Evolution misconceptions.

You know, it is amazing that someone even needs to post a thread like this. Unfortuneatly, it is necessary.

Too many religious people are willing to totally disregard science fact and logic to eliminate controversy IN THEIR OWN MINDS with regards to religious scriptures.

Most christians for instance will completely ignore many logical ideas, facts, and scientific laws because they directly contradict what it is that their bible tells them. Dating of the earth is a good examle. If you bring up carbon dating, radiometric dating, ect., the christian base of this forum will quote things right from answers in genesis.com.....

They are willing to ignore things like problems with noahs ark. A lot of christians even believe they know where the thing is! Yet even today, there is no concievable way we could build a ship from steel with computer designs and technology that could handle the task that noah would have been given. And that is if you ignore the fact that you would need 5 times the amount of water known to exist on the earth today to create a flood of that magnitude.

The fact of the matter is that evolution does occur. It is fear and ignorance that fuels the attack from christians.

[edit on 27-7-2005 by Sight2reality]

The reason someone needs to post a thread like this is because all we ever get is folks like you who post comentary and ignorance of christianity and talk about facts the way some old communist hunter use to talk about evidence. You always have 'scientific fact' but are never able to provide any.

Where are the millions of missing links?

Show me the scientific fact that the earth is billions of years old. (its based on assumption...you cant)

You dont have squat for evolution. Its just a fantasy that is strongly advanced by the group that has power. You are the RCC of today...advancing your DOCTRINE in the face of truth

The earth is billions of years old. Do you think it is a coincedence that when scientist look at several dating methods, they come up with roughly the same answers? Sure, there is some discrepancy. Nothing however, even comes remotely close to "6000 years". The only thing that does this is the bible.


So anyway...I suppose I will have to provide mathematical proof. I will do so by using the speed of light......ironic huh? Give me some time. A few days.

Now, tell me about the samurai crab Jake? Tell me about the whale. Teach me about DNA. RNA too!

Or how about this. Answer the following questions. Yes or No.

1) Did the pug exist 1000 years ago?
2) Would human beings be considered part of the environment of the pug?
3) Does the pug exist today?
4) Did human beings encourage the breeding of certain dogs with certain characteristics to create the pug?

Just yes or no would be cool.

Oh, tell me about why it is that the whale....which your already working on, is a mamal.

Fill me in!

Ill get to work on showing you with proven mathematics that this world is far older than you claim..

By the way....tell me why it is that you believe the earth is so young anyway?

The whale and the pug are not part of the dating process.

I will save you some time. There is a thread in the sci-tech forum where we discussed the dating of the earth at length via the various rock dating methods.
It turns out that they are all based on assumptions. Do you know what happens when you assume?
Do you know what this means? It means that the dating methods do not produce facts. They produce guesses. Thats right. Your science is a guess.

So now all we have are all these fossils...and a flood story. hmm

Naaa, unlike the lazy ones out there, such as yourself, who believe blindly in what they are told by others because they cannot think for themselves, I will do it on my own. But thanks!

Oh, by the way. I know that the pug and whale have nothing to do with dating. Thanks though for the imput on that too!

Please, on a side note, notice how you did not answer the questions.

Originally posted by Sight2reality
The earth is billions of years old. Do you think it is a coincedence that when scientist look at several dating methods, they come up with roughly the same answers? Sure, there is some discrepancy. Nothing however, even comes remotely close to "6000 years". The only thing that does this is the bible.

Jake (the other one) was right in saying these methods of dating rely on assumptions. Granted, they're pretty logical assumptions, but scientific discovery has turned human logic on its head on more than one occasion.

I'm looking forward to the mathmatical proof as I'm not really sure how you'd be able to do that without interjecting theory.

As to the 6,000 year age, I'd wondered that for a very long while, too. It seemed a bit arbitrary, and I'd never read the age in the Bible. It wasn't until I did exaustive research for the first Evo v Create debate I participated in here that I came across the answer.

The figure, which actually ranges from 6,000 to 12,000 years old, comes from the assumption that the earth was created in 6 days, then taking all the lineage given and coming up with the numbers based on the number of expected years between the generations. Hence the 6,000 year tolerance. It makes sense, and is a logical means of discerning the time from the creation until now if you believe the Bible is the infailable word of God, which I do.

