|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
1,014
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Grimber]
#66596
03/31/06 22:12
03/31/06 22:12
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
-->.. Evolution affect genetics.. WRONG! and thats the big mistake when people talk about evolution you said that you can oserver the sunrise every day. does the sunrise affect the fission in the sun because of that?! No, but the fission is an important part for the sun to be a sun. Thats how evolution and genetics are connected. genetic mutation as stated above a couple of time (also from others) is a copy error process and with a ton of additional other impacts all of this ends up in evoluion. evolution is no force. nor does it act, interact or manage anything. Its the big mathematical/biological aftermath if you want to say so. if you doubt that lizzards can get wings, then you have to doubt the rules of genetics and not evoulution! then i would say pictures like this should make you wonder:  If a bunch of ape like creatures are able to manage this, what makes you think that the huge power of something like mother nature cant to the same without the boundries of knowledge or time.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Grimber]
#66597
03/31/06 22:15
03/31/06 22:15
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
" You see it so often in religions today 'follow the true faith" Yeah, it sounds like the faith of "evolution"  It takes a lot of faith to belive in that theory. lol
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Grimber]
#66599
03/31/06 22:29
03/31/06 22:29
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Creationists fear evolution. Because creationists center upon one important aspect. Man is divine, above all other things in creation.
That was my initial impression as well, creationists being afraid of Freud's 3 insults to mankind. But at least those posting on the GameStudio forum seem to be more concerned with evolution preventing their sect's literal reading of the bible than with it "degrading" humans.
Quote:
evolotion ( and science) is resisted by creationists because scince tells us we don't know everything. That all things are not plainly layed out before us and thier is nothing more to know. Something yet again creationsists have absoultuly fought against thoughout history.
I think you are wrong here. "God works in miraculous ways" is a standard response, so admitting lack of understanding is not the issue. Though of course people prefer simple & wrong answers to complex & true ones.
Quote:
Did you know the catholic church yet even today has never offialy accpeted that the earth and the planets orbit the sun? SO how do you expect them to accept evolution?
Hmm.. I think in "Brief History of Time" Hawking mentions that the RCC accepted earth orbiting the sun "recently", I would have to look it up though.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#66600
03/31/06 22:41
03/31/06 22:41
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
@ Blat
What makes you think it (God) isnt bound by knowledge or time?.. It could be that it is in fact bound..perhaps less so than us because it lived longer and posseses more knowledge.
That picture is a perversion of genetics whereas evolution is driven by progressive and gradual genetic response the environmental changes, particularly when changes are severe in nature, requiring adaptation to thrive.
Having said that, what couldve required a fish to change into a lizard into an ape into a man in only a short billion or so years? Physical adaptations, such as gills, extra limbs, changes in dermal texture... those things are gradual responses.. but very few things, with the possible acception of modern birds even tho their change wasnt so drastic, would call for a shift of phylums.. that is category of animal from marine to reptilian to mamalian to complex mammalian.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: ICEman]
#66601
03/31/06 23:09
03/31/06 23:09
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Evolution is a word we use to describe observable phenomenon.
Depends on which kind of evolution you're talking about. Macro or micro. They both represent two different ideas. Also, some of the people on the creationist side of the argument are getting things mixed up here, but I'll clear that up in a minute.
Quote:
like say a coconut crab having a slightly better ability to breath air than it's parents.
That's a great example, but one that we don't observe in nature. All of the other examples that you brought up are simply genetics becoming faulty. Which as far as mutations go doesn't do much good to the species. The one example you came up with that was positive has never been observed in nature. You can't just pull stuff out of your butt and use it as proof. Have scientists seen these crabs gain the ability to breath better? And more importantly, does that really matter? Because you would still have a long way to go in showing that crabs can gain lungs when they never had them (regardless of the amount of time). Imagine these crabs living in water their whole lives. If they're slowly transitioning into lungs, then where are they breathing in the meantime? Because at the same time, the complex behaviors for how to live on land would have to accidentally mutate alongside these lungs (which is still a simplified version of how something like this would take place). Assuming this is even possible in the first place, we're talking about horrible odds for the crab, and you would have us believe that this happens all the time...everywhere in nature.
