T
tjm190
Guest
…no, they’re just separate topics.
- Status
L
liquidpele
Guest
Uh… I didn’t realize I ever stated the reverse, but okayWOW! You have come a long way liquid.Next thing you know you will be arguing for the existence of God.
E
edwest2
Guest
You’re joking, right? After billions of generations of microbes we should start getting novel organs. Correct? Lungs, gills, eyes? It doesn’t work. That’s why some scientists exposed fruit flies to radiation to see if they “evolved.” What happened? The radiation caused their existing genetic information to go haywire but that’s it. Why did they pick fruit flies? The time factor. A short life span gave them many short-lived generations to evolve. But no evolution occurred.
Bits and pieces of science have been attached to an evil, agenda driven machine. By believing that a mechanism made you, you have: Man Created God on the sides of buses and billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond Belief.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
Please do not put straw men into my mouth. Such actions will lose you respect. I will say that if these mutations spread then we will be better able to cope with a rich fat-heavy diet and better able to resist Malaria.
Your claim that there were no beneficial mutations was incorrect.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Enough to show that any claim that “there are no transitional fossils” is false.
rossum
C
cassini
Guest
A very reasonable and good post pzona. Let me tell you my story and maybe it will help you understand us NON-EVOLUTIONISTS (I make this distinction because evolutionists label anyone who does not believe in evolution or in your case understand evolution, as creationists. Trouble is by ‘creationists’ they mean ignorant of science, or in your case do not understand the science of it), or a religious nut who believes God created it because a book says God created it. As a NON-EVOLUTIONIST I mean one who cannot take evolutionary theories seriously as worthy of the name science, philosophy, yes, imagination yes, but not science…
I was once a full paid up member of the evolutionary gang. I considered anyone who did not believe in the ‘FACT’ as ignorant, not educated like I was, and at best God believing, Bible believing naieve holy Joes.
One day I was given a book by an American who had a family, was a great guy, drank a pint, watched football, excelled at his profession. It pointed out the impossibilities in the evolution story. It pointed out that when evolutionists themselves couldn’t believe what they were advocating they invented a new theory, the giant step theory in which one kind gave birth to another kind as much by accident as anything. It pointed out that no kind was ever observed to change to another kind. It pointed out that there were no kinds that had the ability to evolve as every kind should have if evolution is true. There is not one kind with any BITS evolving something as evolution should be producing. No, evereything is FIXED, nothing evolving. I could go on and fill another book.
Anyway, it took me TEN minutes to recognise I had been mistaken. God had nothing to do with it as I was on AWOL at the time some 20 years. My INTELLIGENCE just could not retain my evolutionary beliefs once some of these things were spelled out for me. It was at this stage I had to look at the Genesis theory. This theory made perfect sense, Once one got over the ex nihilo bit and scientific thinking was then applied it was PERFECT. The Flood made sense also and how the different kinds of fossils got buried where they are. shells, as in the sea, cannot move to avoid the sediment falling on top of them like land animals and birds. So one would expect this order in any fossil record. The millions of dinosaur fossils found in heaps also comply with a massive flood rather than the one die here one die there evolution theory.
Later when I studied the biological credibility of one species gaining in genes and how evolutionists were conjuring up new theories to meet the challenge I was further convinced.
What I cannot understand is how others do not react to the REASONING like I did. I cannot understand how intelligent people can believe a living cell came from non living matter, or a billion such cells from inorganic matter. I cannot believe anyone could believe in the evolution of life as each had to evolve the means to survive. To believe evolution theory requires further belief in more and more absurd theories to keep mother theory credible.
So, even if I was an atheist I could not stretch my reasoning that far.
C
cassini
Guest
Ah Rossum not so fast. Who says they are ‘transitional’ fossils? If every biologist in the world agreed the are then it would be hard to deny But the history of frauds demonstrated in this field has discredited it and current denials in studies show they are by no means accepted by all biologists as transitional.
R
rossum
Guest
So you have no problem with:
Eukaryotes > ---------- > billions of generations > ---------- > still eukaryotes
You realise that Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, all the Therapsids, all mammals, all apes, all hominids and all Homo sapiens are “still eukaryotes”. You are effectively saying that you have no problem with us evolving from earlier apees because all of those earlier apes were “still eukaryotes”.
rossum
L
liquidpele
Guest
95% of scientists is not enough?
C
cassini
Guest
Thanks for the ladder picture reggieM, I enjoyed it so much, it rather put us arguing guys in perspective.Good points, Ed.
http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Unsafe Ladder.jpg
Evolutionist-landscaper: “The origin point of this ladder has nothing to do with the tremendous sense of safety I feel up here! Pay no attention to the guy holding it – he’s completely irrelevant also. If he walks away, I’ll still be doing fine because this part of the ladder I’m standing on is as solid as can be. I checked it yesterday – yep, all the steps are tight. No problem!”
C
cassini
Guest
No, it takes 100% for certainty. Just as 100% of scientists agree there is salt in the sea.
