If evolution theory were true

  • Thread starter Thread starter abcdefg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
AndyF:
How would you explain to a copper/stone age man the theory of DNA , or there was an animal the size of a 2 story house that once lived and took cubic yard chunks out if it’s prey, or genetic mutation,or a man was made from mud(primal matter),etc?
You would write a book in a such a way and reveal just what he can handle until he can formulate hypothesis and reason.
So,* voila*, we have what we have now. No big mystery really.
Andy
Click to expand...
The 2-story house that lived and took cubic yard chunks out of its prey is described quite nicely in Job. They knew about dinosaurs.
I agree that God only gave peoplewhat they could handle at the time of the Bible. The Mary stuff, for example, as well as the other Saints and their help and intercession.

I disagree with you though that we are more able to handle evolution now. Maybe we are mentaly, but spiritualy we are not. Some people are able, in their sinfull, thus mind bent on justifying they search for anything that can come between them and the eyes of God.
The more layers they can get from science to insulate them from thinking about His existence the better for them. Evolution does not tell us how the existence of the Universe came about. Neither does evolution. So why does it comfort so many atheists? Why does it comfort so many sinfull believers? Because it is a layer of insulation. Some can even justify in their supposed scientific brains that evolution trumps God somehow.
Patrick
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Some theists who believe in evolution theory explain these to me:
1)Why Genesis chapters of the Bible whose author is God were phrased in such a way that exaggerated God’s role in the creation of life especially human and fooled all the people for 1000 years?
  1. Why God, since He is omnipotent and can draw humans much closer to Him by creating human body from dust and give him life by a breath, instead allowed monkey become a man by pure chance or made human soul and planted it in the monkey.
Click to expand...
Here’s some simple algebra that throws evolution’s validity out the window and proves that there must be some Intelligent Creator.

Time + Nothing =/= Universe.

the laws of thermodynamics say energy cannot be created, which means matter cannot exist, which means no forces of gravity or magnetism, which means no universe, so unless we’re not really here, someone must have wanted us to be here.😑
 
40.png
landstander:
Here’s some simple algebra that throws evolution’s validity out the window and proves that there must be some Intelligent Creator.

Time + Nothing =/= Universe.

the laws of thermodynamics say energy cannot be created, which means matter cannot exist, which means no forces of gravity or magnetism, which means no universe, so unless we’re not really here, someone must have wanted us to be here.😑
Click to expand...
Besides not being correct, what does that have to do with evolution? :confused:
 
Jason, I would assume the infrared vision of pit vipers (which produces an image on the optic tectum that is integrated with the image from the “true eyes”) is not mediated by The Pax6/eyeless gene.

Would this then be an example of convergent evolution? The intermediate infrared “eyes” in various snakes shows an evolution which is comparable to the evolution of eyes in mollusks.
 
I Leatherman:
When someone says evolution, what exactly do they mean. 😃
Click to expand...
In general; descent with modification. And that’s a fact. Jack.

Want more information?
Start at the beginning of this thread and read and study the resources at any of the links posted by Phil, Alec, Steve or Tim. Have a good look at Phil’s site, Alec’s site and Talk Origins. There’s plenty there to wet the inquisitive whistle.
 
While we’re at it – how do those who reject evolution explain extinction?

If species can go extinct, and no new species are produced through evolution, the earth should have been lifeless long ago.
 
The Barbarian:
Jason, I would assume the infrared vision of pit vipers (which produces an image on the optic tectum that is integrated with the image from the “true eyes”) is not mediated by The Pax6/eyeless gene.

Would this then be an example of convergent evolution? The intermediate infrared “eyes” in various snakes shows an evolution which is comparable to the evolution of eyes in mollusks.
Click to expand...
Great question! Although I cannot find any paper looking at it specifically, I would doubt that Pax6/eyeless coordinates development of the pit organs in snakes. The pit organs are made up of trigeminal primary sensory neurons. Thus, they are of a completely different origin than retinal photoreceptors or neurons. (That said, Pax3 is involved with some trigeminal differentiation and therefore it or a homolog might be part of its differentiation, and since the Pax genes are all related…)