I think you forget its not just the lungs that need to evolve, its the ability to use them correctly, as well as the behavior to transition the animal onto land. I might like those odds if it only had to happen once or twice in the history of life, but thousands and thousands of times?
And that's all without having to tackle the problem of a lack of ADDED genes. I know why you're getting confused, because genes and DNA are constantly in transition in nature. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't have beneficial mutations. Albeit, there are detrimental mutations that actually end up being beneficial. The problem with those are that they still require a gene to become faulty or a gene to become corrupt. Both of which still won't allow for the addition of new features to existing animals. Faulty genes don't produce wings, they simply remove the wings.
Quote:
unable to mate with the older species they arose from. This is why a seemingly "new" form can appear.
I agree. These new forms can appear which render the animal incapable of reproducing with its 'ancestor.' However, you still haven't shown this not to be devolution. If a species is just a group that can reproduce, so what? The loss of genetic data prevents seemingly similar animals from reproducing with each other all the time in nature, thus creating a new 'species', but again we're only dealing with loss. Evolution requires 'uphill' evolution in order to explain how a bacteria can become a fish. A new species being created lacks an explanation for how that becomes possible.
Quote:
However, certain forms are indeed far more succesful than others, and once that form is reached, then evolution can slow down immensely..and the animal appear to have reached its apex state. Consider the crocodilians. Crocodile, aligators, are more or less unchanged for millions of years. This i because no more major adaptation was needed, and mutatiosn didnt favor any particular direction. So the animals have stayed more or less how they are since the time of the dinosaurs(who have long since changed, into birdies).
Or maybe they were just created with the ability to live successfully in their environment. We can sit here and talk about both of our opinions all day long, but lets stick to concrete proof for a while.
Quote:
Dinos didn't just one day grow wings and fly off.
Quit patronizing me. I may not believe evolution, but I know how it works.
Quote:
In fact flying may have been a secondary adaptation after the winged arms were fairly developed. The feathers may have orginaly served some other purpose; it has been speculated that they developed in response to the animals becoming warm-blooded (endo-thermic), and need for insulation (like fur in mammals).
You keep speculating, or repeating other peoples' speculations, but it serves no purpose here.
This entire statement becomes null when I ask, "How did this happen?" I know your answer, evolution, but we need to get straight to the root of the problem and explore whether or not evolution is possible. Once we get that ironed out, then we can deal with the fine print.
Quote:
The wing itself is no more than an elongated arm with minimized fingers(phalanges).
That shows exactly how little you know. Its MUCH more complex than that. If the wing were just a remix of a hand, birds would be unable to fly because they would be too heavy. Also, you're still not speaking of proof, you're just speculating.
Quote:
Look a sake skeleton. Snake fossils have been found with more devloped limbs
How does that prove that these limbs are vestigial? We're dealing with a trace of history. I'm not going to get into how scientists in the past have made MONUMENTAL mistakes when evaluating fossils. That's important to know that in hundreds of documented cases, scientists have been wrong about fossils time and again, either mistaking other animals within the stomach of an animal as part of the animal, or mistaking a pig for an early human being.
However, these legs prove nothing. My hypothesis is that the snake used them to swim. We simply can't infer enough from the skeleton to know everything about the animal.
However, I'm going to save the rest of my argument against vestigial limbs for a moment here.
Quote:
Why would snakes have limbs, or vestigial limbs? Becasue they once had 4 legs like lizards, and eventually lost them because their evolving body-type and life-behavior didnt need them. But the traces of thier past can be seen i their anatomy tday.
Before I tell you why these limbs aren't actually vestigial I want to point out the problem with vestigial limbs.
In principle, its not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use will be discovered in the future. This has happened hundeds of times. Remember the tailbone? Turns out it is actually integral to keeping the shape of our skeletal structure. In females, the tailbone actually assists in birth. The appendix? Turns out it helps the immune system. Yet for the longest time scientists claimed this proved we evolved from something else that used these things.
