evolution

    • Re: evolution

      jnifw3nloi wrote:

      The rate of evolution for large, land and marine species is very slow, too slow for humanity to observe directly. However, we are very lucky in that a number of small species have evolved. Bacteria and small insects are perfect for evolution to be observed. One can perform experiemnts on bacteria by treating them with chemicals, different enviroments or just letting them reproduce. Because the bacteria reproduce quickly, the changes in their genetic material can be more redily observed. Exposing a sample of bacteria to antibacterial soap, for example, will lead to the death of a large number of them. The next generation, however, would be more resistant to that chemical. When it is treated with the chemical, less may die as a result. If this is repeated long enough, the remaining bacteria would have evolved methods to counteract the anti bacterial soap. Evolution! This effect is observable since many bacteria rproduce in less than 20 minutes allowing tests of multiple generations.


      Oh, that is hardly evidence of evolution.
      Evolution requires the gain of genetic information to go from molecules-to-man.
      A loss of information caused by mutations and natural selection result in an organism's adaptation to an environment.

      I wouldn't go passing that alleged proof off to too many creationists with half a mind. =)

    • Re: evolution

      Adaptation to the enviroment is evolution. It is not confined to the epocs during which man evolved. All things begin with a single cell. It takes a long amount of time for them to become mammals and humans. It takes a long time for humanity to evolve from the basic chemicals.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]

    • Re: evolution

      You creationists perfer to pass out no proof with much less than half a mind.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]

    • Re: evolution

      Saved-by-Grace wrote:

      Things like this that I believe will always seem obvious to me and crazy to you, and vice versa.
      Guess I've said it. Design implies a designer.
      Inanimate objects or not. Something designed them.
      My original point was with regards to the earth.
      If not from an intelligence... where'd it come from?


      Well, can you explain what makes it obvious to you? If they didn't come from intelligence, they came from previous organisms. Where did you come from (directly)--your parents, right? And they from their parents. The process just goes back and back, to the beginning of the universe. Why is the universe itself a less plausible starting place than God? Why do you believe it's unnecessary for God to have been designed, if even inanimate objects must be designed?


      Where'd the very first of anything come along?
      Sure, it's easy for me to say God in His omnipotence created Himself, but I don't believe that just because it's easy to say. I've come to figure out it's incredibly hard to convince anyone there's a God. Especially a God of the Bible.
      I believe it because it's true.
      Just tell me how you see it. Somewhere back in time, there had to be nothing.
      Absolutely nothing. How did something arise from that?


      There didn't ever have to be nothing. How could nothing be? It isn't. It's not. It's nothing. It's not a thing. It's not there. "Nothing" is only shorthand for "the absence of something."


      But with more to work off of as time goes by, it should keep picking up speed. I believe you've attested to that. So... after billions of years, nothing is able to completely change via macroevolution within a time capsule of a generation?


      There are natural limits to the degree to which something can change in a generation. It's not in an organism's genetic interest to change too much in a generation, because it's the genes themselves it's trying to preserve, not to mention it would not be able to reproduce with other member's of it's species. Diversity is just another adaptation, but if it goes to far, it destroys what the organism is trying to preserve.


      And tell me you're kidding.
      The fact that I'm not identical to my parents is evidence supporting macroevolution?


      No. But it's microevolution.


      Show me a set. I want to see where anything can be seen transformed into a complete other creature through fossils.
      Who cares if it takes thousands of them.
      If this view is so plausible and factual, I would assume those that believe it would bend backwards to put the undeniable evidence out there.


      They have.

      29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

      Check out section 1.4, "Transitional Forms."


      Link me up.


      nhc.ed.ac.uk/images/collections/mammals/bats/fossil.jpg
      fotosearch.com/comp/IMP/IMP140/ammonite-fossil.jpg
      geosociety.org/graphics/gv/PikesPeak/03FossilWasp.jpg
      hmnsmedia.org/files/marketing/…nornithosaurus-fossil.jpg
      1-800-fossils.com/images/Fossil_Reproduction.jpg
      cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/03/space.fossil/fossil.large.jpg
      fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galler…da/Cicada-Fossil-1024.jpg
      paleocurrents.com/img/fossil_show_2003.jpg
      upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…599px-Fossil-Ammonit1.jpg


      You're right, you could. But that's a far cry from something that would make sense.

      And those explanations are...?


      Languages change. As they change they diverge. It's extremely simple.
      I will find links for you the next time I post.

      What are your criteria for "making sense?"


