A Reply to all who answered me Thread on Abortion

When digging in very hard dirt, you must dig hard to reach the soul. There is a method to my madness. To speak to the soul that is buried you must really shock the soul to give it life again. You must break up the dirt to sow the seed and that's what I have done.

I pay no attention to those claiming "There is no God or consequences in this world", because that is pure deception. Life is based on a cause and effect rule. God also cannot be dis-proven, when evolution can btw...

Back to the main Idea: I said what I said to hit you close to home, or better yet close to the soul. The soul may die but it is never destroyed. The fire can always be rejuvenated by sincere repentance.

I'm sorry how is evolution able to be disproved?

reply to post by homeslice


"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" --- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1872

While natural selection and adaptations are scientifically proven, there is quite a chasm between them and evolution. You see, with the prior two, certain, less beneficial traits are weeded out, however there is never NEW genetic material being introduced as would be required for evolution to be an acceptable course for the origin of anything... because it wouldn't (and doesn't) exist. The above quote is in reference to the fact that if evolution (ignoring the genetic impossiblities) were to exist, we would have countless millions of failed (or even successful for that matter) evolutionary steps fossilized that showed a distinct transition from single celled organisms to complex organisms, including mankind. Where is this record? Darwin himself seems to scratch his head on this one.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about, and what it has to do with abortion, but your statement that evolution can be dis-proven is pure fantasy. So if you believe that is the case, other than scientists realizing that their colleagues, over the past 100 years, have been interpreting the data incorrectly, how can it be dis-proven?

reply to post by closerseemsfurther


This so called 'lack of evolution evidence' doesn't disprove evolution. Just like I am sure you would tell me the huge lack of evidence that there is a god doesn't disprove there is a god.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


you failed to address the evidence I presented against evolution. you also failed to present evidence FOR evolution. you ignored the quote from the author of the theory. not a very strong rebuttal.

Your comments about the soul are all well and good but if you want to convince people that abortion is bad you are going to have to do it in a different way than appealing to God, because a great majority of people (the ones who are less vocal) honestly don't care if the "Bible said this" or "Jesus said that" or "God will send those who commit abortions to hell." You may be right, but if you want to change people's minds you're going about it the wrong way. Those who are Christian will already agree with you and you'll be preaching to the choir. Those who aren't Christian will see you as a nutbag.

P.S. Your evolution thing was an offhand comment but it actually cannot be disproven, all the things people say are wrong about it have been proven. For example, that there are no "transitional species" to be found. I would read this website:
www.talkorigins.org...

All of your comments prove one thing: that you have not taken the time to consider any other side of the argument but your own. If you want to prove people that you're right, you need to take some time to consider why you might be wrong and what is valid in their arguments in order to come to more certainty about your own beliefs as well as real arguments against theirs. You have proven that no one will listen to you if you make a mistake, everyone is jumping on you about evolution and not paying attention to your original proposition. Don't make arguments you can't back up and don't make arguments about things you don't know anything about and you will get much further in persuasion.

Not another abortion thread.../facepalm.

reply to post by homeslice


I'm not presenting the argument for God or creation. I'm presenting an argument against evolution. Your beloved theory is practically praised as a scientific fact, however, without evidence proving it to be true, it is nothing more than a fairy tale made up to pamper to the disbelief in creation. Don't you science worshipers understand how science works??? It has to be proven true, which can't be done. Where is the evidence of evolution? Where are the geological remains that ought to be strewn across the face of the earth? Or did evolution simply make so HUGE of leaps (successfully every time), that these intermediate steps don't exist?

reply to post by spacekc929


addressing your link, the first notable evidence provided on your link was that of the dinosaur-bird transition. Here are my comments: Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at UNC Chapel Hill (and an evolutionist) states: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that." The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not.

In regards to the Sinosauropteryx prima: four leading paleontologists, including Yale's own John Ostrom found that the alleged "feather" pointing to its transitionary status were just a parallel array of fibers, probably collagen.

Mononykus (claimed to be a flightless bird): Time magazine went so far as to illustrate this "bird" on the cover (with feathers), although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. Later evidence indicated that Mononykus was clearly a fleet-footed fossorial (digging) theropod.

Protarchaeopteryx robusta AND Caudipteryx zoui (supposed bird ancestors) are dated at 120-136 million years. While the Archaeopteryx (an actual bird) is dated at 140-150 million years... making the supposed ancestors of birds millions of years YOUNGER than actual birds.

I could continue to refute this all night... I'm sure you don't want to read it tho

reply to post by spacekc929


quoted from your own source on the transition from reptiles to mammals:
As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).

Early in the 20th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function.

Originally posted by closerseemsfurther
reply to post by homeslice

 

I'm not presenting the argument for God or creation. I'm presenting an argument against evolution. Your beloved theory is practically praised as a scientific fact, however, without evidence proving it to be true, it is nothing more than a fairy tale made up to pamper to the disbelief in creation.