But, that argument aside, snakes have been known to use those mini-limbs during reproduction. They act as claspers. So if they're not just sitting there, unused, then how can they possibly be vestigial?
There's still another problem with vestigial organs. They don't prove what evolutionists like you need to have undeniable proof of: positive mutations.
Let's say that these vestigial organs actually existed (which I've just shown they do not and will continue to show you if you want to keep bringing up examples), if they exist they just prove devolution. Or the loss of data once again. If a snake loses its legs, is it gaining something new? No. You're inferring that just because they have these useless legs (which actually have a use) that means they came from something else. The proof simply isn't there.
Its well within the realm of creationism to have seemingly useless organs. Its just the natural process of the loss of genetic data. However, the only observable changes must still occur within the genetic range of that creature. If on the other hand we could see that snakes were growing legs, that would be a whole other story because that's what evolution would require.
Quote:
The vestigial gills in coconut crabs today do indicate that the creature once lived in water
You didn't even read my response at all, did you? The gills are not useless. The crabs breath in the water while still developing, and then transition over to the land. Its only once on the land that they lose the ability to breath underwater. Thus, the gills have a purpose.
I admit, ADULT crabs will drown if they stay underwater. But their young are required to spend AN ENTIRE MONTH in the ocean. They use the gills to breath, much like tadpoles use gills to breath before they become a frog. You're just getting confused because unlike frogs, the crabs don't lose the gills when they grow old. Doesn't make anything vestigial.
Quote:
Stragnge, because a human fetus can surved immersed in amniotic fluids.
If you're implying that we can breath underwater at some point, then you have a lot of catching up to do with the scientific world. We don't need to breath while in the womb because our mother's blood is being pumped through the umbilical chord. What does blood contain? Oxygen.
Quote:
It's one thing to bash sciences when lack understanding of them
I never once bashed science. I love science. I'm bashing your faith in something that can't be proven (something unscientific). The fact that you're not willing to deal with real concrete proof is your own problem. Evolution isn't science, because science deals with what can be 'proved.' With the exception of theoretical sciences, but those are called theoretical for a reason. You're treating evolution as if it has abundant proof. Something that completely lacks proof, and exists only as a 'likely' idea in the minds of scientists isn't my idea of a sound theory. But I'll let my proof speak for me. Let's just let this keep playing out.
Quote:
I can go on and on about evolution, biology and so on. But the fact is you dont want to to hear this, because you emotionally dont the implications of like evolution. You obviously dont understand the science behind it.
Have you read my mind? Do you somehow know what I'm afraid of? Maybe you're afraid that you might actually have to be accountable for your own actions. These types of arguments are useless. If you're right, then stick to the proof.
Furthermore, don't question my scientific understanding. I'm not the one who said wings are basically hands (a statement that would have scientists spinning in their graves). I've stuck to the science of evolution this entire time. You have no real answer to my points except supposed proof, which I have no problem refuting time and again, or you just provide your own opinions. Just because you 'think' evolution happened doesn't mean it did. Half of your post consisted of what you thought had happened. Just provide the examples, they'll speak for themselves.
The problem is that you can't provide the examples, and when you do there's always a scientific answer that refutes them. So keep them coming. The truth can keep showing you why you're wrong for as long as you insist on being wrong.
Quote:
but its down right rediculous they know so little about thier own religion but try to use it as proof positive in arguments
Resorting to bashing christianity is counterproductive here.
In fact, you've had absolutely nothing useful to add to this discussion, Grimber. You have no proof to back up your belief, you just keep attacking christianity as if that somehow confirms that you're right. Start your own thread to bash religion if that's all you feel like doing.
----------------------------------------
Several people have posted by this time, so I'll have to respond now.
Quote:
No, but the fission is an important part for the sun to be a sun.
Yup. And we actually have proof of fission. We don't of evolution. Let's not get sidetracked here. Let's just keep focused on whether or not evolution is possible.
