Evolution... a kids fairytale

reply to post by Stuffed


First of all i would like to kindly state that artificial selection and selective breeding are the exact same thing and my interference does not mean that i have created an evolutionary change.

A hybrid is not evolution! the only difference between me and you is the colour of my skin (i assume), we think the same, we breathe the same, but we look different, does that mean that you or me are more higher on the evolutionary scale or are more evolved?

yes the evolutionary scale.

evolution in a sense can be used to record different intelligence levels in all animals. i am very different to an amoeba as are you, i am more intelligent than an amoeba as are you! but your knowledge compared to mine or my knowledge compared to yours are exactly the same. an amoeba only has its life's task to do, it can only divide, it has no knowledge of why or even the ability to let us know that it knows why.

I know more about music as i studied it in university and you know more about what you studied, so because i studied music and you didn't does that make me more evolved than you? the answer is no because we are the same and that is what i have learnt and if you would take the time you could learn it to.

this life is about perceptions, you perceive this life as something materialistic, something you can touch and if there is no touch there is no existence, when you learn to let go of materialism, you will find God and you will have never thought such happiness could exist.

sorry i went into my own world there but never the less it is true!

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

First of all i would like to kindly state that artificial selection and selective breeding are the exact same thing and my interference does not mean that i have created an evolutionary change.

A hybrid is not evolution! the only difference between me and you is the colour of my skin (i assume), we think the same, we breathe the same, but we look different, does that mean that you or me are more higher on the evolutionary scale or are more evolved?

This right here, is exactly why you are not getting it. Where are you seeing me saying hybrids are evolution, in fact where are you seeing anyone say this? There is a vast more different between us than what you listed. There are probably hundreds of different diseases you are more or less susceptible to than I. For example I have a gene mutation in which I do not have Wisdom Teeth, if it were the case that this made me (and my offspring) more fit to survive and reproduce then i would pass on my genes to the next generation and so on.

I corrected you on it last time and you still seem to be using it, "Higher on the evolutionary scale, or more evolved", this isn't what evolution is about. Repeating it only reinforces the notion that you don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

evolution in a sense can be used to record different intelligence levels in all animals. i am very different to an amoeba as are you, i am more intelligent than an amoeba as are you! but your knowledge compared to mine or my knowledge compared to yours are exactly the same. an amoeba only has its life's task to do, it can only divide, it has no knowledge of why or even the ability to let us know that it knows why.

I know more about music as i studied it in university and you know more about what you studied, so because i studied music and you didn't does that make me more evolved than you? the answer is no because we are the same and that is what i have learnt and if you would take the time you could learn it to.

Once again, fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not about the intelligence disparity between humans and other animals. Being "more evolved" isn't about being smarter, or stronger or anything. Intelligence is just one solution to a problem that evolved once, in a branch of Great Apes. The branch that would go on to become Neanderthal and Homo Sapien (now known to have bred out the neanderthals and incorporated about 5% of their DNA into ours.)

And another fundamental misunderstanding. Evolution is not about what you know, nor is it about what you will come to know, nor is it about a single generation. You may have taken the time to learn Music but you haven't taken the time to learn evolutionary biology. If you would like some actual lessons feel free to message me and I'm sure i can help clear up these misunderstandings in much greater depth.

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

this life is about perceptions, you perceive this life as something materialistic, something you can touch and if there is no touch there is no existence, when you learn to let go of materialism, you will find God and you will have never thought such happiness could exist.

sorry i went into my own world there but never the less it is true!

No don't apologize for that, that was the single most important line of this section of thought. "Your own world", an entirely subjective reference frame that has no relevance to any other human being. Materialism is all that we have to go on, until you can objectively demonstrate otherwise there is no reason for any sane, rational, or logical human being to accept any number of the infinite unjustifiable metaphysical claims that can be made.

Originally posted by KJV1611
Anytime the government mandates *their* schools to teach something, you can safely assume its crap

Evolution, sex ed., the benefits of integration through affirmative action derived from apartheid procedures, history as we know it, sciences that change their text books ever semester, etc...

The point is, if the government backs up evolution, what else proof do you need to throw it out the window?

edit on 30-7-2011 by KJV1611 because: i can

People should really think about how much money has been wasted trying to disprove God. The only agenda is for man to serve man and not God.

Since the atheist movement began look at how society has declined. To put promote an unproved theory as fact is a conspiracy in itself.

After all the mistakes science has made in the run up to their final conclusion (many of which are still inconclusive).
how can they claim evolution as fact.