      Not at all, and yet... exactly.
      But here.
      Let me put it this way.
      I'm not out to prove a creator by saying "Look, I've got nice little stories that make everything come together."
      You asked how I saw that everything fit.
      The idea is that we can look around at the Earth, see it for what it is... study phenomonas, notice the people and their differences... and then turn around and look at the Bible for an explanation that really fits and makes sense.
      I guess I was just using some of the arguments usually brought against me to show that Genesis and the rest of the Word do have answers.


      Now we're getting there. So it fits, but it also "makes sense." Makes sense in what way, and what makes that sense a valid reason to consider Genesis true?


      And...
      There. Are. Answers.


      Show me. Like you said, if it's so true and factual you should be bending over backwards to show me exactly why.


      It's unfair to present a radical unfalsifiable argument, and then tell someone to counter it with other arguments that can't be proven.
      What you have claimed is hardly evidence anyway.


      1. The evolution theory is falsifiable.
      2. I have given my argument. There's nothing unfair about asking you to support your argument that it's false.
      3. I have A. shown evidence of macrevolution and B. shown one way it could happen. So I've demonstrated it's possible if not probable. I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm just asking you to counter the argument I've given, instead of claiming that what I've shown is not enough.


      Isn't... "something could not have arisen from nothing" a refute? Heh...
      The only way I can refute you in something like this is by bringing up a more logical alternative. Something I believe I've done.


      Show me why macroevolution entails something arising from nothing.


      Read Matthew 24.
      Tell me if any of that sounds familiar.
      It won't be all too long. He's coming back. And when He does... you'll see Him my friend. :)


      Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


      I'll have to do that now.
      Been hoping for more time lately.
      When I do though... I wouldn't hold my breath for any sudden change of mind.


      Don't hold your breath for anything. Just hold your mind open a crack.


      Good, then I can say it with confidence. ;)
      Thank you.

      Ooh, okay. Thanks. =)


      Your welcome. :)
      And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
      -Walt Whitman

    • Re: evolution

      A Brief History of The Universe:
      Pre-Big Bang
      -All matter in the universe was collected in a singularity. The universe is in the greatest state of order
      Post-Big Bang
      -The singularity "explodes" releasing energy and expanding the universe, up to this point the entirety of the universe was that singularity
      -Energy turns into matter and forms rudimentary particles
      -Particles assemble into elements, chiefly hydrogen, composing 99.9% of all matter, and helium, .01% of all matter
      Time Passes
      -Hydrogen clouds become denser and reach temperature at which thermonuclear reactions begin with the hydrogen, stars are created
      -First 3 generations of stars are created and eventually die. It was during the time of these stars that the heavier elements, Carbon, Iron, Aluminum and so on were produced at the center of the stars
      Solar System
      -Our star is created from interstellar clouds of hydrogen and other elements. Matter around the star, chiefly the heavir metals, coalesces into planets
      -Earth is created from matter not used to build the star
      -Solar system stabilizes and the Earth begins to cool
      -Atmosphere of sulfur and carbondioxide forms on the Earth
      -Primitive life emerges as small, single-cell bacteria begin to thrive on the carbon dioxide and sulfur in the air
      -Photosynthesis emerges as the dominant autotropic method of production
      -Photosynthesis begins to creat an excess of oxygen, eventually leading to our present atmosphere
      -Higher order animals evolve, first marine later land
      -Complex mammals and primates evolve
      -Humanity evolves intelligence and begins to shape the enviroment

      This is the brief history of the univers. Even now, astronomers can see the same method by which our solar system was created occur in other worlds
      Extraterrestrial planets have been discovered. Even the death of stars has been observed.
      This can lead to two possible conclusions:
      1. God does not exists, and thus did not creat man
      2. God, as some force of powerful being, was responcible for the creation for he basic laws that govern our world bu has no influence in our world, and thus did not creat man
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]

    • Re: evolution

      I'd like to point out that not only does 'yom' not translate literally into a 24-hour day, but that (at least in the Torah) G-d created neither water nor darkness. However, those arguments only apply if you think the Torah is correct. If, as I do, you know that a bunch of men in a cave (yes an actual cave) wrote the Torah, & that the most popular sect of Judaism today was a severe minority way back when. Then it all gets a little foggy.

    • Re: evolution

      What are you saying?
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]

    • Re: evolution

      I'm saying that since the portions of jewish law that were 'confirmed' so to speak by being written down were chosen by men who then decided to make a holiday claiming that G-d gave the jewish people the Torah when they knew that was a blatant lie makes them & their writing a shaky source.
      But, just for a moment let's pretend I think the Torah is infallible. Never in Bereshit (Genesis) does G-d create either water or darkness. That seems pretty fishy to me.