However, we get into the 6 days/ages/a day = 1000 years to God murky area in that time definition. I'm still not sold on either one, and from the amount of reading and research I've done over the past year and a half into the subject, it doesn't look like I ever will be.

Just to throw one quick statement before I go for y'all to ponder:

Science has been proven wrong in the past, but the Bible never has.

bumped up [yet again] in honour of the return of Deesw's deliberate ignorance:

Come on people a human is a human, we have always been human, and will always be human. If we supposedly evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

:shk:

Rabid creationalists,
Please educate yourselves on a subject before arguing against it.. it would make you look less stupid.

Originally posted by jake1997
The reason someone needs to post a thread like this is because all we ever get is folks like you who post comentary and ignorance of christianity

Are you under the impression this is a debate? It's not.

This forum is about you, not for you. What "we" want in this forum are posters discussing the conspiracy to replace scientific theories in education and mainstream discourse with those of pure philosophy and matters of faith.

Unfortunately, what "we" get are the actual conspirators like you.

Much like public school, this forum is not the place to educate the unwashed masses on Christianity. That's this forum.

And that's the whole point.

Your belittlement of our conspiracy theorists is no more welcome than if the Illuminati joined the NWO discussion. Your welcome to try and debunk our conspiracy theorists (as the Masons do in Secret Societies), but I'd think it'd be rather hard to prove there's no conspiracy to introduce Intelligent Design/Creationism to public schools while advocating it.

But feel free to try and prove people like you don't exist. In fact, I hope you succeed.

And this is just beautiful...

Originally posted by jake1997
You dont have squat for evolution. Its just a fantasy that is strongly advanced by the group that has power. You are the RCC of today...advancing your DOCTRINE in the face of truth

The dust and stolen rib bone advocate is angry people in a forum about the Creationist Conspiracy don't accept his fantasy as "Truth."

Classic.

Again, anyone in this forum under the impression this is a Science versus Ancient Mythology debate is mistaken. It's not. So keep your apples and oranges to yourselves.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by RANT]

Lamark's theory that a trait acquired during one's own lifetime can be passed on genetically is not defensible with conventional theories of energy and genetics. However, how to account for blond races in northern latitudes, or bright colored birds where there is tropical solar rays, otherwise? Could it be that energic resonations from the parent influence reproductive cells perhaps via circulating mediary particulate energics?

There's something to be said for sticky threads.


Again.

Please educate yourselves on a subject before arguing against it.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by riley]

Originally posted by junglejake

Science has been proven wrong in the past, but the Bible never has.

Why is there is no evidence that a tribe of 2 million plus individuals spent 40 years wandering through the very small area between Egypt and Canaan?

Originally posted by junglejake

Science has been proven wrong in the past, but the Bible never has.

the bible is proof against itself
just in the NT
what were the last words jesus said before dying on the cross?
and
which of the three ways presented did judas die?

Originally posted by riley
Humans are not decended from chimps or apes.. we share a common ancestor.

This has been said before.. yet still this is the common reaction:

"We wouldn't come from dirty apes!!

".. at which point it usually goes around in circles.

Proof that humans and other primates is in our shared DNA.

As per usual when this argument is posed..

Yet again:

Originally posted by linkjoy124
Question:
Why are there still Monkey's here?
Is it me, or are Monkeys no where nears dieing off?

..several other creationalists suddenly appear on the board parroting the same thing [creationalist cyber terrorism: torchuring us with stupidity].

They must be stopped!

[edit on 10-11-2007 by riley]

Originally posted by Sight2reality
Most christians for instance will completely ignore many logical ideas, facts, and scientific laws because they directly contradict what it is that their bible tells them. Dating of the earth is a good examle. If you bring up carbon dating, radiometric dating, ect., the christian base of this forum will quote things right from answers in genesis.com.....
[edit on 27-7-2005 by Sight2reality]

That is another misconception sight2reality.

Evolution does not say how life began but it does tell us how life has changed since the beginning of time

Originally posted by junglejake

Science has been proven wrong in the past, but the Bible never has.

Oh is that true? Science is proven wrong because the evidence changes.

Lets see, biblical wrongs -

Mary is told by gabriel that jesus would sit on the throne of david and rule the house of jacob forever (luke 1:32-33). None of this ever happened nor can ever happen (there is no throne of david).