Dawkins - "The universe has the signature of some kind of creator" - That's who we call God Mr. dawkins

Creationists, you believe that we all descended from two people whom you call Adam and Eve, correct? If so, why aren't we still all the same? Why are there blacks, whites, asians, indians, arabs, aztecs, mayans, etc. etc.? Why did things change in humans? Why are there different races of humans? Do you see it is the beginning of evolution? Sure, we're all still the same species, but as you can see over just a short period of time in human existence there have been many changes taking place.

Imagine that we didn't have the technology we do today where we couldn't communicate instantly with one another across the world, nor travel anywhere in just a short period of time. But instead, we still walked place to place and only communicated with those whom we came in direct contact with. We still haven't learned how to build luxurious homes to live in to keep us safe, still haven't developed domestication of plants and animals. Don't have grocery stores or shopping malls. But instead, every day was a fight for survival, just like it was for our ancestors. Imagine the change our bodies would still be going through to adapt and survive.

Look at the evolution of language. The main language of the United States is american english. Yet, in many parts of the country the accent can vary greatly. Now, compare that to the original language, Great Britian english. That's where I language came from but it evolved greatly in a short time from that as we cut off direct communication with them. Then as people spread across the United States, they cut each other off from one another, again causing languages to change and evolve. Is it still english? Yes. That's because technology increased and we were able to communicate with one another quicker across the country. Imagine that technology did not increase. How different would our languages be? This happened also happened in South America. Spain conquered many of those countries, so the majority of them speak Spanish. Yet, their accents and dialects vary greatly from one another.

reply to post by Hydroman

Creationists, you believe that we all descended from two people whom you call Adam and Eve, correct? If so, why aren't we still all the same?

Random mutation and natural selection.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by samaka

 

excerpt from post by samaka

Ok then so why can I find many contradicting aspects of evolution but I bet you can't even find 1 contradicting thing about the bible, that's even if you ever read and understood the bible but you strike me like aperson that swears by google and picks and chooses what he wants to hear to his own fitting of life.

See I was on your side on the evolution thing, but on this Bible thing? This is one of the subjects I have been researching for decades. I can give you lots of contradictions in the Bible and the biggest one is it's origins. But lets set the main course aside until we get the appetizer and soup out of the way.

Explain the word Elohim please. I will give you a start since I know this is not something any Christian gives any thought to. Elohim is plural for God, as in Gods. It is still in the Bible despite the many edits, adjustments, translations and versions it has gone through. What does it mean and why is it still there?

Explain Simon Magus. What is the Christian explanation. I am patient, you can wait a week until you see your minister again and ask him.

But maybe it would be better if you talked to a priest, and I will tell you why. I am re-posting an excerpt of an earlier post of my own because it is a lot of typing and I just got off work.

excerpt from one of my previous posts

Now as to the bible... (oh here we go, first thing in the morning on my third day on this site!) In the fourth century AD the emperor Constantine - a pagan Roman Emperor - made a deal with the Catholic Church. At the time the Catholic Church was a relatively smaller sect of the many, many Christian sects at the time. And at that time there was no canonized bible, just a lot of loose scriptures floating around. The various Christian sects were gaining in prominence and threatened the longevity of the then pagan Roman Empire. Constantine had the solution though.

The Deal; If the Catholic Cardinals and Archbishops would meet in Nicea and decide which books were to be included and which books were to be excluded (These books came to be known as the Apocrypha.) Rome would produce - so to speak - the first canonized bible and recognize the Catholic Church as the official church of the Roman Empire. Now most of us understand today that when someone is an editor he (they) will also make suggestions to the author for changes, and knowing that being published probably depends on agreeing to these changes, most authors will usually agree to them. In this case the authors of the various scriptures were no longer with us and this served to make the editorial process more smooth and much quicker. The end result? We now have a Bible in which almost none of Jesus teaching - what he said - are reproduced, save a few parables. The nuns in Catholic school told me that Jesus only taught in parables, but about thirty seconds consideration shows this to be highly unlikely. I mean would you drop everything and follow someone who spoke only in riddles? No one followed Nostradamus, and his quattrains were nothing but riddles. Similarly there is no record in the bible of where Jesus went between the ages of 13 and 30, though some compelling evidence exists that he went to India, and studied and taught there during that time.

But the real problems with the Bible start when you consider what the Catholics did one year after they received this Roman stamp of approval. As I said before the Catholics were a relatively small sect at the time, but once they were the official Religion of the now Holy Roman Empire the clerics set about destroying all scriptures which had been excluded. That's right, they held book burnings for centuries on end, but they didn't stop there. During the same time they hunted down and exterminated opposing Christian sects. Of course the guys in the red and black robes did not grab up the sword and take to the streets murdering non-Catholics, they simply declared the next victims to be heretical and sent the Crusaders to do it for them. This went along rather well - unless you were one who refused to convert of course - until the time came to deal with the Cathars.