Now as far as convergent/divergent evolution, it all depends on what you are comparing and how you are doing the comparison. That is, the pit organ might be divergent from other multimodal trigeminal sensory organs (the trigeminal innervates the whiskers in mice as one example). I’d hesitate to call the pit organ convergent with the eye, though. The pit organ uses a completely different mode of sensation from the eye (though the exact mechanism for its reception is still debated). I don’t think the pit organ is image forming, and the projection to tectum is not, in my opinion, sufficient to call them the same. Many sensory organs project to similar nuclei (such as the integration of auditory and visual for something we’re more familiar with). I’d say the pit organ is a fascinating organ, but I’d not call it convergent with the eye any more than I’d call any other sense convergent with the eye.
JRM
 
I Leatherman:
When someone says evolution what exactly do they mean. 😃
Click to expand...
The theory of Evolution rests on physical observations:

The early history of the universe and the early history of the solar system are exact parallels to **evolution ** - no-one was around to observe them, but they left marks on the universe that we can read today to conclude how and when they happened. Scientists have shown that the age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.

The following sciences use the same logical tools as evolutionary biology:
• Cosmology: origin of the universe
• Cosmology: formation of the home galaxy - Milky Way
• Cosmology: formation of the solar system
• Cosmology: formation of the earth
• Astronomy: Stellar evolution
• Geology: science of the earth herself
• Palaeo-tectonics: science of the migration of
continental plates
• Palaeo-magnetism: science of the history of the
earth’s magnetic field
• Palaeo-ecology and palaeo-climatology - the
environment of the ancient world
• Paleontology - science of prehistoric life on earth
• Archaeology: science of prehistoric or unrecorded
human endeavors
• Fundamental particle physics (relies on indirect
observation - look up cloud chamber)

So evolution is not unique - any quarrel you have with the methods of Evolutionary biology applies to a wide range of scientific endeavor.

(I memorized this a long time ago when first I read it. Hum, who the dickens was the person that wrote it…???Thinking…thinking…trying to remember…wait a minute, i think i remember…oh, these long distant trips do me in…i do dink… it’s coming back…yup, a scientist…wait…give me a second… 😉 Ah, forget it! All that really matters is that I’m flowing along with it…You can’t have one without the other. 😉 Plain and simple truth, it’s evolution. 😃 Figeratively speaking, evolution is like walking around with a pair of fury **pink ** slippers while sipping a frap over at Starbucks in the morning. A true wake-up call to smell the coffee! 🙂 )
 
Thanks,
interesting, as evolutionary proof must be scientific and scientists
relay the science, what happens to reality when I see this?:

‘Experts Question Evolution On Scientific Grounds’

Two eminent biologists from Moscow State University, Lev Beloussov and Vladimir Voeikov, have joined more than 400 scientists in signing a declaration questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution.

"Dr.David Berlinski, a mathematician with the Discovery Institute, has described Darwin’s theory of evolution as ‘the great white elephant of contemporary thought.’

It is, he said,‘large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.’ "
 
I Leatherman:
Thanks,
interesting, as evolutionary proof must be scientific and scientists
relay the science, what happens to reality when I see this?:

‘Experts Question Evolution On Scientific Grounds’

Two eminent biologists from Moscow State University, Lev Beloussov and Vladimir Voeikov, have joined more than 400 scientists in signing a declaration questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution.

"Dr.David Berlinski, a mathematician with the Discovery Institute, has described Darwin’s theory of evolution as ‘the great white elephant of contemporary thought.’

It is, he said,‘large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.’ "
Click to expand...
Get a new pair of glasses 😃 Or take the blindfolders off. 👍 You have a choice.
 
Thats exactly what I’ve done, I’ve put on my glasses and actually read something written by scientists about science.
And without my blindfolds, I find that all is not well in the Garden of Science - regardless of what people told me (when I had the blind folds on 😃 )
 
For supposedly intelligent, honest, scientifically dissinterested people, ye havent answered my question very well at all. 🙂

Maybe Heretical Science needs a Jesuit Equivalent to offer a reasoned argument as to why 400 scientists have left the Faith. :rolleyes:
 
Because most of them aren’t biologists and the question they were actually asked is a little misleading?
 
40.png
zian:
That’s the spirit, buffalo.

Next add a faceguard. 😃
Click to expand...
I think the next positive mutation will be teflon feet so they can walk on glue traps. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top