|
|
|
|
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 10:35:17 AM | You are confusing the Theory of Evolution with the theories of Abiogenesis.
Evolution works no matter what the cause of abiogenesis.
There are many groups of animals which are related that can not breed and produce viable offspring. The donkey and the horse are one example...so are the lion and the tiger. Apes can not breed with monkeys, yet they are obviously related. I've never heard of a dog or wolf breeding with a jackal (doesn't mean it isn't possible, but I've never heard of it) Sheep and goats are obviously closely related, but they do not breed either...there is just enough genetic difference to make sexual reproduction impossible.. this is speciation. We share 96% of our genetic make-up with chimpanzees... only a 4% difference in our genes. We are primates, biologically.
I don't understand why it bothers people to be related to apes, or any animal? It doesn't really affect spirituality, not for me anyway.. if anything it strengthens the sense of connectedness to our marvelous world, and might even make us think twice before we use and abuse animals and our shared environment.
Peace | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 10:47:54 AM | I'm not confusing them, they just seem to go hand in hand.
It's funny that if you are religious you are asked to prove creation, but if you believe in evolution, it is allowed to evolve.
The gray wolf differs from its closest relative, the coyote, by 4%. They are capable of interbreeding. Why can't humans and apes/ chimps, who are a closer relation?
But wait, wait, wait.................................
"Although we are frequently told that chimps and humans share between 98–99% of their DNA, a number of studies reveal a smaller percentage of similarity. A 2002 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) analyzed about one million DNA base pairs and discovered an approximately 95% similarity.
The human genome is composed of about 3 billion base pairs, so this comparison involved less than 1% of the genome, but it was of sequences already considered to be common to chimps and humans (‘homologous’). A 2003 study, also in the PNAS, compared about 1.9 million base pairs in immunologically critical areas of the chimp and human genomes. This study took into account insertions and deletions (indels) and derived a low 86.7% similarity. When the chimpanzee genome was mapped in 2005, scientists announced a 96% similarity. Another study, in 2006, revealed a 94% genetic similarity.Obviously, these results are all considerably lower than the still widely touted 98–99% statistic. These different studies reveal that the degree of genetic similarity is highly dependent on the particular regions being analyzed, the amount of DNA being compared and the computational techniques used.
The 2006 study claiming a 94% similarity creates a big problem for evolutionary geneticists who just sequenced the Rhesus macaque genome and declared a 93% DNA similarity between these monkeys and human beings. It is highly problematic because these monkeys supposedly branched off from our common ancestor about 25 million years ago, while chimpanzees supposedly diverged about 6 million years ago. So we have supposedly diverged from chimps some four times faster than we have diverged from Rhesus monkeys. Simply stated, there should be a more significant gap between humans and the monkeys if evolution and its dating were true."
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5111/#endRef7
Also, see this article, bottom left corner of Page 2 has the number at 86.7%.
http://creationontheweb.com/images/p...18_2_37-40.pdf
"In a recent Science article, several evolutionary scientists openly admitted that the claim of 99% DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees is a myth. Since 1975, this misleading statistic has been touted (e.g., see box) as clear cut evidence that humans and chimps are closely related on the evolutionary tree of life. However, more and more genetic research has revealed that the percentage of DNA similarity has been vastly overstated.
Last year, a study of gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference.
In 2005, scientists discovered that the chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome.
In 2003, scientists calculated a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems.
One study has even revealed a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex."
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5278/
And, 95% here-> http://www.creationontheweb.com/imag...j17_1_8-10.pdf | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 3:16:59 PM | glamb
The Galapagos Islands incident in the late 80's/ early 90's. A major ouil spill happened, the animals adapted in a single generation, the evolutionists claimed it proved evolution. They held it up as their shining example. A few years later when the environment went back to normal, so did the animals, in a single generation. The evolutionists were dumbfounded (lol) and backtracked.
I looked around for this and could found nothing. There was a big oil spill in 2001 from a tanker named "Jessica", but it involved nothing like what you are describing. I'm asking you to cite your claim but I won't hold my breath.
Incidentally, if a single transitory event resulted in a great deal of adaptation, it is not surprising to see that once the effects of that event are over we see things quickly return to the way they were before.
But when concerning the theory of evolution, that from primordial ooze life sprang, to where we are now, nope.
Does this primordial ooze discredit cell theory, germ theory, general relativity, and numbers theory as well? Do you have any idea what evolution is?
It's funny that if you are religious you are asked to prove creation, but if you believe in evolution, it is allowed to evolve.
Its funny that if you believe in creation you are asked to prove it, but if you believe in evolution you are also asked to prove it. Its funny that there is no evidence to support the former, and mountains of evidence to support the latter.
"Although we are frequently told that chimps and humans share between 98–99% of their DNA, a number of studies reveal a smaller percentage of similarity.
You should probably learn more before making such claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB144.html
So we have supposedly diverged from chimps some four times faster than we have diverged from Rhesus monkeys.
Are you under the impression that evolution occurs at a fixed rate? The rate of change varies considerably in relation to changes in the environment. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 3:53:59 PM |
I looked around for this and could found nothing. There was a big oil spill in 2001 from a tanker named "Jessica", but it involved nothing like what you are describing. I'm asking you to cite your claim but I won't hold my breath.
Incidentally, if a single transitory event resulted in a great deal of adaptation, it is not surprising to see that once the effects of that event are over we see things quickly return to the way they were before.
lol I said 80's/ 90's, not 2001. Also, I must have converged two instances, because it tuns out it was from the drought conditions that were going on since the 70's.
Peter and Rosemary Grant were the two lead/ main researchers.
In the
1970’s, Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues
noted a 5 percent increase in beak size after a severe
drought, because the finches were left with only hard-tocrack
seeds. The change, though significant, was small; yet
some Darwinists claim it explains how finch species originated
in the first place.
A 1999 booklet published by the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences describes Darwin’s finches as “a
particularly compelling example” of the origin of species.
The booklet cites the Grants’ work, and explains how “a
single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary
changes in the finches.” The booklet also calculates that “if
droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a
new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”
But the booklet fails to point out that the finches’
beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net
evolution occurred. In fact, several finch species now
appear to be merging through hybridization, rather than
diverging through natural selection as Darwin’s theory
requires.
Withholding evidence in order to give the impression
that Darwin’s finches confirm evolutionary theory
borders on scientific misconduct. According to Harvard
biologist Louis Guenin (writing in Nature in 1999), U.S.
securities laws provide “our richest source of experiential
guidance” in defining what constitutes scientific misconduct.
But a stock promoter who tells his clients that a particular
stock can be expected to double in value in twenty
years because it went up 5 percent in 1998, while concealing
the fact that the same stock declined 5 percent in 1999,
might well be charged with fraud. As Berkeley law professor
Phillip E. Johnson wrote in The Wall Street Journal in
1999: “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort
of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you
know they are in trouble.”
[/i[
Does this primordial ooze discredit cell theory, germ theory, general relativity, and numbers theory as well? Do you have any idea what evolution is?
Not going to deal with your theories, but.....type in mathematical probability of evolution into a search engine and it is much greater than the 10^(50) which constitutes a mathematical improbability.
Its funny that if you believe in creation you are asked to prove it, but if you believe in evolution you are also asked to prove it. Its funny that there is no evidence to support the former, and mountains of evidence to support the latter.
Are you under the impression that evolution occurs at a fixed rate? The rate of change varies considerably in relation to changes in the environment.
8. NO NEW SPECIES NOW
They tell us that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed from one primordial germ, in 60,000,000 years. How many new species should have arisen in the last 6,000 years? Now 20 doublings of the first species of animals would make 1,048,576 species, since 2 raised to the 20th power becomes 1,048,576. Again we will favor the evolutionists by omitting from the calculation all species of animals in excess of 1,048,576. Therefore, on an average, each of the 20 doublings would take 1/20 of 60,000,000 years, or 3,000,000 years; and, therefore, 1/2 of the entire 1,048,576 species, or 524,288 species, must have originated within the last 3,000,000 years. Can that be the case? Certainly not.