In the case of the Cathars who had no weapons and kept no money for themselves, the Pope decided to send Saint Bernard - yes that's where the name of the dog breed came from - to look them over and report back. Upon returning St. Bernard reported to the Pope that this was one of the most Christian groups he had ever encountered and recommended they be left alone as they were truly doing God's work. Not to be swayed, the Pope sent the Crusaders in, however there was a problem. The Knights Templar, who had been doing the Popes (plural) dirty work in this area for centuries, refused this job. Why? Well, we will come to that.

Anyway, this was no hill for a climber, and the Pope - I keep trying to think of the Pope's name, I want to say Pope Innocent, but I don't think that is right. This is all from memory this morning; coffee before bibliography, you know - was a climber in the true sense. The Pope simply contracted another group of knights to do the job for him and this is what we know today as the Albigensian Crusade. When they arrived in the Langue Doc area of what is now Southwest France the knights found that the Cathar's neighbors - who also were not armed - thought so highly of the Cathars that they hid them away to protect them. No matter, the knights were there to do a job and they did it, they just killed everyone down to the last woman and child. Indeed, if you go to the Langue Doc region in the southwest of France even today they still maintain that Jesus wife and his children landed there shortly after the crucifixion and it was the descendants of the Magdalen and the Christ who formed not only the Cathars, but supposedly the Merovingian Dynasty which is said to be the actual bloodline of Christ.

On top of that if you read the Sumerian story entitled the Enuma Elish which predates the Bible by a couple thousand years, you will see that it is strikingly similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. So much so that it leaves the Adam and Eve version looking like the Reader's Digest Abridged version. And though I forget the name now the story of Noah is also presented 2000 years before the Bible. Noah's real name was Utnapishtam.

To be fair, it has been an age old tradition that when a new religion comes into vogue it retains some of the elements of the old faith. This has always been so, and it makes the transition easier for the flock. A look at England's attempt to remove the Christmas holiday long ago will show you the truth of this practice very clearly.

So, are you Catholic? Because you are quoting from a book that was rewritten and corrupted by some Catholics with dreams of global power. And we haven't even started on King James.

Final note, I am a Christian in that I believe in Christ, I am a Buddhist because I believe in the truth and purity of their message, and I am a Taoist because I understand the idea of the One and know it to be true. All spiritual paths lead to truth, but lies cannot. What we see in the Bible is not what Jesus taught, not if Essau was in India studying and teaching. (yeah, that was his real name.) I believe in reincarnation and think that Essau the Essene did too, and taught it, but I also believe it because in my last life I was a NAZI. No one has told me this, I just feel it - hard to explain in words. I am not a NAZI in this life, but I do have some negative karma I am working through from it, Oh, and Karma is another thing which we Christians would believe if those Da**ed Catholics had just left things well enough alone.

I also know that every time we humans know we have things all figured out, we have a rude awakening coming our way.

edit on 30-7-2011 by Ittabena because: forgot to use ex-text to quote

edit on 30-7-2011 by Ittabena because: ex-text when I meant to quote. Still new.

I believe we have a version of the truth that is incomplete. but i believe that because of our sinful nature God allowed this to happen, how can man with all his sins be allowed access to entire truth. no one will ever know the complete and unaltered works of God IMO.
That being said, I believe we have enough for salvation. The fact that the sabbath (saturday) was in no way changed according to the bible. The fact that the catholic church altered the day yet not taken it out of scripture proves this. Sunday worshipers give only vague quotes that imply God changes his mind without telling anyone. And that just isn't true.

The most widely available bible is the KJV, if it was another bible that is unavailable to a large percentage of mankind then it is not a valid version. God does not withold truth from certain places. The book most widely available is the book we should be following.

reply to post by Stuffed


okay where to begin,

the result of selective breeding/artificial selection is known as a hybrid,

definition of hybrid

In general usage, hybrid is synonymous with heterozygous: any offspring resulting from the mating of two distinctly homozygous individuals

basically an offspring the result of selective breeding, so that is how hybrid ties into this, its seems you did not look deep enough into what i was saying.

i am very well aware that evolution is not about knowledge, i was trying to tell you this because it seemed that you stated that in your previous post.