Quote:
if you doubt that lizzards can get wings, then you have to doubt the rules of genetics and not evoulution!
I don't doubt that you can force a reprogram of a lizard to gain wings. I do doubt that it can happen naturally however, because we simply have no proof of it happening naturally. We have lizards with wings, no doubt, but you're the one who isn't willing to accept the possibility that it was created that way. If that were an intermediate animal, then the wings would have to be useless. Which I highly doubt they are. A fish with wings would still have the wings for a reason. The wings don't just sit there for the fun of it.
Quote:
If a bunch of ape like creatures are able to manage this,
That's exactly the problem. The only way stuff like this can happen is if we FORCE it to happen. You'll never see a human ear grow on a mouse without intervention. Us tampering with genetics is proof only of what an aggressive force can have on genetics, not what a passive force (like nature) can have.
Quote:
what makes you think that the huge power of something like mother nature
You've managed to replace God with your own god: nature. If nature is so passive, then how does it have any power? This is what I mean when I say materialism is a religion. If nature isn't god-like, then it has no power, and it is passive as has been said. That's besides the point, however.
Anyway, I'll just wait for the next string of responses.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66602
04/01/06 00:25
04/01/06 00:25
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Depends on which kind of evolution you're talking about. Macro or micro. They both represent two different ideas.
Only to creationists. To biologists they are the same process with the distinction that macro evolution describes a change from one species to another, whereas micro evolution occurs intra-species. However, the process, mutation and natural selection, is the same.
Quote:
And that's all without having to tackle the problem of a lack of ADDED genes. I know why you're getting confused, because genes and DNA are constantly in transition in nature.
Speaking of confusion: genes are just a certain arrangement of bases. Rearrange the bases and you either get more or less genetic information (depending on whether you end up with junk DNA or something that can be expressed).
Quote:
But that doesn't change the fact that you can't have beneficial mutations.
And what do you think prevents beneficial mutations ? There is no filter that allows harmful mutations but prevents beneficial ones. Just like there is no filter that allows intra-species changes but prevents inter-species ones.
Quote:
Both of which still won't allow for the addition of new features to existing animals. Faulty genes don't produce wings, they simply remove the wings.
It seems that you automatically equate mutation with faulty. It just means change. If the change is harmful to the organism it won't be inherited, if it's neutral or beneficial it's got a chance to be inherited.
Quote:
Evolution requires 'uphill' evolution in order to explain how a bacteria can become a fish. A new species being created lacks an explanation for how that becomes possible.
A new species being created (i.e. macro evolution) is just a side-effect; albeit one that happens quite frequently.
Quote:
This entire statement becomes null when I ask, "How did this happen?" I know your answer, evolution, but we need to get straight to the root of the problem and explore whether or not evolution is possible. Once we get that ironed out, then we can deal with the fine print.
The answer to this is quite obviously "yes it is possible, as evolution occurs in nature and laboratories all the time". However, you seem to have a very specific form of evolution in mind: "adding new visible intra-species features to mammals". For general evolution bacterial resistance and drosophila speciation provide examples that can easily be reproduced.
Quote:
I'm not going to get into how scientists in the past have made MONUMENTAL mistakes when evaluating fossils. That's important to know that in hundreds of documented cases, scientists have been wrong about fossils time and again
..and who discovered these mistakes? Right, scientists. And you are claiming that even though specific instances of mistakes or outright fraud have been identified these same scientists are unable to notice that their entire field is wishful thinking ??
Quote:
Evolution isn't science, because science deals with what can be 'proved.' With the exception of theoretical sciences, but those are called theoretical for a reason.
Actually it's the other way around, only theoretical sciences have proofs, empirical science has evidence and can't have proof.
Quote:
We have lizards with wings, no doubt, but you're the one who isn't willing to accept the possibility that it was created that way.
..and your evidence for creation out of nothing is ?
Quote:
If that were an intermediate animal, then the wings would have to be useless.