T
tjm190
Guest
By this logic, we have no idea whether or not the U.S. government was behind 9/11, whether or not we actually landed on the moon, whether or not the Pope is the anti christ, or whether or not you exist.
E
edwest2
Guest
Here is my problem, as you put it.
Microevolution:
Billions of generations > ------------------------ > Still viruses and bacteria
Macroevolution:
Billions of generations > -------------------------- > Cell, complex cell, marine life, amphibians, land dwelling creatures, apes, man. And the strange thing is we still have single celled, asexually reproducing life, groups of cells, marine life, amphibians, apes and men.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
So you’re okay with Single cell Eukaryotes ----------------> humans?
E
edwest2
Guest
T
tjm190
Guest
Microevolution- changes within a species that enhance the species ability to survive
Macroevolution- when some or one of the aforementioned changes renders one part of the species unable to produce viable offspring with the other, in effect creating a new species.
Macroevolution- when some or one of the aforementioned changes renders one part of the species unable to produce viable offspring with the other, in effect creating a new species.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Huh… I guess Zygote ----------------> human is just more atheist propaganda.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ed, have you never studied biology? You seem essentially uniformed about the discipline and the ideas with which its practitioners work…
P
pzona
Guest
cassini,
I’ve heard many stories like yours. Personally, I don’t believe that non evolutionists are stupid or anything like that. It’s a shame when people do make that generalization. I’m going to try to stick to the topic, but first let me go off on a tangent. I believe it’s wrong for anyone to claim to subscribe to any one school of thought in all aspects, unless they’ve read through it pretty thoroughly and honestly comprehend it. On that note, I wouldn’t say I’m a pure evolutionist at all. I’ve read a good bit of literature on it (nothing incredibly advanced though) and most of it makes sense to me. I can’t speak for what I haven’t read, and there are some parts which I do have problems with.
However, this is where I see a major difference between science and religion. Concerning the parts I don’t fully understand or agree with, I’m open to hear any explanation or clarification. With science, there’s no problem with disagreement on some aspects because it isn’t “right” or “wrong” (in most cases anyway; some things are pretty indisputable). With religion, the dogma must be accepted one hundred percent or not at all.
Getting back to evolution though, I’m not a pure evolutionist. There are so many aspects of the development of life that are still complete mysteries. Anyone who says they have all the answers, even if that person is a scientist, is either mistaken or lying. Thinking for oneself is, in my opinion, the most important skill a person can have. Science is about questioning things, which, unfortunately, isn’t an idea which is well represented or understood. There are many scientists and evolutionists who will not listen to arguments against their view, and this is a shame. I guess my main point is that questioning things you don’t understand is really the best thing you can do when looking for truth.
I’ve heard many stories like yours. Personally, I don’t believe that non evolutionists are stupid or anything like that. It’s a shame when people do make that generalization. I’m going to try to stick to the topic, but first let me go off on a tangent. I believe it’s wrong for anyone to claim to subscribe to any one school of thought in all aspects, unless they’ve read through it pretty thoroughly and honestly comprehend it. On that note, I wouldn’t say I’m a pure evolutionist at all. I’ve read a good bit of literature on it (nothing incredibly advanced though) and most of it makes sense to me. I can’t speak for what I haven’t read, and there are some parts which I do have problems with.
However, this is where I see a major difference between science and religion. Concerning the parts I don’t fully understand or agree with, I’m open to hear any explanation or clarification. With science, there’s no problem with disagreement on some aspects because it isn’t “right” or “wrong” (in most cases anyway; some things are pretty indisputable). With religion, the dogma must be accepted one hundred percent or not at all.
Getting back to evolution though, I’m not a pure evolutionist. There are so many aspects of the development of life that are still complete mysteries. Anyone who says they have all the answers, even if that person is a scientist, is either mistaken or lying. Thinking for oneself is, in my opinion, the most important skill a person can have. Science is about questioning things, which, unfortunately, isn’t an idea which is well represented or understood. There are many scientists and evolutionists who will not listen to arguments against their view, and this is a shame. I guess my main point is that questioning things you don’t understand is really the best thing you can do when looking for truth.
E
edwest2
Guest
Respectfully, I must thank all those who pointed out flaws in my thinking about biology. On the other hand, the more I read here, and the more I read attempts to distract, misdirect and otherwise discredit my comments, the more I’m convinced that what is being defended is a Godless ideology, loosely based on a few scientific ideas.
That this Ideology must be made acceptable to all Christians while simultaneously promoting atheism to the broader public through signs and billboards like Man Created God, and Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. Science based Idolatry is being promoted here. While I’m told over and over and over again that science cannot study God or the supernatural or that science is silent about God and the supernatural - that is obviously a lie.
A deception campaign is going on. Stop listening to the Church or your Minister. Listen to science! Science will heal you, guide you, and let you do all those things religion says are sinful! Join Science and live!
Peace,
Ed
- Status