However i can prove myself correct and you wrong with this dictionary definition of Evolution

evolution |ˌevəˈloō sh ən|
noun

1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment, but he was unable to explain a mechanism for this.

Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages.
This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology.

2 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

3 Chemistry the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat.

4 a pattern of movements or maneuvers : silk ribbons waving in fanciful evolutions.

5 dated Mathematics the extraction of a root from a given quantity.

considering the two that i mainly want to look at being number 1 and number 2.

okay so now you have a dictionary definition of the word.

number 1 says that it is a record of the process of which different animals have thought to of diversified from early forms of themselves, this does not coincide with your artificial selection is evolution because artificial selection is man made, just like designer babies which is selective breeding and artificial selection is not part of evolution, it is simply man trying to play God.

number 2 backs up my statement of knowledge even though i didn't mean for it to, our brains are more complex than other animals, i keep on hearing that one of the worlds greatest mysteries is how the HUMAN brain can do so many different things that other animals cannot do, for example create, i have had a thread on this in the past and will not go off topic but we are the only animals that can create, dont start howling about ants creating nests and birds creating nests and what not....... so doesn't the ability to create make us more evolved than other creatures?

i believe it does but then i dont believe in evolution...........oh this is all so confusing.

Realization that materialistic objects such as money and the colour of your car is not worth a human life is realization of God and ultimate positivity.

Do you believe in dimensions, because i can tell you they exist and i will help you let go of materialism.

Man this thread is depressing.......

I'm sorry but if you do not accept the theory of evolution, despite the mountains of evidence, and choose to ignore it in favor of a particular ancient script that presents a 'pop-up book' style alternative, then you need to grow up.

You bring the rest of us down by perpetuating this misinformation

I'm sorry but I'm not going to answer anymore questions concerning bible contradictions for which it will derail the thread, perhaps in another thread we can discuss. I've heard many of them and usually it's misinterpretations.

Problem with evolutionist they want to inject evolution into EVERYTHING, adaption or hybrid as evolution. Sorry that's not evolution, evolution is a PROGRESSION caused by genetic mutations.

Nosebred example is of a wolf to a chihuahua is not evolution, it's a form of genetic mutation known as hybrid. Would you consider a "mommy" and "daddy" who gives birth to a child who is deformed evolution?

Adaption is not evolution. Yes you can take a lizard from aread A to area B and acquires new traits (head size, bite strength) but when take the same species of lizard back to area A does it looses it newly required traits consider devolution? Isn't Natural Selection suppose to be small genetic changes because in this situation with the lizard is a rapid change.... there's not enough data there to call it evolution. You take a fresh water fish and move to salt water would the fish adapt to the salt water? nope why doesn't natural selection kick in? Like I said, evolutionist like to inject evolution where they see fit but natural selection has NO LAW, no guide. Everything in the universe follows a law and that's a fact.

What I'm talking about here is there's no records of amphibians evolving to reptiles and reptiles into mammals... nothing, it's assumed that's what happened but evolutionist swear by it

Originally posted by samaka


a wolf to a chihuahua is not evolution, it's a form of genetic mutation known as hybrid.

I don't think you know what the words "mutation" and "hybrid" mean.

Maybe a remedial biology class is in order?

reply to post by Lionhearte

Which is precisely why it seems certainly possible (and plausible) for the account of Noah's Ark to have actually taken place. There's no "evolution" going on here, because that would imply much more than simple "adaptive" nature and "selective breeding". If Noah simply gathered two dogs, which carried the genetic makeup of, example, tall dogs, small dogs, black dogs, white dogs, etc.. then it could be possible that all the breeds (some 400 today) came from two single pairs.

I often wonder how evolutions can argue against Creationism. You blame us for relying on our "religious" book as a source of all information? Gee, why does that sound familiar..?

Oh yea.

That's the worst logic I've seen in a while. Do you understand that just because scientific textbooks and the Bible are printed on paper, doesn't mean they're held to the same standard? One is just a book of insanely unrealistic and crazy stories, another is a book that contains the product of hunreds of years scientific observation and experimentation that develop concepts that play out in reality.

Real science: Particles coalesce in space due to gravity, often as a result of a supernova, and eventually grow massive enough to shape themselves into a sphere, and over time solidifying to form a planet. In our case it happened to be orbitting the right distance from a much more massive object that gives off light and radiation, allowing H2O to remain in a liquid state without boiling off or evaporating, then eventually, over billions of years, the right chemical mixture clicked together, and before you know it we go from single celled organisms to cells that photosynthesize and fill our atmosphere with oxygen.

The Bible: A mysterious sorcerer (who I guess was always here?) created the world and all life.

Incorrect. God never told Noah to get ALL the animals on the face of the planet, only within the immediate area, which would be plausible since, remember, it stated "after each of their kinds".

What a gamechanger That isn't even remotely plausible, the idea that those some old dude could run around with a big butterfly net, catch two of every nearby animal, check to see that one has a penis and the other a vagina, bring them to his boat, chain them down, run back into the woods, catch two more, and repeat this for several days is insane.

And has NO ONE heard of hibernation? If you don't know, animals don't need to eat during hibernation, they preserve their energy.

Um, I don't know if they taught you this in Sunday school, but not every animal is capable of hibernation.

I can make bold claims like that too.

It's not a bold claim, it's a fact.

fairy tale
  –noun
1.
a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures.

2.
an incredible or misleading statement, account, or belief: His story of being a millionaire is just a fairy tale.

That sounds right to me.

sci·ence
–noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Tell me, are there any mystical creatures, fairies, or invisible wizard men who sit in the clouds and run the show in the Theory of Evolution?

Most in this thread don't know what evolution means either..........

Evolution says NOTHING about the origins of life

Evolution says NOTHING about the big bang, or the origins of the universe

Anyone who says these things have anything to do with evolution simply do not know what they are talking about.

It merely explains the diversity of life on earth

Thats it!

Stop listening to those who have an agenda, those who simply cannot accept anything that contradicts their pre-set worldview, those who do not care about truth.

Stop embarrassing yourself, and the rest of us.......

Anyone else find it interesting that there is a bunch of evolutionist debunkers on here under 40 posts? I think someone went out and recruited friends.

reply to post by ShadowZion


we change quite a bit actually. What a silly statement.

In fact, people today are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals who vanished 30,000 years ago, according to anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin.

reuters

Tibetans have now developed a gene that lets them process lower oxygen air due to living in high altitudes.
Some Europeans have a gene that protects them from retroviruses such as AIDS.

See, DNA itself is the very evidence of evolution. You can't dispute it

Or else if anything reproduced, it would only be cloning, and you would keep having the exact same looking animal over and over again.

reply to post by samaka


If that deformity benefits the person and they breed and pass it along to their offspring, who survives and breeds and passes it along, you have evolution. You basically just described how genetic mutations work.

If that deformity isn't successful, then that child dies and the genes are not passed on.

It isn't that complicated.

If you took your lizard back to its original environment, and the traits are not needed, yes, they would dissappear eventually. It is not devolution, there is no such thing. It is still evolution. If you leave lizards in both areas, they will eventually become two completely different creatures.

If you want to see a very interesting evolution, just look up the evolution of the blue whale. The largest creature on earth, what was originally a small four legged animal.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I had a good (sympathetic) laugh, when I read your recent post.

By Zeus, what stuff the creationists dish out. Their idea of what REAL 'official' science is, being just as fairytale-like as their own mythology. And their own alternative version of science being third-hand and predigested (for some obscure reason often created and compiled by retired teachers of literature and language), picked from 'manuals of answers'.

I have repeatedly asked for a coherent and comprehensive creationist-'science' systematic methodology, which is where disappearance-acts start to look like mass-migration.

And ofcourse "where two or more are gathered in his name......" the mentioning of the 'intelligent design' design is compulsary behaviour. Though, a small blessing, we haven't seen Pascal's wager yet.

Which ..... leads directly to the subject of topsy-turvy logic, as bad as the twisted science is. Chains of imagined inverted causality, mostly build on inductive 'logic' of the worst kind, resulting in "It's 'god' what did it".

And finally the 'defense' of the bible as an authority, on the principles of: "BECAUSE".

Now I'm not especially versed in biology, but I am somewhat informed on hard science and philosophy of science. So in the expectation of renewed creationist 'science', 'cosmogony', 'cosmology' and 'logic', I'll hang around and join the merry party, if it isn't over.

Originally posted by Nosred
Are you sure you understand the concept of evolution? Well alright, since you obviously slept through science class in elementary school I'll put this in terms a five year old could understand for you.

Nice try, clearly you slept through math and probability, or you wouldn’t be saying the universe is how it is by chance, but instead of getting too caught up in your attempt at patronising me, let me address the rest of what you had to say.

Originally posted by Nosred A mommy and daddy who love each other very much get together and decide to have a baby. When this baby comes out of mommy's tummy it has some features of mommy's and some features of daddy's. Now let's imagine that daddy is a fast runner, and that they live somewhere out in the jungle where it's full of monsters. At night these monsters try to eat everyone because they're bad and mean. When baby grows up he is fast just like daddy, so he is able to outrun the mean monsters at night. Some of his friends are too slow though, and get eaten by the monsters.