Who says they have to be useless ? All that is required is for them to not be harmful and to not prevent birth so that their plan remains in the genepool. If they are beneficial to the organism, so much the better since then its chances of having more offspring with the same changes improves.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66603
04/01/06 00:29
04/01/06 00:29
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Furthermore, don't question my scientific understanding. I'm not the one who said wings are basically hands
Of course wings are arms/hands. They are the same structure, modified for a different purpose. I think I have to question your scientific understanding, when you dont understand basic anatomy. It's funny that you say you understand science and yet deny evolution. You cant deny evolution and still accept any modern biological science, because Darwin is the foundation of modern biology.
Therapod dinosaurs had arms with hands of a type. These arms became elongated and changed until they were more suited for flying than grasping, but archeaopterix could still probably grasp with its wings/hands. There are even today bird species with vestigial claws.
(http://www.buschgardens.org/infobooks/Raptors/birdphysical.html)
The existence of vestigiality is not open for debate. You must accept this. Vestigiality is only explained by evolution.
Back to the coconut crab problem: the crab has rudimentary gills that function when it is still devloping and then the function is lost. The gills once had full function--the crab's lifecycle indicates it.
The vestigial limbs in snakes are also clear: they are remnants of the snakes' lizard stage. Snakes and lizards diverged at one point, the snake lost the limbs becasue they adopted new behaviors. The link I showed you were fossil snakes that still had limbs prottruding, but modern snakes have very vestifgial limbs in the skeleton. This shows that the expression of the limbs have lessened with time. This can only be explained by evolution.
There are many more examples, but it all revolves around one thing: only one theory can explain thse anatomical realities--evolution.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#66604
04/01/06 00:34
04/01/06 00:34
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
The existence of vestigiality is not open for debate. You must accept this. Vestigiality is only explained by evolution.
I don't want to put words in Irish_Farmer's mouth, but I think he understands that. His claim seems to be, that additions to an organism's anatomy require a miracle, whereas loss of features is explained by genetics/evolution.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66605
04/01/06 00:41
04/01/06 00:41
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
-->..What makes you think it (God) isnt bound by knowledge or time? the term "almighty" doesnt leave room or space for anything to be bound to. -->.. Macro or micro evolution This in the same time are theories of creationists and not part of the "classic" theory of evolution. The funny thing is that people try to disproove one theory of evolution with creating another one. -->..Evolution requires 'uphill' evolution in order to explain how a bacteria can become a fish.. wrong. evolution is not some kind of "pimp my genetic code". its a random change. -->.. If a snake loses its legs, is it gaining something new? No... again. evolution is no exchange or upgrade procedure. you dont want to understand that. You dont lose anything and gain anything else in exchange. Its nor a roleplay game. -->..And we actually have proof of fission... really, where exactly do you have the proof of it? Its a theory as any other. -->..I don't doubt that you can force a reprogram of a lizard to gain wings. thats again not the point. its not about forcing something to grow or go away. Thing that happen are genetic mutations. Things that shift from the genetic norm and occure often enough get a chance to undergo the process of evolution and form other genetic constelations and so forth. -->..If that were an intermediate animal, then the wings would have to be useless.. there are several bodyparts and organs in the human body not used anymore. Same goes for animals. -->..The only way stuff like this can happen is if we FORCE it to happen. as far as i can remeber nobody forced us to lose the functionality of our appendix. also please explain me this:  What does he do with his arms? -->..You've managed to replace God with your own god: nature... thats what you are saying and its not the truth. first of all i have never mentioned that god doesnt exist. and furthermore havent i stated that i think the nature has replaced god. The only thing i say is that there are natural rules, powers and processes that support the theory of evolution. While i havent seen one that supports the idea that a god like creature has formed us 8000 years ago (i see lots of reasons to doubt it but none to believe it) as science also religion has to allow questions and theories or it gets not believable anymore. Thats my oppinion. And while guys 3000 years back thought vulcanos are god made i think we are allowed to "update" this view of the world.
|
|
|
|
