "smallpox" thing your diety seems to have thought was a good idea...

Odds are, a multicellular critter hasn't been cooked up in a flask of E. coli bacteria simply because the bacteriologists are too interested in making them develop what you would call "irreductably complex" features. Such as the ability to digest weird chemicals that previous generations of bacteria could make no use of. I'm sure that if scientists were to culture bacteria with a focus towards colonies, they could eventually end up with multicellular somethings similar to a sponge or slime mold within a few decades.


If over millions of years organisms are only rarely fossilized maybe every few tens or hundreds of thousands of years apart, then we should never find the same species twice, every fossil found should be in a distinct phase of evolutionary flux. It should be a rare event to find a fossil that matched perfectly any previously discovered fossil as a recognizably same species. Instead we find 50 Triceratops skulls, same exact species, and I could go on and on with examples.


There are in fact two secure species of triceratops, and seven more possible species. And you'll be delighted to know that among dinosaurs, ceratopsians
are one of the more well-documented and cataloged orders, and their evolution is well-represented in the fossil record (They very politely lived on plains and in deserts, where fossilization is more likely than in acidic, wet forests)


And all we have is big wide gaps whereever there are your really wild theoretical transitions, the kinds of fossils that are your Holy Grail, the kinds that would show crystal clear unarguable transition, the so-called missing links. Transitions for whales, bats and humans come to mind. But there's nothing there except for a long record of frauds and hoaxes, Piltdown Man comes to mind. And still we have "scientists" picking up shards of bone and creating "reconstructions" of missing links literally based on nothing but their imagination and declaring this to be proven fact. These men are artistic sculptors and their works should be in art shows not museums.


Yes, Piltdown man was a hoax. Know who proved the hoax to be fale? Sure as heck wasn't creationists - it was other scientists going "Well, now, wait a minute, that's not right". Piltdown man was expunged, its creator blacklisted, and now only exists on creationist websites.

Unfortunately for you, it's easy to remember piltdown man because it's pretty much the only hoax that took a while to get caught. Pretty much every other hoaxer who tried was grabbed by the ear, shaken roughly, and thrown out on his ass.


And then there's your worst enemy, the mathematics of chance.


Not at all. Matter of fact, since you're the one who's claiming that every iota of life in the world - and if you're broad-minded enough, the entire universe, appeared exactly as it is now, with no change or development, in the blink of an infinitely unknowable creator's eye... you should be the one biting your nails about the mathematics of chance.

The odds of life are, obviously, greater than zero (we know that life exists, obviously - and before you start, evolution is a theory on the process of life, not a theory of where life came from. abiogenises is three doors down, tell 'em I sent you). We also know that, at least here on earth, life reproduces primarily by swapping genetic material between organisms - whether it's literal swapping like among the archaea and bacteria kingdoms, or a recombination to form other organisms sexually. we also know that proteins being what they are, mutations happen.

The chances of recombining mutated DNA and thus producing an organism that is genetically different from its parents are thus not only high, they're nearly guaranteed. From that point, it's simply a question of whether or not these mutations actually do anything, and if so, whether they help or hinder the organism. Each mutation is exactly as likely as the first one - nearly 100% chance. Successful (and neutral) mutations live on, deleterious mutations die out. As these mutations accumulate, the organism obviously changes quite a bit.

The mathematics of chance favor this process vastly more than they favor the odds of an undetectable omnipotent universal being popping everything out of nowhere in one day


All biological life and the fossil record SCREAMS design to produce the intricate and unbelievably complex machinery all the way down to the cellular level.


Perhaps if your designer is Homer Simpson, sure.


But despite all this, despite the obvious design all around us, you will deny deny deny and persist in believing your theory and declaring it to be the infallible Word of Scientific Gods, and your faith in the theory is for purely spiritual reasons, because you don't want to accept that hated idea of a judgemental God.


Problem is? it's quite fallible - falsifiable. That's what makes it a good theory. Find me a modern rabbit fossilized in precambrian strata, and you've just debunked evolution. Said bunny hasn't been found yet, but i'm sure a team of god-botherers is out there looking for it.


I know, because I believed in the macro-evolutionary religion for many years. I thank God he woke me up.


I can understand your consternation with it, then, if you believed in it without knowing a single thing about it.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


The platypus does in fact have distinctly reptilian, avian, and mammalian DNA. I know that platypus is a real pain in the ass for you guys, it always has been.


A draft of the genetic sequence of Glennie, a female platypus in Australia has somewhat been able to answer this intriguing yet very confusing question. “We found that the platypus has reptilian, avian, and mammalian genome features in one organism,” says Mark Batzer, a biologist at Louisiana State University.

Your scientists as you admit have been working diligently to prove us wrong with the eureka moment where some new irreducibly complex cellular machinery in created, it hasn't happened in gazillions of generations yet, and it never will. Your faith that they could definitely produce a multi-cellular organism if they tried is no different than my faith that Jesus is coming back.

As someone said above, there's a big difference between adaptation and variations of the same forms, and the creation of a totally new form. There a big difference between variations of the cat form, like lions and tigers and housecats, and evolution of a cat into something else entirely. That organisms can differentiate to the point of reproductive incompatibility, but retain their basic form, does not prove unintelligent design.

Various diversified forms of one kind are seen everywhere, micro-evolution certainly exists, but Darwin's finches merely show diversity within a kind, nothing else. Multiple variations on the Triceratops theme is the same thing, adaptive variations on a previously fully designed form.

And Piltdown Man is one of a long list of hoaxes and discredited missing links.

I never claimed the world doesn't change, I said I believe in micro-evolution, adaptation and speciation within kinds. Organisms can adapt, they can get bigger or smaller, change colors, gain resistance to diseases, etc, but they don't develop new machinery, not on the full organism, or on the cellular level.

The evidence for Intelligent Design is overwhelming, the only question is whether it was space aliens doing the manipulation, or God. And if it was space aliens, then who manipulated their DNA?

We could go round and round and you could keep on telling me I don't believe because I don't understand and I deny evidence, and I could tell you the same thing, and it doesn't go anywhere, because people choose to believe what they want to believe about their origins for spiritual reasons, and that's all there is to it. You desparately don't want to believe in God, so you desparately want to believe that he had nothing to do with your origin.

I pray that he will send you a wake up call.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chainmaker
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


The platypus does in fact have distinctly reptilian, avian, and mammalian DNA. I know that platypus is a real pain in the ass for you guys, it always has been.


A draft of the genetic sequence of Glennie, a female platypus in Australia has somewhat been able to answer this intriguing yet very confusing question. “We found that the platypus has reptilian, avian, and mammalian genome features in one organism,” says Mark Batzer, a biologist at Louisiana State University.


Features. That is, its DNA has similarities to the three. It is not "distinctly reptilian, Avian, and mammalian DNA," it is that its DNA has portions in common tp all three. The DNA that controlls its egg-laying is most similar to birds' for instance, while its venom is very similar to that of a poisonous snake's, and is generated by very similar DNA.

However these traits were reached on their own by the Platypus. Some beneficent sky-being didn't take a chicken, a lizard, and a housecat and squish them all together to make a chickizardcat.

Platypus DNA is platypus DNA. The really sad part, Dr. Batzer could have goven you all the scientific jargon, terms, and explanations, and you'd probably just stare uncomprehendingly and forget everything he said.


Your scientists as you admit have been working diligently to prove us wrong with the eureka moment where some new irreducibly complex cellular machinery in created, it hasn't happened in gazillions of generations yet, and it never will. Your faith that they could definitely produce a multi-cellular organism if they tried is no different than my faith that Jesus is coming back.


If you were paying attention, you would have noted my explanation that there is no such thing as "irreductably complex." Your team, aside from being shy a few members, has never been able to make this play. You really need to stop.

And there's a big difference between my certainty that this can be accomplished, and your faith in Jesus coming back. My hypothesis can be tested. Not being a bacteriologist, and since I don't have several decades to spare, I can't perform the experiments myself. But I understand the basic principles of what to look for and how to achieve it. How do you plan to test your jesus hypothesis? Pull up a lawn chair and wait?


As someone said above, there's a big difference between adaptation and variations of the same forms, and the creation of a totally new form. There a big difference between variations of the cat form, like lions and tigers and housecats, and evolution of a cat into something else entirely. That organisms can differentiate to the point of reproductive incompatibility, but retain their basic form, does not prove unintelligent design.


You really don't understand even the basic concepts of what we're discussing, do we? Look, cap'n, you can't make up your own crap, claim it's legit, and bring it to an argument expecting anyone to bother with it. You can go "Aha! Nobody can counter my half-baked prattle!" and feel you've won the argument, but, honestly? It just makes you sound like the Time Cube guy.

However, I will try to muck through the stuff here, because I'm a glutton for punishment and I hate seeing people mired in ignorance.

First, the variations in the cat form are the result of evolution into new forms. The cat I have in my kitchen right now is something else entirely from the bobcat I encountered in second grade, which is in turn something completely different from the smilodon who fell into the la brea tarpits some ten thousand years ago.

If you're arguing that a housecat won't spontaneously give birth to a bunch of puppies, well, you're right. It's not much of an argument if so, however, because i've already explained that that doesn't happen. I also explained why it doesn't happen.


Various diversified forms of one kind are seen everywhere, micro-evolution certainly exists, but Darwin's finches merely show diversity within a kind, nothing else. Multiple variations on the Triceratops theme is the same thing, adaptive variations on a previously fully designed form.


So. Okay. Taking you literally here. Do you believe that a gibbon is the same thing as a gorilla? Or that a harbor seal is the same thing as a walrus? Or that a cricket is the same thing as a cockroach?


And Piltdown Man is one of a long list of hoaxes and discredited missing links.


"Missing link" itself is a discredited idea, as I've already explained (and again, I even explained why - it's the same reason that cats don't crank out pekingese)


I never claimed the world doesn't change, I said I believe in micro-evolution, adaptation and speciation within kinds. Organisms can adapt, they can get bigger or smaller, change colors, gain resistance to diseases, etc, but they don't develop new machinery, not on the full organism, or on the cellular level.


So basically you believe in evolution, it's just that you choose to ignore the fact that you believe in evolution. That's kind of sad, man.


The evidence for Intelligent Design is overwhelming, the only question is whether it was space aliens doing the manipulation, or God. And if it was space aliens, then who manipulated their DNA?


And if it was "god" then who designed god? Welcome to the infinite creator paradox. You can't use the supernatural to explain the natural. If there is an intelligent designer, then it itself either had to have A evolved, or B, been designed. if B, then its creator had to either be designed or evolved.. .and so on and so on infinitely.

And, just to argue from the position that there was intentional design in life on earth, everything points towards the designer being a complete and total nimrod. If you want to wrap an idiot of a god around yourself and call him your creator, then by all means, have fun. Just remember, he doesn't know how to handle cancer, back problems, appendicitis, or even something as simple as bubonic plague.


We could go round and round and you could keep on telling me I don't believe because I don't understand and I deny evidence, and I could tell you the same thing, and it doesn't go anywhere, because people choose to believe what they want to believe about their origins for spiritual reasons, and that's all there is to it. You desparately don't want to believe in God, so you desparately want to believe that he had nothing to do with your origin.


Yes, people choose to believe what they want. That's fine by me. However it doesn't make their beliefs true. Contrary to what they pound into your head in "feel-good warm and fuzzy" elementary school lessons, not all opinions are equal, much less valid.

My opinion is that evolution happens, and that it is a process by which genetic change inherent to the nature of proteins in DNA is guided by the survivability or reproductive luck of the individual carrying the mutation. In my corner are reams and reams of evidence garnered from dozens of different fields of study that all corroborate.

You disagree. You have no evidence, but you think that a tribe of bronze-age nomads from the Sinai peninsula had all the right ideas, and what was good enough for them is good enough for you.

Okay. We disagree and that's fine. Unfortunately my opinion carries the weight of fact, just like if I were to say "the clouds are made of water vapor" and you were to claim "Nuh uh, they're dust kicked up by God's feet, Nahum 1:3!!!" or if I were to say "Bats are a mammal" and you would say "Nuh uh! God says they're a bird, like herons and lapwings! Deut 14:18 says so!"

In other words your opinion, as entitled to have it as you are, is simply wrong.


I pray that he will send you a wake up call.


He already did. Did you know your god sounds a lot like Mel Brooks? I mean it makes sense and all, I mean he IS Jewish, but it was kind of a surprise. I told him I wasn't interested in buying his book. 'Course he had the bad fortune to call right after a bunch of Mormons. Those dudes are early risers!

[edit on 22-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
How is it that the facts of adaptation suddenly jump track and
become evidence to the theory of evolution?
Adaptation = fact encoded within DNA
Evolution - Theory _ _ _ _
Facts should always come before theory.
How is it that the word adaptation( a fact ) is thrown aside for an obviously lesser word
of theory (evolution) when men of science claim to ground
themselves in only evidence and fact.
Please explain this enigma?
ANYBODY!

walking fox



Okay. We disagree and that's fine. Unfortunately my opinion carries the weight of fact, just like if I were to say "the clouds are made of water vapor" and you were to claim "Nuh uh, they're dust kicked up by God's feet, Nahum 1:3!!!" or if I were to say "Bats are a mammal" and you would say "Nuh uh! God says they're a bird, like herons and lapwings! Deut 14:18 says so!"

Why would he say that?
Deut 14:18 doesn't say bats are birds .nuh uh.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
If evolution is a fact , .... why is it still a theory ?


... also please explain how one particular variety of woodpecker ,

evolved a tongue that exits the back of the throat , travels over the head,

under the skin , and emerges into the back of the beak , so that said bird

can peck and breathe at the same time ? How could that possibly evolve ?

A little bit at a time ? LOL sorry but science has this problem -



....c/-vyrox



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
How is it that the facts of adaptation suddenly jump track and
become evidence to the theory of evolution?
Adaptation = fact encoded within DNA
Evolution - Theory _ _ _ _
Facts should always come before theory.
How is it that the word adaptation( a fact ) is thrown aside for an obviously lesser word
of theory (evolution) when men of science claim to ground
themselves in only evidence and fact.
Please explain this enigma?
ANYBODY!


Really? ...Really?



Look, this has been explained time and time again, on every single thread on evolution ever. I know you've seen these explanations. So I know that you know, somewhere in your brain-meats, the answer to your own question. But just on the off chance that you are terribly forgetful, here it is, one more time.

A scientific theory (any science, even the humanities) is a conclusion drawn from a body of facts, based on experimentation, reason, and analysis. Rather than the nontechnical usage of "hunch" or "guess" (which is a prime example of the idiotification of the English language, by the way) it means an explanation of the facts present that has been rigorously tested and found to be true. Outside of mathematics, a theory is the most solidly certain you can be about something.

Tell me, do you apply this logic to...

Cell theory? This theory posits that cells are the basic structure of every living being. This has been demonstrated and experimented with and backed up every time someone checks in. But it's only a theory, you cry.

Germ theory? This is the theory that microorganisms are the cause of certain illnesses. All the evidence we have points towards this being true... But it's only a theory, you heckle.

Plate tectonic theory? This is the theory that the crust of the earth is made of solid continental plates that are pushed and pulled along by currents in the mantle, resulting in vulcanism, uplifting, subduction, rifting, etc. All of this has been backed up with rigorous examination and testing... but it's only a theory, you jeer.

Theory of relativity? Atomic theory? Landau Theory? Circuit theory? Homotopic theory? Relativity theory? Antenna theory? Exactly how much do you want to throw out because you can't get it through your head that "theory" does not mean "guess"?

walking fox



Why would he say that?
Deut 14:18 doesn't say bats are birds .nuh uh.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by randyvs]


Actually it does. God is laying down the law and telling the Israelites what birds are on the no-eat list. Bats are among them. Would you like o hear about how rabbits chew the cud, according to God (they actually don't, and you would guess that he would know this if he created them... Maybe he's forgetfuul like you?)


Originally posted by radarloveguy
If evolution is a fact , .... why is it still a theory ?


See above, please. Also for cross-reference, every goddamn thread in this forum answers this question.


... also please explain how one particular variety of woodpecker ,

evolved a tongue that exits the back of the throat , travels over the head,

under the skin , and emerges into the back of the beak , so that said bird

can peck and breathe at the same time ? How could that possibly evolve ?

A little bit at a time ? LOL sorry but science has this problem -



....c/-vyrox


It doesn't actually. That's its hyoid bone. You have one too, it's the bone your tongue is anchored to. In humans, it's a small bone that's found near the top of the larynx. However, in most birds, the hyoid bone not only makes up much of the tongue's structure, but also extends to the back of the skull (A chicken's hyoid reaches just about to an area behind its ears, as does a young flicker - the woodpecker in question). As the bird grows to adulthood, this bone keeps growing, and eventually stops after entering the nasal cavity. This isn't achieved by anything spectacular, genetically - basically the gene that controls the growth of the hyoid bone's "horns" shuts down later in the northern flicker than it does in other birds, including other woodpeckers. A longer hyoid gives more space for muscle and ligament to attach to, resulting in a stronger, more agile tongue, so even tiny incremental extensions to this bone would give the flicker a survival advantage, encouraging genes that extend the bone's growth to become dominant in the population.

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 23-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Holy mother of !#@$...I haven't checked this thread for a few days but I'm SO glad we had someone willing to make things clear for people...because I couldn't have explained things as well as you...well done...I find it quite ridiculous when people state "Oh that animal has such a complex feature...it couldn't have possible evolved!"...that's just utter simple mindedness...if you want to state something that couldn't have evolved...try using the human brain as an example...but even that could have evolved naturally over time if you think deep enough...

My question would be...where did God come from? Did God evolve into what he is? Are you telling me he "just is and always has been"? That's utter nonsense...If there is a God...chances are he evolved into a being with "Godlike" powers...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


The Walking Fox and Lasheic are two members I admire for their tireless patience. They spend much time to formulate a well structured and correct response, even when it is clear, that the other debater won't take his time to read that response and follow the sources. Perhaps they hope, that some interested members will look at these threads and learn from their reasoning.

I have decided no longer to waste my time with long responses in these flaming threads. I only post the links. If someone wants to learn or argue he should at least look at the linked information or provide a source for his own argument. Your thread is typical for this forum. Not one advocate for creationism has provided a single source for his information.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
no i dont trust carbon 14 dating. i dont believe the aliens are from other planets(future). as for evolution,its part right.we did to an extent;evolve;and do so everyday. but no god.HAH. when i was 4 ,i died.
my skull was split open,brain exposed.dead on the table.10-20 minutes.
i saw the doctor try to revive me(from the ceiling).met my lord. had a little talk. when the time came i was told it wasn't my time yet.watched the doctor cry,put my skull together.he was leaving to tell my parents the news.i grabbed his white gown and said dont cry,im here. you want physical evidence-my skull-if u shave the hair,you'll see the scars.as 4 u.
i hope 4 your sake,divine intervention finds you b4 you die.good luck.
jerrycroweband



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Awwww hell yeah evolution is a real thing.
I read somewhere that if our eyes were wired differently slightly we would be able to see far better. That being said I have bad long range vision. *glasses*

I'm all for God and evolution. Love the Darwin fish symbol. saw one today up at 7-11. What's happening now to us you may ask? Our ears are lowering from our head and soon we will only have 4 toes. Proven. point proven. some small toes look so small and non existent on some people. also say bye bye to male nipples. They will become inne instead of outties. like mine. very embressing for me to tell you this. But makes you think none the less



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Rabbits are pseudoruminants; They do chew their cud, in a way.
www.admani.com...


As mentioned before, rabbits habitually practice coprophagy; sometimes referred to as “pseudoruminant.” The practice begins in rabbits shortly after they begin eating solid food at three to four weeks. Fermentation in the large intestine and the practice of coprophagy probably provide:

You learn something new everyday!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


The trouble with think it's a tool used by god, is that you then have to explain this god. This is the big, big, big problem with intelligent design - explaining the designer.

If evolution is a fact - as you agree it is - then it is a much simpler and streamlined fact that works much better if you don't bother including an entirely hypothetical and unexplainable entity.

Might as well say "Yes, there's Gravity, but it's because god wills things to be drawn to mass" - it just makes much more sense for gravity to not have an omnipotent invisible critter of some sort micromanaging every single instance of gravity in hte universe, don't you think?

And we didn't come from an apelike creature. we came from a very humanlike creature. Which came from a humanish creature. Which came from a hairy biped, who's ancestor is probably some ape's grandaddy to the power of seventy. Hilarious thing? it's entirely possible that our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is actually a descendant of some sort of proto-human, rather than humans being the descendants of a proto-chimp. Interesting thought, no?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]


This is laughable! Explaining the creator is the easiest thing in the world to do... the very fabric of consistent philosophical thought demands it. You only think it is hard to explain because you make erroneous assumptions and you have not applied the basic principles of natural philosophy.

Let me enlighten you then: the universe is not additive, starting from nothing to which "things"are mystically added from nowhere. That position is based on circular-reasoning, and it also assumes that the very notions of potential and causation are there without actually seeing them as real existences.

The fact is, the universe is subtractive, springing forth as finite expressions of the infinite ocean of potential. It is this infinite ocean of potential which pre-exists all things and gives rise to them. So, everything that has existed, does exist, and can exist, springs forth from this ocean of potential. This ocean contains the blueprint for all THINGS, including every thought, idea, emotion, particle, wave, molecule, object, force, motion, action, and reaction. Because intelligence exists, it MUST have its origins in this ocean of potential, for there is nothing that exists which does not come from this potential.

This infinite potential is what most people refer to as "God." It is a force, but it is not only a force. It is a mind, but it is not only a mind. It is understanding, but it is not only understanding. It is a Him, Her and It, all rolled into one. It is the infinite plurality unified into a single unity. Everything we have ever witnessed and caused, or ever will witness or cause, all come from this original source, for this source is POTENTIAL itself.

To understand this, just think of electricity. First you must have voltage, which is potential, and only then can you have amperes, which is the actual flow of electron current.

Because the "source" contains no boundaries or limits, it is infinite, and therefore is more properly called "all things" since the potential for all things is contained within it. Because it has no boundaries or limits it has no things, no actions, no movements, and therefore, it has no attributes of finiteness. The very nature of infinity is that it has different attributes from the finite.

Time is a feature of the finite since it is based on motion and space. Take away motion, and you will not have time. Take away space so that all things can exist at all locations at once and you will have no motion, which also means no time.

The infinite is actually a realm of complete and absolute thought, where all possible conceptual connections exist in their entirety. This infinity gives rise to the finite as the simultaneous web of conceptual connections stream into space-time, gaining the attributes of finiteness by the conscious selection of a subset of all that is possible.

All motion, and therefore all space-time comes into existence as the result of a conscious intent and decision. All the motions we observe as "primordial", which we classify as the motions of particles, planets, and stars, all had their inception as a result of the universal potential's intent. These motions continue to this day as a long set of chain reactions.

When we who are endowed with the ability to reason, will, and action, make intended choices, we exercise the ability to alter the original creation, thereby making our own creation.

For example, if you pick up a glass and move it to a new location, you have altered the universe. Also, if you look at anything, you have altered the universe, for you have added to the vast list of things which have been observed. One of the main attributes of life is the ability to alter the universe by an act of intended will, and when this happens, we cause creation to occur. Creation is the act of limiting the infinite, of bounding it in a way that is different from what it is now.

This is the fundamental truth that serves as an antecedent to things like biology, physics, psychology, or cosmology.