Sounds like you are arguing for god and creation to me.

reply to post by spacekc929


I'm not sure how thoroughly you read that website before you gave it to me as ammunition, but it is filled start to finish with evidence against evolution. The only thing that's pro-evolution in the whole read is a bunch of: maybe, could be, what if, well we think, BUT IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE. Science never seemed so uncertain, uninformed, or wishy-washy as it did when it made this mistake.

Originally posted by closerseemsfurther
reply to post by homeslice

 

I'm not presenting the argument for God or creation. I'm presenting an argument against evolution. Your beloved theory is practically praised as a scientific fact, however, without evidence proving it to be true, it is nothing more than a fairy tale made up to pamper to the disbelief in creation. Don't you science worshipers understand how science works??? It has to be proven true, which can't be done. Where is the evidence of evolution? Where are the geological remains that ought to be strewn across the face of the earth? Or did evolution simply make so HUGE of leaps (successfully every time), that these intermediate steps don't exist?

Need proof? Here we go...

(Source

1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

5. Evidence from proteins - Proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.

6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.

8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.

9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or virus

reply to post by homeslice


I haven't said "God" or "creation" once. Assume at will lol

More Evidence

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy is now considered to be as important in animals as it is in plants. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of Drosophila melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

More Evidence


aleontology - the study of fossils and prehistoric life
Evolutionary change is clearly documented in the fossil record. Fossils are well ordered within rock layers, the oldest ones being at the bottom and youngest being at the top. Paleontologists have found transitional forms for many lineages, including humans, showing progression as we move up through the rock layers. A transitional fossil is one that contains anatomical similarities with two groups of organisms. It is possible to see how organisms evolved by arranging their fossils in a chronological sequence.

Biogeography - the study of the geographic distribution of organisms
Data about how species are distributed throughout the world and why they are present or absent in certain areas can provide evidence of common descent and shed light on patterns of speciation. Questions such as: Why are most marsupials concentrated in Australia? Why are organisms that live on islands so different from organisms that live on mainland continents? Why are some organisms endemic to certain regions? Why do animals that live in similar habitats still have fundamental differences? and so on can only be reasonably answered in light of evolution.

Comparative anatomy - the study of how anatomical structures between organisms are similar and different
Comparative anatomy involves things like homologous and analogous structures, and also reveals a nested hierarchy among all life on Earth. Taxonomy is based on relationships between organisms and starts with broad groups having fundamental similarities and separates them into smaller groups based on specific differences. The nested hierarchy of organisms shows strong evidence of common descent. Embryology is also part of comparative anatomy. Comparing embryos of different animals shows similarities and relationships.

Genetics - the study of DNA and genetic traits
The study of genetics is only a relatively recent development, yet it has provided some of the most powerful pieces of evidence for evolution. One of the strongest confirmations of common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence and mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely-related species will have a greater fraction of identical sequence and more shared substitutions when compared to more distantly-related species. The sequencing of the human genome only happened around 10 years ago, yet it has provided much insight into human evolution and our relatedness with other species. Much more evidence of evolution can be found in genetics that is too much to fit here.

Read more: wiki.answers.com...

reply to post by Confusion42


I love that you cited "Yahoo: Answers" as a source Seriously tho, the wikipedia page that's linked from Yahoo: Answers is a REALLY long read. I WILL read it tho. Not tonight, as I've gotta be up in about 8 hours to spend my saturday (like every saturday) under bridges & at camps in the local woods, bringing a meal, a blanket, & some fresh clothes & company to a couple dozen homeless folk. Some of us Christians do more than PREACH the gospel; we actually live it. Have a good night yal, try not to bash too many of us God fearin loonies

Originally posted by closerseemsfurther
reply to post by Confusion42

 

I love that you cited "Yahoo: Answers" as a source

Seriously tho, the wikipedia page that's linked from Yahoo: Answers is a REALLY long read. I WILL read it tho. Not tonight, as I've gotta be up in about 8 hours to spend my saturday (like every saturday) under bridges & at camps in the local woods, bringing a meal, a blanket, & some fresh clothes & company to a couple dozen homeless folk. Some of us Christians do more than PREACH the gospel; we actually live it. Have a good night yal, try not to bash too many of us God fearin loonies

People like you, I don't bash.

I very much respect you; Instead of damning me to hell like some Christians, your willing to at least take a look at evolution proof.

More importantly, your helping people. I applaud you, sir.

IMO many, many people can learn a thing or two from you

Originally posted by mikesk8s247
A Reply to all who answered me Thread on Abortion

Why didn't you just REPLY to those people in that thread??? Instead of starting a new one in this forum, which has nothing to do with abortion, God or evolution?

Back to the main Idea: I said what I said to hit you close to home, or better yet close to the soul.

And yet, it still had no impact... Perhaps you should reconsider your holier than thou position... and your tactics. Better yet, have your opinions and allow others to have theirs. Live and let live. I will have my opinions and beliefs about God, evolution and abortion.