Jesus tells his disciples that believers can play with snakes and drink deadly things and not be harmed (mark 16:18) Many believers have tried this with snakes and many have died, also would you like to drink a cocktail of ricin hemlock and box jellyfish toxin to show your belief? Do you think that your belief would save you?

Jesus tells the people that are listening to him that there are some who are listening will not taste death before jesus comes again to his kingdom (matthew, mark and luke) I'm afraid they are all DEAD and still jesus has not returned.

Genesis 4:16 has cain going away (out) from the presence of the lord into the land of nod. Isn't god supposed to be everywhere in heaven and earth?

So stating that the bible contains no wrongs is just as wrong as the statement.

Biblical infallibility! don't make me laugh


G

Originally posted by zhangmaster
In Darwin's theory, the smaller necked giraffes were not suited to their new environment and died out. Those with longer necks survived to reproduce, and over many generations the giraffe developed its characteristic long neck. When debating evolutionry theory, it is Darwin's theory we are using, not Lamarks.

Darwin's theory doesn't work either. All the baby giraffes who are a fraction of the height of the adults would die out according to this so-called logic. And the millions of years it would take for a shorter animal to evolve into a giraffe would have meant they were doing just fine without becoming taller. Not to mention that from what I've heard many times, there are no known predecessors to the giraffe. The Darwinian mechanism doesn't work any better than others.

Originally posted by Elhardt

Originally posted by zhangmaster
In Darwin's theory, the smaller necked giraffes were not suited to their new environment and died out. Those with longer necks survived to reproduce, and over many generations the giraffe developed its characteristic long neck. When debating evolutionry theory, it is Darwin's theory we are using, not Lamarks.

Darwin's theory doesn't work either. All the baby giraffes who are a fraction of the height of the adults would die out according to this so-called logic. And the millions of years it would take for a shorter animal to evolve into a giraffe would have meant they were doing just fine without becoming taller. Not to mention that from what I've heard many times, there are no known predecessors to the giraffe. The Darwinian mechanism doesn't work any better than others.

Thats not strictly true as there is evidence to suggest that the giraffes neck evolved this way not for the need to feed higher up but due to a sexually selected origin. Male giraffes use their necks to fight for the right to mate so it would make sense that the giraffe with the strongest,longest neck would sire more offspring than weaker smaller necked males. Although Darwin may have been wrong in his thoughts it still shows that evolution played a part (and still does) in the giraffe.

Also there are predecessors of the giraffe in the fossil record and maybe even a cousin in the form of the Okapi. More info Here

G

I'm bumping this as yet again someone has posted about how humans are descended from monkeys.. and the banana dna argument has popped up as well. Makes a change I guess.

Originally posted by riley

A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes with the banana."

May, R., Quoted in Coglan & Boyce, New Scientist 167 (July 1):5, 2000

I tried to find the original article in New Science as well.. but it seems to have been removed from their archives.. [older articles remain] I did however find this response to it:

The 50 per cent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren't necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences.

www.newscientist.com...

Going by this it is likely we share a comparable amount ['50%'.. incidently 'half' as a scientific term is kind of vague] of base dna with many other living things on the planet.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Depending on who your source is Chimps and humans share between 90% and 99% of their DNA. Even sharing that much DNA the differences between the two species is huge, in intelligence, outward appearance, and internal structures. So one must beg the question what does it mean to share a large quantity of DNA? Does it really mean anything or does it just happen to be that way?

I don't know the answer to the question but here is something else to think about.

mice share around 85% of their genes with humans. Yeast shares 46%. Those tiny annoying fruit flies that descend on overripe bananas share 60%. Oh, and the banana itself shares about 50%.

www.mindfully.org...

hate to ruin your parade, but according to DNA tests done on chicken ocular glands, in terms of DNA, we are more closely related to domestic fowl than we are apes.

Originally posted by Crusader of Truth
hate to ruin your parade, but according to DNA tests done on chicken ocular glands, in terms of DNA, we are more closely related to domestic fowl than we are apes.

Are you sure thats not also merely "base dna" like in the case of the bananas? I'd appreciate a scientific source that says we more closely related to chickens genetically than apes. It might help clarify the 'types' of dna issues.

thanks.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by riley]