Firstly, oh, but none of his friends would be too slow if their parents/ancestors lived under the same environmental conditions according to your theory, so you shot yourself in the foot, instead of belittling me you belittled yourself and your own faith.

Originally posted by Nosred Now when baby becomes a big boy just like daddy, he finds a girl who was also fast enough to outrun the monsters and falls in love with her. When they have babies, these babies are very fast. Those babies then have their own babies and pass on their speed to them.
The End!

Oh, I get it, so when two normal healthy people give birth to a baby with cancer, down syndrome, cerebral palsy or some physical deformities, this is actually evolution in progress., hmmm, interesting.

Originally posted by Nosred
Now, did you understand that or do I have to throw in some magic beard men? What I did there was explain the basic concept behind natural selection to you. You see dog breeding is the perfect example here because it's easily observable. If you want to breed a dog that has a really really flat nose, you find a male and female dog with really flat noses. They pass on their genes to their offspring, who will likely have a really flat nose. If you mate that dog with another dog that has a really flat nose, you'll get a dog with a really really flat nose. Eventually after dozens of generations this line will probably become an entirely new breed of dog, like the countless breeds you can see here

No you don’t have to throw in some magic beard men, your faith in throwing a few million years at an ape and turning it into a man is a good enough laugh by itself, in regards to your dog breeding being the best example well when the dog evolves into something other than a dog then get back to me until then your theory is based on faith whether you are too arrogant to admit it or not, at least those who believe in a CREATOR are humble enough to admit it takes faith. What you ape’eists need to understand is that REGARDLESS of your excuses, until you see an ape turn into a human you are relying on faith that your ancestors were apes, turning around and saying “you imbecile it takes a few millions years for this to happen” does not negate the fact you need faith to believe what you do, like it or lump it.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
The Bible is the definition of a fairy-tale. Evolution is science.

Firstly, I know you probably weren’t talking to me specifically but I’ll just add I’m not a Christian, and what I think you meant to say was, the bible takes faith and those who follow it will admit this, while science has been proven wrong on many occasions and corrects itself as if it was never wrong, but we understand what you’re trying to get at. I would’ve loved to see the faces of the atheist wannabe scientists back in the day when they learnt the world wasn’t flat.

Originally posted by TupacShakur Maybe you're forgetting the fact that wolves evolved into the dogs we have nowadays.
DOG PIC.
Do you think those things were on Noah's Ark too?

Hopefully for the last time; Interbreeding different dogs, does not prove that you don’t need faith to believe that your ancestors were apes.

Originally posted by Raelsatu To believe that all this sprang from nothing, in an instant, for no reason, takes absolute faith to believe in. It dumbfounds me that people argue otherwise..

Exactly

Originally posted by Stuffed
Science has this stuff called evidence, it nullifies the requirement of faith.

Say what?, you just finished saying that one of the best things about science is that it corrects itself as it goes along, so this of course means your so-called evidence has on many occasions been proven to be based on false faith. The only difference then in regard to this issue between most peoples definition of science and religion is that on one side we have scientists who are too arrogant to admit it takes faith to believe in their theories and on the other side we have "creationists" who will openly admit their theories require faith. You can't prove GOD doesn’t exist, you can have faith that he does or doent exist sure, the same as you can have faith in the easter bunny existing or not existing, and at the same time creationists can't prove that our ancestors aren't apes but nor can anyone prove that they were. Put it this way if the theory that our ancestors came from apes(or any theological theory for that matter) was to hypothetically be put before a court of law to prove that it was true, an honest judge would throw it out of the court room due to lack of evidence.
The main problem is that 99% atheists think the word "faith" is so abhorrent that they have lost the definition of it, let’s see, do those who have confidence and trust in science/scientists being correct have "faith"?
A definition of "faith": Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Yes they do have faith, so I think all would be just dandy if they got off their high-horse and just admit it because no amount of semantics would prove otherwise, and until science has the answer for everything(which you and I know it clearly doesn’t) then I think the rest of your post need not be addressed. I don’t think creationists have any issues with science co-existing with their religion at all, the issue lies in the whether it takes faith to swallow all the theories. Basically the main law of science is that if you can prove something wrong then you’re right and for some scientists it’s that science is right until it has been proved wrong, so there’s plenty of room for both the easter bunny and the theory of apes turning into humans if you throw a few million years at them. I also think most creationists have no problem whatsoever in believing that ‘biological adaptations’ do occur ,in fact I think even creationists would say you’d have to be mad not to, but ‘evolution’ as a whole clearly relies on FAITH and can’t be seen first-hand due to the magic ingredient of millions of years. Therefore to this very day the complete theory of evolution relies on FAITH, unless you have got a time machine you’re not telling us about.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Creationists, you believe that we all descended from two people whom you call Adam and Eve, correct? If so, why aren't we still all the same? Why are there blacks, whites, asians, indians, arabs, aztecs, mayans, etc. etc.? Why did things change in humans? Why are there different races of humans? Do you see it is the beginning of evolution? Sure, we're all still the same species, but as you can see over just a short period of time in human existence there have been many changes taking place.

As I just mentioned creationists aren't going to doubt smaller biological adaptations in general, but putting faith in evolution as a whole requires alot of FAITH, that is to say that believing every humans ancestor was a simple cell requires extreme amounts of FAITH.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Imagine that we didn't have the technology we do today where we couldn't communicate instantly with one another across the world, nor travel anywhere in just a short period of time. But instead, we still walked place to place and only communicated with those whom we came in direct contact with. We still haven't learned how to build luxurious homes to live in to keep us safe, still haven't developed domestication of plants and animals. Don't have grocery stores or shopping malls. But instead, every day was a fight for survival, just like it was for our ancestors. Imagine the change our bodies would still be going through to adapt and survive.

Yeah, we'd still be human.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Look at the evolution of language. The main language of the United States is american english. Yet, in many parts of the country the accent can vary greatly. Now, compare that to the original language, Great Britian english. That's where I language came from but it evolved greatly in a short time from that as we cut off direct communication with them. Then as people spread across the United States, they cut each other off from one another, again causing languages to change and evolve. Is it still english? Yes. That's because technology increased and we were able to communicate with one another quicker across the country. Imagine that technology did not increase. How different would our languages be? This happened also happened in South America. Spain conquered many of those countries, so the majority of them speak Spanish. Yet, their accents and dialects vary greatly from one another.

Again, subtle changes(of language especially) is never going to negate the fact evolution relies on faith in it's entirety.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Man this thread is depressing.......
I'm sorry but if you do not accept the theory of evolution, despite the mountains of evidence, and choose to ignore it in favor of a particular ancient script that presents a 'pop-up book' style alternative, then you need to grow up.
You bring the rest of us down by perpetuating this misinformation

On the contrary, if you can't accept that the entire theory of evolution relies on a very large amount of faith, call it your own-pop up book if you like, then you're the only one who needs to grow up.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
What a gamechanger

That isn't even remotely plausible, the idea that those some old dude could run around with a big butterfly net, catch two of every nearby animal, check to see that one has a penis and the other a vagina, bring them to his boat, chain them down, run back into the woods, catch two more, and repeat this for several days is insane.

A lot less insane than believing your ancestor was part of the sun(accretion disc)...
.
.
.
In conclusion it’s faith V faith, but only the creationists are humble enough to admit it.

Originally posted by Haxsaw

On the contrary, if you can't accept that the entire theory of evolution relies on a very large amount of faith, call it your own-pop up book if you like, then you're the only one who needs to grow up.

This is exactly what I was talking about.......misinformation

The theory of evolution does not need faith, faith is believing something for no good reason.....

If you knew anything at all about the subject at hand, you would know that there is provable, testable evidence for evolution.....its fact, we know more about evolution than we do about gravity....

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

okay where to begin,

the result of selective breeding/artificial selection is known as a hybrid,

definition of hybrid

In general usage, hybrid is synonymous with heterozygous: any offspring resulting from the mating of two distinctly homozygous individuals

basically an offspring the result of selective breeding, so that is how hybrid ties into this, its seems you did not look deep enough into what i was saying.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ShadowZion because: (no reason given)

First off I would like to congratulate you on about 6 straight posts of mis-characterizations and strawmans despite correction.

I know very well what a hybrid is (PP + pp, possible Pp result), but it seems you don't as I never said hybrids are the proof of evolution in action. There's actually quite a few meanings behind what a hybrid is, one such definition being the interbreeding of two animals from different taxa. While these aren't indicative of evolution on their own, they do show how various genetic information can get passed down. YOU are the one claiming it is not proof of something when no one offered it to begin with. Quit trying to muddy up whats being presented by throwing out as many topics as possible and straw-manning the opposition, it's not going to work.

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

i am very well aware that evolution is not about knowledge, i was trying to tell you this because it seemed that you stated that in your previous post.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ShadowZion because: (no reason given)

Well it's either you weren't aware, or you were being incredibly disingenuous and purposefully wanted to strawman what I was saying; Nothing i posted came remotely close to hinting you in the direction of knowledge and/or intellectual disparity (which is quite abundant in this thread, call it a low blow if you like).

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

number 1 says that it is a record of the process of which different animals have thought to of diversified from early forms of themselves, this does not coincide with your artificial selection is evolution because artificial selection is man made, just like designer babies which is selective breeding and artificial selection is not part of evolution, it is simply man trying to play God.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ShadowZion because: (no reason given)

Yes, it does say how earlier species are said to have diversified. Which actually INCLUDES artificial selection, as well as natural selection. MUCH of the life we see around us today is the direct result from artificial selection. Once again artificial selection isn't evolution. Evolution happens because of selection pressures, one of which is artificial selection. You don't have an argument, you are admitting that humans can selectively breed certain traits, thus changing the genes on a generation to generation basis. THAT IS EVOLUTION IN ACTION, over an albeit smaller time scale. "Artificial selection is man - made", Yes, that's the whole point. Natural = nature, artificial = human. This isn't difficult stuff.

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

number 2 backs up my statement of knowledge even though i didn't mean for it to, our brains are more complex than other animals, i keep on hearing that one of the worlds greatest mysteries is how the HUMAN brain can do so many different things that other animals cannot do, for example create, i have had a thread on this in the past and will not go off topic but we are the only animals that can create, dont start howling about ants creating nests and birds creating nests and what not....... so doesn't the ability to create make us more evolved than other creatures?

edit on 31-7-2011 by ShadowZion because: (no reason given)

No number 2 does not back up your statement on knowledge, knowledge is something gained during life, not passed on genetically, it can however be passed on culturally (look into memes). I'm not sure what your argument here is. Try reading it back to yourself a few times and coming up with something meaningful. All that you've said is that the human brain is more complex. Yes, we agree, now do you have something more relevant to add? The octopus has a much more complex eye than humans and an extraordinarily complex camouflage system. Why not intelligence? Because that's not how evolution works, the end goal of evolution is not intelligence.

Originally posted by ShadowZion
reply to post by Stuffed

 

Realization that materialistic objects such as money and the colour of your car is not worth a human life is realization of God and ultimate positivity.

Do you believe in dimensions, because i can tell you they exist and i will help you let go of materialism.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ShadowZion because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, was there an argument in this incoherent rambling? One, who said i valued money and car colors over human life, because that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, it's materialism that would lead me to value life over all else because it is THE ONLY ONE WE GET.

It doesn't matter if i believe in dimensions or if you believe in dimensions, it matters what the evidence says.

Let me put it this way. There are an infinite number of unjustifiable metaphysical claims one can make about the reality of the unknown, each with no more likelihood of being true than the others, 0%. Speculating on the nature of the unkown gets you no where, until you have a reason to think that way.

reply to post by Haxsaw


Yes I did just finish saying the best part about science is that it corrects itself...WITH MORE EVIDENCE, and better science. Science works, that is verifiable, you are typing on a computer here proving that. To say that because science has been wrong in the past were just as well off throwing blindly into the dark and believing whatever is ludicrous and fundamentally flawed. The benefit of science is that it makes predictions, predictions that can be tested, proved, or falsified. Now when new evidence is plugged into the system we can make a better more complete model. This has nothing to do with faith, in fact scientists are often the first to admit they don't know everything. Scientists, even in their own discipline, are constantly throwing out caveats to members of an audience at a talk like "I'm sure there is someone here more qualified than i am to speak about this subject". That's because the scientific community revolves around the idea of a community and the fear of being embarrassed by colleagues, something entirely lacking with the creationist movement. Other members of the scientific community are constantly trying to prove their peers wrong and get credit for a new idea.

No scientist would ever have 100% certainty in anything besides. Science is the humble admission that we don't know everything, but every attempt we make to get at the truth brings us closer, and that is not equivalent to the faith of creationism.

Suppose the amount of evidence for evolution and creationism was the same and relied entirely on faith. Name me ONE real world application of creation science, just one. I'll have a list of applications of evolution waiting for you, applications that are used on a daily basis, save millions of lives, and govern entire industries.



"Put it this way if the theory that our ancestors came from apes(or any theological theory for that matter) was to hypothetically be put before a court of law to prove that it was true, an honest judge would throw it out of the court room due to lack of evidence"

And it's interesting you would bring this up, because it actually has been in court, and Intelligent Design or Creationism has lost both times.