What I have described here is neither metaphysical nor esoteric, for it is a logical and reasonable explanation of how the physical originates... by introducing waves and flows into the infinite ocean of potential.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Holy mother of !#@$...I haven't checked this thread for a few days but I'm SO glad we had someone willing to make things clear for people...because I couldn't have explained things as well as you...well done...I find it quite ridiculous when people state "Oh that animal has such a complex feature...it couldn't have possible evolved!"...that's just utter simple mindedness...if you want to state something that couldn't have evolved...try using the human brain as an example...but even that could have evolved naturally over time if you think deep enough...

My question would be...where did God come from? Did God evolve into what he is? Are you telling me he "just is and always has been"? That's utter nonsense...If there is a God...chances are he evolved into a being with "Godlike" powers...


See my thread above on this. God is infinite and not finite like this universe is. Your misunderstandings about God are completely a result of you not understanding what is meant by God. God is an inductive reality, where the universe is a conductive reality. These two together form all that exists.

One thing you would have a hard time explaining is ATP Synthase... the little spinning motor that presses a phosphate molecule onto ADP, thereby storing a charge of energy that can be recovered later by the various components within cells. This motor is required because pushing a phosphate onto ADP is an uphill process, not doable with plain chemical process. ATP synthase is a true complex molecular motor, with a spinning rotor and stator. It uses a pH differential as a power source, and is self-regulating to maintain a correct number of ATP molecules. These micro-mechanisms exist in large numbers within your mitochondria, and one of the truly amazing parts of the cellular energy system.

The ATP energy cycle is complex, with a primary high-energy process and a lower-energy backup process. The mechanism is irreducibly complex, and could not operate if it is was different. This same thing can be said about the DNA replication mechanism, which depends on complex processes and enzymes called DNA Polymerases. It even has a error-detection and correction mechanism that does a good job of preventing/reducing genetic problems. The problem with this mechanism coming about slowly is that the very absence of the mechanism would create the conditions against its development, and indeed life in general. This is one example of the circular-reasonings inherent in macro-evolution.

All living things use the ATP mechanism for cellular energy production, and the DNA replication mechanism for organism development and growth.

Both of these processes are irreducibly complex, and would not function if any part of their process was missing, damaged, or altered. This is a very strong argument against any kind of gradual development of these amazing and complex processes to which all life is dependent.


[edit on 23-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
reply to post by CHA0S
 


The Walking Fox and Lasheic are two members I admire for their tireless patience. They spend much time to formulate a well structured and correct response, even when it is clear, that the other debater won't take his time to read that response and follow the sources. Perhaps they hope, that some interested members will look at these threads and learn from their reasoning.

I have decided no longer to waste my time with long responses in these flaming threads. I only post the links. If someone wants to learn or argue he should at least look at the linked information or provide a source for his own argument. Your thread is typical for this forum. Not one advocate for creationism has provided a single source for his information.



I'd just like to say that I could easily post plenty of Intelligent Design websites to back up my points, but I've been through more than one of these flaming threads also and I make my points and leave it at that. If someone wants to do their own research on the points that I've made, then good for them.

If someone wants to break out of their spiritual denial and accept the existence of God, they will, and when their heart opens then they will begin to see the lies they forced themselves to believe for what they are.

Until that happens, no amount of evidence will make a difference. I can post plenty of links to various Intelligent Design sites, and you guys will just rant and rave about how its all been disproven, when it has been only disagreed with, not disproven.

No amount of evidence or posted links will change anyone's mind about this topic, because it is all about spirituality, not logic. The believer sees the logic in the scientific arguments for Intelligent Design, and the atheist/agnostic ridicules and disregards and declares anything that doesn't support their godless worldview to be unscientific. If you reach any scientific conclusion that supports anything spiritual, then automatically you are practicing "pseudo-science"

As I said before, people believe what they want to believe about their origins, science and logic have nothing to do with the conclusions people reach.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
One thing you would have a hard time explaining is ATP Synthase...


The opposing view.
www.millerandlevine.com...





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join