Other human species. Interesting stuff.
What is your knowledge of evolution, physics, biology, genetics, astronomy? How can you be critical of something you know nothing about?
You claim scientists are making stuff up as they go but have no understanding of the scientific method. It is in fact YOU, who is making stuff up about scientists, science and the theory of evolution, which you have no understanding of. I suggest reading and studying a subject before you criticize it. At least I have read the bible, front to back and was brought up in a religious family. I know the christian religion quite well and am able to see it for what it is.
I am also a scientist and understand the rigorous process for something to be published in a peer review journal. The amount of double checking facts and cross-referencing involved. Something you are unwilling to do or make an effort for. The amount of criticism and testing and verification a theory goes through, especially one as controversial as evolution, for it to be accepted is beyond you. So please, don't criticize it when you have no idea how something works and are too lazy to make the effort to understand it.
Fact: Life did not spring into being all at once. It has been a gradual process beginning over 3 billion years ago. Dinosaurs and humans did not share the earth and are separated by over 60 million years. This is a fact that cannot be denied and is overwhelmingly supported by the fossil record. Therefore Genesis is false.
Fact: Rabbits do not chew their cud and Bats are not birds, they are mammals. Therefore Deuteronomy 14:7 and 18 are false
Fact: The universe was not made in 7 days. It is at least 14 billion years old. Genesis false.
Noah's Ark, it is impossible. The dimensions of the Ark are given in the bible, "the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits". That is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.
Taking into account the mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, flowering plants, trees, mushrooms, algae, lichens, mosses that could not survive in the ocean for the 367 day duration of the flood, it would total approximately 1,800,000 species (this is a very conservative estimate). That's 3,600,000 individuals. Given the dimensions of the Ark, it is physically impossible to fit this many individuals into the boat.
Therefore Noah's Ark is physically impossible.
Also, with the earth now covered in ocean, all of the fresh water fish now inundated with salt water would have gone extinct.
In addition, the amount of fresh water (rain) needed to cover the earth would have changed the salinity of the ocean. Most marine life cannot survive in water of reduced salinity and would have died as a result of the influx of fresh water.
Therefore Noah's Ark is chemically impossible.
Also, if there had been a flood that killed the dinosaurs, the distribution of fossils would have been completely different. They would not have followed the timescale we see today and represented in evolution but scattered randomly and at even levels within the geologic layers.
Naoh's Ark is archeological impossible.
These are just a few examples of the bible's falsehoods. I can go on and on and on.
I will take a quote from earlier in this thread for you to understand:
Take a rabbit, any female rabbit (arbitrarily stick to females, for convenience: it makes no difference to the argument). Place her mother next to her. Now place the grandmother next to the mother and so on back in time. Back, back, back, back, back, back through the megayears, a seemingly endless line of female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter and her mother. We walk along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining them carefully like an inspecting general. As we pace the line, we'll eventually notice that the ancient rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern rabbits we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan't notice the trend from generation to generation, just as we can't see the motion of the hour hand on our watches - and just as we can't see a child growing, we can only see later that she has become a teenager, and later still an adult. An additional reason why we don't notice the change in rabbits from one generation to another is that, in any one century, the variation within the current population will normally be greater than the variation between mothers and daughters. So if we try to discern the movement of the 'hour hand' by comparing mothers with daughters, or indeed grandmothers with granddaughters, such slight differences as we may see will be swamped by the differences among the rabbits' friends and relations gambolling in the meadows round about. Nevertheless, steadily and imperceptibly, as we retreat through time, we shall reach ancestors that look less and less like a rabbit and more and more like a shrew (and not very like either).
This is in a nutshell a visual summary of evolution to a small scale, speciation. Speciation has been witnessed in the real world and documented over short periods of time. I don't understand how you can accept this part of the theory over a short period of time but can't accept the small incremental changes accumulating into a large change over an immense period of time. Add in the genetic evidence and fossil record and it just doesn't make sense to me how you can have that position.
I find it interesting you mentioning the human DNA and its length and complexity. Do you know how much of that code is not used? Most of the genes within our DNA are vestigial, or relics from our ancestors and are inactive. Did you realize we have a gene to make yolk sacks? It is a fossil gene. Our genome is loaded with fossil genes. Did you know the human fetus is covered in fur at 33-36 weeks? At the same point in gestation as the chimpanzee. We still retain that gene, but the fur is shed for us and continues to grow for chimpanzees.
I don't see how someone could understand the complexity of the human body and genome and not believe evolution and believe it was designed by some perfect creator. The only way people can believe that is by not understanding the complexity of the eye , or the genome, or nerve endings and their many imperfections. Lack of understanding is what leads to religion. What we don't understand we have called it god. God of the gaps. But the more we knew the less need for a god to fill those gaps. Our increased understanding and knowledge of the facts is what opens our eyes to religion's falsehoods.