And since the number of species must have increased in a geometrical ratio, 2097 species must have arisen or matured within the last 6000 years--an average of one new species of animals every 3 years. How many species actually have arisen within the last 6000 years? 2000? 200? or 2? It is not proven that a single new species has arisen in that time. Not one can be named. If approximately 2000 new species have not arisen in the last 6000 years, the evolution of species can not possibly be true. Even Darwin says: "In spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of species into another is on record." Sir William Dawson, the great Canadian geologist, says: "No case is certainly known in human experience where any species of animal or plant has been so changed as to assume all the characteristics of a new species."
Indeed, a high authority says: "Though, since the human race began, all sorts of artificial agencies have been employed, and though there has been the closest scrutiny, yet not a distinctively new type of plant or animal, on what is called broad lines, has come into existence."
Not a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years when the theory requires over 2000. Evolutionists admit this. Prof. Vernon Kellogg, of Leland Stanford University, in his "Darwinism of Today," p. 18, says: "Speaking by and large, we only tell the general truth when we declare that no indubitable cases of species forming, or transforming, that is, of descent, have been observed...For my part, it seems better to go back to the old and safe ignoramus standpoint."
Prof. H. H. Newman, of Chicago University, in answer to the writer's question, "How many new species have arisen in the last 6000 years?" wrote this evasive reply: "I do not know how to answer your questions...None of us know just what a species is. [If so, how could 3,000,000 species be counted, the number, he says, exists?]...It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisen from an old." He does not seem to know of a single new species within the last 6,000 years.
The same question was asked of Dr. Osborn, of Columbia University, N. Y. The answer by R. C. Murphy, assistant, was equally indefinite. He wrote: "From every point of view, your short note of Aug. 22nd raises questions, which no scientific man can possibly answer. We have very little knowledge as to just when any particular species of animal arose." In a later letter, he says: "I have no idea whether the number of species which have arisen during the last 6000 years is 1 or 100,000."
Should those who "do not know" speak so confidently in favor of evolution, or take the "old and safe ignoramus" standpoint, as Prof. Kellogg suggests?
The number of existing species can not be explained upon the ground of evolution, but only upon the ground of the creation of numerous heads of animal and plant life, as the Scriptures declare.
We have a right to increase the pressure of the argument, by introducing into the calculation, the total of 3,000,000 species of plants and animals which would require 6355 new species within the last 6000 years, or an average of more than one new species a year! And they can not point to one new species in 6000 years, as they confess.. Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said recently: "If the theory of evolution be true, then, during many thousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known."
Prof. Owen declares, "No instance of change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man."
[n]Prof. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said, "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species."[/n]
Although scientists have so largely discarded Darwin's theory, the utter lack of new species in historic time, when so many are required by every theory of evolution, is a mathematical demonstration that the whole theory of evolution must be abandoned. Q. E. D. Why do they still insist it may be true?
Mathematical Probability is a branch or division of mathematics by means of which the odds in favor or against the occurrence of any event may be definitely computed, and the measure of the probability or improbability exactly determined. Its conclusions approximate certainty and reveal how wild the guesses of evolutionists are.
The evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical probability. It is so improbable that one and only one species out of 3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the case. All had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet witness the motley products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm, and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc. All developed from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well the difference in size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the difference in intellect between man and the lobster!
While all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000 reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why only one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed from the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the hog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the many species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3,000,000 chances, is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of man?
"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestation of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old." Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male? Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by evolutionists belong to males except one. Strange, if 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000 people, developed one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or l0,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates mathematical probability. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 5:12:05 PM | There were many different types of proto-humans, it wasn't a direct line to homo sapiens. The Neanderthal lived until 30,000 years ago alongside the Cro-Magnon (our ancestors). There are several examples from all over of different kinds of proto-humans...most did not survive to evolve into a higher form.We aren't exactly all that wonderfully made for survival...no pelt, no big teeth, no claws... without fire we would have been severely screwed. I think someone said that the average lifespan of an ice-age person was somewhere about 17 - 25 years, IF they were lucky. We just happened to be the most successful at filling the niche - just how many species that eat the exact same thing can live in the same area? Crap..we can't even do it with the creatures that don't eat what we do..and I think we either wiped out or otherwise pushed out the Neanderthals...too much competition maybe? The Neanderthals were very real.. and they weren't 'human'... but they WERE intelligent, close to us if not on par, maybe in a different way, but they did have a culture.
or maybe we are genetically modified apes a la extraterrestrial intervention?
Evolution IS happening today... but it's a strange thing.. there are many aeons that go by with little or no change and then environmental pressures change and there is very rapid change in a short (geological) timeframe. Trilobites ruled the world for a VERY long time.. there was little or no competition for resources... but many millions of years into their reign there were serious earth changes and they pretty much disappeared to open up the way for the dinosaur age which lasted for, I think, somewhere around 160 million years, mankind has only been here, in modern form, for less than 250,000 years.(an outside estimate) It's kind of difficult to see things from such a short view.. and historical data is a mere 5000 years old... there were Saber-Toothed cats, Aurochs (from which modern cattle come from-evolution!) Mammoths and Giant Deer up until recently (10,000 years... for the Giant Deer, maybe 4000 or less) they are now sadly extinct. Unfortunately, the fossil record is sparse... fossilization being a very rare occurrence in nature.
There are many peer-reviewed papers on the topic of contemporary evolution:
Kinnison, M. T., A. P. Hendry and C. A. Stockwell. In Press. Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology II. Impediments to integration and application. Ecological Research.
Pdf
Collyer, M. L., C. A. Stockwell, D. C. Adams and M. H. Reiser. 2007. Phenotypic plasticity and contemporary evolution in introduced populations: evidence from translocated populations of White Sands pupfish (Cyprinodon tularosa). Ecological Research
Abstract Pdf
Stockwell, C. A., M. T. Kinnison and A. P. Hendry. 2006. Evolutionary Restoration Ecology. Pages 113-138 in D. A. Falk, M. A. Palmer and J. B. Zedler, Editors, Foundations of Restoration Ecology, Island Press.
Stockwell, C. A. and M. L. Collyer. 2006. Rapid adaptation and conservation. Pages 192-194 in F. Allendorf and G. Luikart, editors, Conservation and the Genetics of Populations. Blackwell Press.
Stockwell, C.A. A.P. Hendry and M.T. Kinnison. 2003. Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 18: 94-101.
Abstract Pdf
Zimmer, C. 2003. Rapid evolution can foil even the best-laid plans. Science. 300: 895.
Abstract Pdf
Stockwell, C.A. and P.L. Leberg. 2002. Ecological Genetics and the Translocation of Native Fishes: Emerging Experimental Approaches. Western North American Naturalist. 62: 32-38.
Abstract Pdf
Stockwell, C.A. and G.L. Vinyard. 2000. Life history variation in recently established populations of Western Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Western North American Naturalist. 60: 273-280.
Abstract Pdf
Stockwell, C.A. and S.C. Weeks. 1999. Translocations and rapid evolutionary responses in recently established populations of western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Animal Conservation. 2: 103-110.
Abstract Pdf
Stockwell, C.A. M. Mulvey, and G.L. Vinyard. 1996. Translocations and the preservation of allelic diversity. Conservation Biology. 10: 1133-1141.
Abstract Pdf
and the link: http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/stockwell/Contemporary%20evolution%20citations.htm
Where is Frogo when I need him!
Peace | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 6:57:57 PM |
Also, I must have converged two instances, because it tuns out it was from the drought conditions that were going on since the 70's. Well I guess that's one way of saying your claim was completely false.
Prof. Owen declares, "No instance of change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man."
One species 'into' another? Why would the first species disappear rather than simply have divergent lineages? That's like saying that when europeans sailed over and occupied america, europeans should spontaneously disappear in order for them to become termed 'americans.' Prof. Own sounds like a silly silly man.
Also, speciation has been observed.
But the booklet fails to point out that the finches’
beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net
evolution occurred. Where's the oil spill you mentioned earlier?
I find it ironic that I already explained this fallacious reasoning in a previous post before you brought it up. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
There's no reason for there to be any 'net' amount of evolution to occur. Evolution does not say that things must evolve. These findings make perfect sense in accord with evolution - in drought years only the large beaked finches flourish, in rainy years both small beaked and large beaked finches flourish. That's what we expect with evolution, and that's what we find. No 'scientific misconduct' here.
type in mathematical probability of evolution into a search engine and it is much greater than the 10^(50) which constitutes a mathematical improbability. There are 8x10^67 ways to order the cards in a 52 card deck of playing cards. So if I shuffle and get a result, the odds of that result are 1 in 8x10^67. Does that mean that playing cards do not exist or does it mean that shuffling a deck of cards is impossible?
What are the odds of God existing by the way? Put that in your search engine.
Not a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years when the theory requires over 2000. The theory does not 'require' over 2000. Things happen at different rates.
New species are being discovered all the time. For example, cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species during the last few thousand years.
It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisen from an old." He does not seem to know of a single new species within the last 6,000 years.
He probably knows quite a few. You're missing what he's saying. It is hard to say when a new species has diverged from another - the differences between the two are often subtle. And if we do decide to categorize a new species from a previous one, it is very easy for the apologist to say it is the same species, it just has different characteristics.
To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by evolutionists belong to males except one. what
the
hell are you talking about. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 7:17:06 PM | In the sense of adaption,mutations, and (to an extent) species ancestors, yes.
So we agree that evolution is a fact.
But when concerning the theory of evolution, that from primordial ooze life sprang, to where we are now, nope.
Well, no theory is ever proven true. Evolution doesn't say how life came into existence, and it doesn't matter how it came into existence (as far as evolution is concerned). We now have two hypotheses.
1) Evolution has been happening since life first came into existence and is the primary cause for the diversity and distribution of life on the planet.
2) Evolution is either a recent phenomena or one that that little to do with the diversity and distribution of life. Instead god made everything the way it is about 6000 years ago.
How can we distinguish between these two alternatives? Evidence.
Evolution neatly explains why the fossil record shows fish early in the record, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds and mammals. It's due to the process of evolution. Indeed, if evolution is correct we should find fossils that are intermediate between these groups. Not only must they be found, but they must be found in certain strata. When we look we find fossils that are part fish and part amphibian, part amphibian and part reptile, part reptile and part mammal, and part reptile and part bird. Evolution also tells us about things we won't find. We won't find fish-mammals or bird-amphibians for example. We also find the correct fossils in the correct strata.
Now let's see what creationism has to say about the fossils. First it says that fossils can't be older than about 6000 years, yet every technique we have to determine ages disagree with this 6000 year figure. The creationist is forced to explain this by invoking conspiracies amongst scientists who are trying to hide the truth because they prefer to live in sin. Or they invoke conspiracies in the laws of physics that make the fossils look older than they really are. Creationism doesn't have any believable explanation for the dating of fossils. But what about where they are? Well according to creationism almost all life was wiped out in a global flood about 4000 years ago (we'll ignore the fact that civilizations have unbroken records going back more than 4000 years). Mt Ararat is where the new life radiated out from. Creationism doesn't explain the geographical distribution of animals. Why, for example, are marsupials found in Australia but not Europe? Why are there none between Mt. Ararat and Australia? Why doesn't Mt Ararat have representatives of all forms of land-dwelling life nearby? Creationism has no explanation for the kids of fossils we observe. Why did god not make amphibian-birds when he made amphibian-reptiles? Why are there no mammalian-birds? Why are there no mermaids? Why do mammals first appear in the fossil record so much later than fish, amphibians, fish-amphibians, reptiles, reptile-amphibians, and reptile-mammals? If creationism is true then why does all the evidence point to evolution and none of the evidence point to creationism? | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 7:37:04 PM |
Well I guess that's one way of saying your claim was completely false.
Nope. I connected two different circumstances. I realized it, and put it in the proper context.
There's no reason for there to be any 'net' amount of evolution to occur. Evolution does not say that things must evolve. These findings make perfect sense in accord with evolution - in drought years only the large beaked finches flourish, in rainy years both small beaked and large beaked finches flourish. That's what we expect with evolution, and that's what we find. No 'scientific misconduct' here.
Yes, evolution (adaption), but it was/is put up as support of the Theory of Evolution.
There are 8x10^67 ways to order the cards in a 52 card deck of playing cards. So if I shuffle and get a result, the odds of that result are 1 in 8x10^67. Does that mean that playing cards do not exist or does it mean that shuffling a deck of cards is impossible?
lol It doesn't matter on how many cards there are. The real comparison is what are the chances the deck of cards is going to be shuffled into precise order (suite/ numerical).
The theory does not 'require' over 2000. Things happen at different rates.
New species are being discovered all the time. For example, cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species during the last few thousand years.
That was an example. What you saying then is that most of the species were created whoops evolved in vast numerical numbers, then slowed down.
lol I don't know hoe the last one got in there, but I disagree. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 8:48:43 PM |
I've never heard of a dog or wolf breeding with a jackal (doesn't mean it isn't possible, but I've never heard of it)
All canines can cross breed with each other, take a look at the pup in my profile, that thing was 145lb & you can probably guess his genetics. I still have his sister, altho she's 13 now.
Guy here in town had a Coyote/Beagle cross & that thing had pink fur, as in Barbie Pink. Strangest looking dog I ever saw. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/14/2008 6:59:44 AM | Point taken... I just don't know if a jackal is able to crossbreed with a dog..as I said I've never heard of it and I don't know how closly related jackals are to wolves and dogs. Now a coyote.. yes, seen it myself. I had a Rottweiler who was in heat, in her pen, and the coyotes would come around at night...
PINK? really..wow | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/14/2008 7:21:28 AM | Beautifully said, Count Ibli. You covered the core of "evolutionary theory" really nicely.
Someone asked about crossing humans with chimpanzees. It would seem impossible, but startlingly it would actually be entirely within science to do so. We have slightly different numbers of chromosomes (one of ours fused, http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-chimp-chromosome-2-proves-evolution.html, a brilliant refutation of Creation that shows that if God made us then he altered some chimp DNA in doing so).
However, it WOULD be possible to hybridise a chimp and a human. The question is not whether we can. It's whether we should. Scientists have not experimented with such hybrids because of the incredible public backlash, and the ethical considerations.
There is a rumour (look up "Oliver the Humanzee" on youtube for a really interesting video) that in the 30s some american scientists successfully made a human/chimp hybrid, which was carried to full term and born live. After about 3 weeks the decision was made to "terminate the experiment". Yes, it's just a rumour, no I have no evidence. I'm not sure if I believe it either. I merely thought it was an interesting story. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/14/2008 1:05:16 PM | Yes, evolution (adaption), but it was/is put up as support of the Theory of Evolution.
It does support the theory of evolution. The finches evolved to survive in the changing environment. That's just what evolution says should have happened. Creationism, OTOH, suggests that the finches should have died out and god would have stepped in and created a new species out of thin air. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/14/2008 1:50:12 PM | | Creationism says that God created finches with the genetic capability of adapting to its environment within certain limits. Evolution OTOH says the finches should be developing gills to get its food from the water surrounding the islands since the greater the range of its food sources, the more chance of survival. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/14/2008 2:10:15 PM | "I AM" said the infinite and eternal void of nothingness. The first original thought in the universe and the realization of being that is our common Creator I AM.
That thought was the big bang. It was the beginning of creation and formed a center in the limitless space that was realized. But the singular realization of being was not enough even after eons of thought I AM could not do anything but zoom around limitless space thinking I AM in an infinite number of ways. Sooooo....
"I AM THAT I AM" was the second thought that allowed for creation of space and time to truely begin. At the exact center of the universe of space where I AM was thought first... the realization of being alone (I AM THAT I AM) allowed the infinite and eternal void of nothingness to start to expand and threaten to take back the universe.
In a flurry of righteous anger and determination at the very love of being, I AM surrounded the threatening void with thoughts that were so intense that anger, determination and love became molten lava, rocks and dirt, and water. and so...
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. | |
|
| |
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/14/2008 3:10:10 PM |
I think that proves that anyone with more than half a brain can pretty much discount anything else you have to add to the forums.... Try not to catch any strange diseases from licking windows...
^^^^ Ahh the voice of experience on the window licking obviously, as well as the one with half a brain as you have more then adequately shown around the forums. You're living proof we are de-volving.
You think the window licking and half-brain are related? | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/15/2008 7:07:19 PM | Creationism says that God created finches with the genetic capability of adapting to its environment within certain limits
What limits specifically? Where does the Bible say that finches have the ability to adapt?
Evolution OTOH says the finches should be developing gills to get its food from the water surrounding the islands since the greater the range of its food sources, the more chance of survival.
What makes you think that evolution says that they should be developing gills? | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/15/2008 8:04:28 PM | Please read this article about the God particle: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text/4 | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 7/3/2008 6:09:01 PM | Q). Did something come from nothing?
A). Only to 'us'...
...For all what 'we' know, it is not enough to prove whether we actually exist or not - as the 'something' and the 'nothing' could just well be, the very same thing. Putting our human psyche to one side for a moment, the answer has to be, like some of you have said - a certain no. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 7/3/2008 6:26:53 PM | The big bang certainly occur. Physicist believes the big bang in fact occur billions of years ago. String theory or now they call it M theory. They believe there's many dimensions, parellel to our own. Particles are so small that a microscope can not see the smallest particle in the universe.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 7/3/2008 7:48:37 PM |
The big bang certainly occur. Physicist believes the big bang in fact occur billions of years ago. String theory or now they call it M theory. They believe there's many dimensions, parellel to our own. Particles are so small that a microscope can not see the smallest particle in the universe.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
I've already had a crack at this:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/9969624datingPostpage8.aspx | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 7/3/2008 10:16:25 PM | I AM THAT I AM
I've always wondered, after I heard about the Trinity, why he/they didn't say "WE ARE THAT WE ARE?" | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 7/4/2008 7:42:30 AM | | I really can't add much to the scientific defense of Darwin that hasn't already been said. Personally, I believe in some sort of infinite mind, for lack of a better term (I try to refrain from using words like "God" or "Supreme Being" because such terms anthropomorphize what's clearly a non anthropomorphic force or intelligence), but it's really not necessary to explain the existence of the cosmos. One thing you have to understand is that the debate between creationsim and evolution is more political than scientific or religious. It's in a church's best interest to preach a doctrine that swells the ego, that makes the parishoner feel that they are something special, a child of God. Creationsim is a media marketer's dream. It appeals to the selective intellectual and the simpleton alike ( two very large demographics) and it's sexy and visual. 27 million dollars was spent on a creationist museum with animatronic displays that show man and dinosaur living together, something that validates a myth, not unlike the way the ancient Greeks and Romans built museums with fossils of mastadons that they improperly interpreted as the remains of the cyclops. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 7/4/2008 2:16:49 PM | “Guy Named Ray”
Re.
I AM THAT I AM
“taurus516”
Re.
...for lack of a better term (I try to refrain from using words like "God" or "Supreme Being" because...
Is it because the human mind finds it challenging to take what is objective, objectively rather than subjectively? And perhaps this is a contradiction in terms, as they’re both the same. Paradoxes weren’t easy to explain in ancient times, which is why religion has done its best to step in. Or has it? (could be rhetorical) | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 7/4/2008 8:50:33 PM |
Back at ya. Don't you see the various skin colors that humans exhibit? If you buy the story of Adam and Eve and discredit the possibility of evolution (a slow gradual change) then, I'm wondering if you would like to enlighten me as to what color Adam and Eve were. Then further inform me as to how the other races came to be. Why do we live longer and have grown taller than our ancestors
Or better yet, what most creationists fail to realize(or they just havent thought this through) is this: besides the bible mentioning in genesis that adam begat Cane and Cane begat so and so, and so and so begat etc etc....the bible never mentions where the WIVES came from that all these decendents of Adam mated with? Now take it a step further. It's a common understanding amoung creationists that the human race decended from Adam and Eve...but in actuality if the great flood did occur then all life on the planet was dead except for Noah and his family. So technically the human race decended from 600 year old Noah and his 600 year old wife, 2 sons and 2 daughters (I think) Now assuming that Noah hasnt seen an erection in 550 years, and his wifes eggs are about as petrified as my ex's meatloaf, we can safely assume that the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE was recreated by an incestuous sexual union between Noahs children!
Did anyone ever bother to consider that? With all the whinning about immoral premarital sex, pornography, and homosexuals...we're all the result in "INCEST"
That realization alone should debunk the entire story of genesis, not to mention throw such doubt onto the credibility of the bible, that these discussions should end right here! | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