If you don't understand how a caterpillar changes into a butterfly then I can't help you. May I suggest reading a few books? And if God wanted to show how nuts the theory of evolution was, don't you think he would have made it a little more obvious? Maybe make the evidence for evolution not so strong? Maybe not make the human genome practically identical to chimpanzee DNA, or not make the fossil record evolving from simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms over billions of years, or not have species embryological development display characteristics of evolutionary ancestors, or not have humans and many lifeforms with vestigial structures, or not have the genomes of humans and other creatures have vestigial genes or genes of common descent and not have the human genome dominated by inactive genes like the gene to make yolk, or not have species display adaptaions to their surroundings through natural selection, or not have the "design" of humans and other species so poorly designed and filled with imperfections, or......I can keep going if you would like.
Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Apr 18, 2012 at 12:05.
Creationists are injecting themsleves into scientific debate, with a motive and no scientific training or understanding, lying to promote their motive and making statements with no evidence to support their claims.
And now there is a growing sentiment in America that distrusts science and scientists and believes there is a conspiracy amongst scientists manipulating evidence.
This terrifies me. This allows people to disregard facts and evidence and say whatever they want without having to be held accountable.
I recommend looking in to it to anyone......Well, perhaps not to the theists, but certainly to those who are interested in discovery over forgery.
To resort to methods they preach against is the ultimate display of a sense of how finite their way - fear of the unknown and the use of that fear to dominate - are, and that reality is swiftly approaching. The less frightened people are, the less easily are they controlled. I can't believe it's taken this long, to be honest.
☆ I've only ever considered what I'm about to say, but have never spoken of it or queried anyone about it before, but when I see the war on atheism etc on the internet, I've only ever seen people of Anglo Saxon descent bashing atheism under the banner of some sort of Christian based religion. If there are any religious people of Anglo Saxon, Mayan or African descent who would like to answer my question, this is it:
☆ When the Holy scriptures were written over X amount of time, your ancestors were far separated from the scribes who wrote them. Your ancestors worshipped their own deities and had their own belief system about the afterlife and so forth.
Christianity was forced, raped, burned and slaughtered in to the lives of your ancestors and those they co-habitated with, as they were in to mine, and those ancestors - YOUR ancestors - were pried away from their beliefs ~ Pagan, Mayan etc.
How does that affect you from a mental standpoint? Knowing that a foreign people's religion, as immensely flawed as it is, was oppressed in to the lives of your bloodline. How does that float your boat?
When observing the complexity of the human eye in February of 1860, Darwin said this: "About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder"
When observing the amazing pea**** and it's beautiful feathers, Darwin said:"I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a pea****'s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"
Order came from chaos?
I think the argument of order in the universe is one of the main arguements one can have against evolution and the claim that an explosion, which came from nothing, created order from the orbiting of planets to the smallest organisms.
People ran with Darwin's theory yet Darwin himself doubted it and he had good reason to.
"The Knicks are back" - Amare
That's a very old quote. At the time science was incapable of revealing the mysticism behind the evolution of the human eye.
It took over a hundred years after Darwin died before it was studied and documented that the human eye was comparatively a whole different type of evolution with other animals/mammals.
Something to do with light sensors in the brain, as far as I remember.
2 different types of light sensors in animal (human) brains and human eyes evolved from the other sensor to that of animals.
Evolution in animal's eyes began from Sensor A, for example.
In humans (great apes), apes, lesser apes and very few species of monkey, it was Sensor B.
That's about as good as I can give you, you'd have to look it up.
Doesn't it bother you these creationist websites have to lie? Yet you still go to them?
About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.
For the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, if such structure can be arrived at by gradation, and I know from experience how hard it is to name any structure towards which at least some gradations are not known.
Darwin did not doubt evolution. Stop lying.
The argument of the eye from creationists is one of irreducible complexity and has been completely rejected by both logic and science and is why Intelligent Design is classified as a pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience: a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
If you REALLY want to know about the evolution of the eye, I suggest you research the facts and not read lies from creationist websites.
Here is a start:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
But I know you won't. You will keep spewing lies and never learn the facts because you don't want to know. You would rather believe your lies than make the effort to research anything yourself. Doesn't the bible tell you not to lie?
Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Jul 11, 2012 at 14:40.
Religion and Science fulfil to completely different purposes and for the sake of both we should keep them separate, especially since within this absurd argument Science for some begin to take over the function religion used to have.
You do not even need to move away too much from the Bible to see the formation of the different spheres: The whole idea that there was the word can also be seen as "there was information", or rather in-formation. This brings us directly into quantum physics (Heisenberg indeterminacy principle). On this level there is only pure chance. No patterns can be observed whatsoever, thus arbitrary information stored on a sub-atomic level generates variation. If pure chance starts on such a basic level, why do we need to suspect design in something infinitly less complex like the pea****'s tail feathers?
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand."