The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 26, 2016, 08:05:54 PM
-
I've gotten the impression that the official flat earth theory community is one that prefers to reconcile the true nature of the shape of our world with strictly scientific means. I believe this is a disastrous misstep. One way to highlight this blunder is that 70-82% of Americans believe in God or a higher power... as opposed to roughly 15% of scientists that share the belief.
Now I understand the Zetetic Method dictates that we start with a question, and then a search for the answer using observations with no conclusion in mind. However, to answer the questions "How did we get here? Where did we come from?" using this method is obviously a tall order. The fact that belief in God is something that has to this point been strictly faith-based, despite thousands of years worth of scientists and "natural philosophers" on the Vatican's payroll attempting to prove the existence of a Benevolent Creator, attests to the difficulty.
Anyone with a rational, logical mind would have to agree it's absurd to believe someone or something, a magic man in the sky, could possibly be at the root of our existence.
Or is it? In my opinion, the more absurd concept is the only other competing, contemporary view: The Big Bang. Anyone that has ever looked at the sheer odds involved with modern science's heliocentric view of our Earth, has to agree they are astounding. The chance that the "rock" we live on ended up in precisely the place it needs to be in relation to our emergence, evolution and survival -the goldilocks theory - is unfathomable to anyone that purports to have a mind rooted in reason and logic.
With that said, the belief in heliocentric, orbiting spheres through vacuum space is Gospel in the mainstream mind. The same mainstream that expresses their overwhelming consensus on the existence of God. Do you not see the contradiction? Is this not absurd?!? The very model and concept "flat-earthers" are routinely ridiculed for is explained word for word in the first chapter of the most important book to all theology! I personally don't understand the disconnect. Whether it has arisen through centuries of planning, by those hoping to separate God from science altogether, or is a natural trend towards secularism, is anyone's guess.
One certain place we can trace this disconnect to is the advent of heliocentric theory which brings with it the idea that we are no longer the important, center of the known universe beings we believed to be, but instead just an lucky happenstance in a universe too vast to ever comprehend, our actions too insignificant to ever be important. Separating Man from his divine origins was no easy task, nonetheless, that is where we are in our present day.
In conclusion, there is a large population of people out there that somehow laugh at the possibility of an Earth created exactly as described in the book they unequivocally believe to be the word of God. These are the people that need to be exposed to the "Flat-Earth Theory." In my opinion, it is obviously a "square peg, round hole" scenario trying to convince the other segment of society that recognize themselves as atheist. But for those who look at the incredible odds that humanity is the result of a big bang and realize it's absurdity, let us educate them with a view of a world that puts them back into the center of the universe, regardless of its shape.
Thanks for the read, fellow truth seekers!
-
We don't use religious texts because they are vague and open to interpretation. Their authors use rather prominent methods of writing that allow for broad notions and mental gymnastics. There is no room for either in a forum devoted to the truth.
-
the sheer odds involved...are astounding. The chance that the "rock" we live on ended up in precisely the place it needs to be in relation to our emergence, evolution and survival -the goldilocks theory - is unfathomable to anyone that purports to have a mind rooted in reason and logic.
I hate this argument so much. Humanity wasn't flying around on a spaceship before it decided to settle on Earth. It's precisely because humanity emerged and evolved on Earth that it's suited to our survival. If humanity had emerged and evolved anywhere else, we'd be saying that that place was the "Goldilocks zone." Anyway, the earth is flat. Whether or not God is real is irrelevant to that fact.
-
the sheer odds involved...are astounding. The chance that the "rock" we live on ended up in precisely the place it needs to be in relation to our emergence, evolution and survival -the goldilocks theory - is unfathomable to anyone that purports to have a mind rooted in reason and logic.
I hate this argument so much. Humanity wasn't flying around on a spaceship before it decided to settle on Earth. It's precisely because humanity emerged and evolved on Earth that it's suited to our survival. If humanity had emerged and evolved anywhere else, we'd be saying that that place was the "Goldilocks zone." Anyway, the earth is flat. Whether or not God is real is irrelevant to that fact.
I hate any argument that hinges on the fact that evolution, described as the process of single celled organisms turning into people discussing complex ideas from thousands of miles away from each other, even exists. It has never been proven, and is as pseudo-scientific as Newton's concepts on universal gravitation.
I believe it is totally relevant whether God exists or not, as to whether we are the center of the universe or just another planet orbiting just another star. Refuting heliocentric theory is the first step in convincing others that our planet could possibly be flat.
As far as religious texts go, oral tradition is the root of all the major "myths" and "ethos" that are common among all religions. Creation, the Flood, Christ-figures etc. The author is humanity itself. No one man came up with these ideas shared between countless civilizations, some thousands of miles removed, never in contact with one another, but still have very similar origin stories.
-
If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.
In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.
-
If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.
In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.
That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.
And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang
To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.
-
If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.
In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.
That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.
And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang
To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.
Well the only other two options are:
Intelligent design. Like by aliens.
God (whose existence requires evolution or magic)
And since we've seen evolution occur in bacteria, I'm going to go with that one.
-
If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.
In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.
That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.
And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang
To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.
Well the only other two options are:
Intelligent design. Like by aliens.
God (whose existence requires evolution or magic)
And since we've seen evolution occur in bacteria, I'm going to go with that one.
There is absolutely no evidence of intermediary species, that is fossil record of fish growing legs, or a non fabricated "missing link" from ape to man. Also absolutely no evidence of a single celled organism ever becoming multicellular, only hypotheses at this point. If you want to hang your hat on that be my guest.
This just goes to show how perverse science has become in replacing God, that they have done so with an absolute lack of proof but the conditioned mind of man gobbles up their apparent insignificance like a starving dog.
-
If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.
In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.
That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.
And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang)
To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.
Well the only other two options are:
Intelligent design. Like by aliens.
God (whose existence requires evolution or magic)
And since we've seen evolution occur in bacteria, I'm going to go with that one.
There is absolutely no evidence of intermediary species, that is fossil record of fish growing legs, or a non fabricated "missing link" from ape to man. Also absolutely no evidence of a single celled organism ever becoming multicellular, only hypotheses at this point. If you want to hang your hat on that be my guest.
This just goes to show how perverse science has become in replacing God, that they have done so with an absolute lack of proof but the conditioned mind of man gobbles up their apparent insignificance like a starving dog.
There are "links". We have quite a few of them. While we don't have a fossil for every species that's ever existed, we have enough to see the changes. A picture can still be seen even with a few pieces missing.
And please, don't go with "absolute lack of proof". That's God. Want proof God made the universe? You have a book that was written by man. That's all the proof you have. Which is basically like a science book, only you can't prove any of it happened.
-
Treating the evolution of humans as a matter of odds is fallacious at best and ignorance of the scale of the universe at worst. The moment you realise that you are not special, the problem of odds disappears; of course if you track the biological process of evolving into the exact species we are right now, the odds are microscopic, but the same is true for any other intelligent species. There could be hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of intelligent species in the universe right now, many of which might consider themselves to be special, just like we do.
The problem with discussing this with Christians, which you seem to also be a part of, is that Christians can rarely separate their notion of humans being God's image or the Earth being God's creation from the natural process as defined by science. This leads to humans or the Earth as being seen as the "end goal" of evolution, as seen in your link about the "probability of Earth", suggesting that the Earth we inhabit today is somehow better than any other habitable planet. What you really should be doing is treating all habitable planets and intelligent species the same, and consider the process of having any one of them come into existence. If that process is physically and biologically viable, given enough time and space, it will happen; and given the sheer size of the universe, the odds of it never having happened are impossibly astronomical (pun intended).
If that process led to humans coming into existence, your problem is solved. The mistake is thinking that our particular form couldn't have come into existence by chance. Just think of it like this: if our physical forms were different in any numbers of ways, but our cognitive capacity the same, we would still be making that same mistake.
-
There is absolutely no evidence of intermediary species, that is fossil record of fish growing legs, or a non fabricated "missing link" from ape to man.
That is ridiculous. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
-
Science and religion don't have to be at odds. One describes the physical aspects of our existence, albeit better in some fields than other, and one deals with the metaphysical, things that cant be accounted for otherwise. The wholesale abandonment of either discipline is disastrous.
I don't refute science as a useful methodology to learning more about our world, but there is still so much it can't account for. There are over 200 sets of circumstances that have to be satisfied for our existence to even happen, and the odds are below 0 when you objectively look at them.
As far as the shape of earth goes, it just seems counter intuitive to reject things that support heliocentric theory, yet take for gospel things with far less documented proof, such as evolution. (Eventhough big bang is just about as terrible at accounting for any of it)
The true nature of our world, and the true nature of man are two sides of the same coin.
And no, I'm not a christian or member of any particular sect, just someone who has experienced things not explainable by studying our physical world.
-
the odds are below 0 when you objectively look at them.
This doesn't even make sense.
As far as the shape of earth goes, it just seems counter intuitive to reject things that support heliocentric theory, yet take for gospel things with far less documented proof, such as evolution.
Your lack of awareness for the supporting evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist.
(Eventhough big bang is just about as terrible at accounting for any of it)
The Big Bang says nothing about evolutionary theory.
-
Science and religion don't have to be at odds. One describes the physical aspects of our existence, albeit better in some fields than other, and one deals with the metaphysical, things that cant be accounted for otherwise. The wholesale abandonment of either discipline is disastrous.
I don't refute science as a useful methodology to learning more about our world, but there is still so much it can't account for. There are over 200 sets of circumstances that have to be satisfied for our existence to even happen, and the odds are below 0 when you objectively look at them.
As far as the shape of earth goes, it just seems counter intuitive to reject things that support heliocentric theory, yet take for gospel things with far less documented proof, such as evolution. (Eventhough big bang is just about as terrible at accounting for any of it)
The true nature of our world, and the true nature of man are two sides of the same coin.
And no, I'm not a christian or member of any particular sect, just someone who has experienced things not explainable by studying our physical world.
Yes, science can't explain everything. But the number of things it can't explain is shrinking. Plus, the "Metaphysical" explains nothing. Like at all.
Also, how do you have a probability below 0?
-
Below zero probability indicates impossible.
This thread is for believers in flat earth theory exclusively, pointing out the flaw in denying intelligent design in the formation of our world.
I'm not here to debate with anyone else about origins of man.
I'm explicitly trying to point out a better vehicle for advancing flat earth theory.
-
Below zero probability indicates impossible.
This thread is for believers in flat earth theory exclusively, pointing out the flaw in denying intelligent design in the formation of our world.
I'm not here to debate with anyone else about origins of man.
I'm explicitly trying to point out a better vehicle for advancing flat earth theory.
0 is impossible. A negative probability isn't possible.
Like: the probability of getting a unicorn when flipping a penny is -10/2
And if magic is the best way to move FET forward, then you're in reverse.
-
If intelligent design is magic, then evolution is slight of hand.
If relying on convincing a legion or armchair scientists to abandon their faith in concepts they truly don't understand, like GR, black holes etc, is the only way to advance the theory I'd say it's a lost cause.
There are things science will never explain, for example, how life itself came about. The very principles held most dear, such as, matter can not be created or destroyed, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, point to the paradox of something coming from nothing.
-
If intelligent design is magic, then evolution is slight of hand.
I prefer the comparison of skyhooks to cranes. Evolution makes perfect sense when you actually understand it. The only people who dispute that it happened are those who clearly have no real understanding of it beyond misinformation that they've read on the Internet. The two arguments you've been making throughout this thread are Hoyle's fallacy and "God of the gaps." Look them up. They're very basic, very common fallacies that have been debunked many, many times before. You're just the latest guy who's stumbled onto them, and you're no less wrong than the thousands of people who fell for them before.
-
There are things science will never explain, for example, how life itself came about.
The theory of how life began is called Abiogenesis, and while there are significant gaps in knowledge, it is generally well accepted. Several experiments have shown that what we consider organic matter can arise from non-organic events.
-
Ironic that evolution is so well accepted here, but no explanation of how a flat plane came into existence. Im assuming the heliocentric big bang isn't part of flat earth theory, so what then? How can you take bits and pieces of modern science and only keep the parts that validate your view, which I will have to admit there's not a lot of scientists chomping at the bit to prove the earth is flat.
Same reason you don't find a lot trying to prove creationism.
Same reason you don't find a lot trying to go against Einstein's GR.
It's career suicide.
The point of this entire thread is to point out the obvious that you CAN NOT through stricly scientific means convince the general public that the earth is flat.
However many believe the bible to be the absolute word of God, with a detailed depiction of a still earth, constructed in a way that supports flat earth.
The ultimate fallacy is trusting in some pseudoscience and rejecting that which doesn't suit your needs.
-
The ultimate fallacy is trusting in some pseudoscience and rejecting that which doesn't suit your needs.
So... Religion.
-
The ultimate fallacy is trusting in some pseudoscience and rejecting that which doesn't suit your needs.
So... Religion.
I love how you guys like to quote one thing out of a post and not address the rest of it. I am talking about heliocentric theory and evolution in regards to flat earth theory. Religion isn't science, though if you want to be technical the Church controlled science for about a thousand years, much to the retardation of the entire field... interestingly enough, equally pervasive and persistent authoritarian sects still control it to this day, much to the retardation of the entire field. It comes down to funding. Same with any study into say, environmental impact, paid for by Exxon, goes in with a particular positive result in mind, other wise it won't get published. No one is interested in coming out of this rabbit hole of error we've dug into that is evolution.
Anyway, I said what I had to say. My point is still valid, and if you are A. Not a believer in God, or B. A believer in an oblate spheroid hurling through space, then this thread is not for you anyway.
-
A thread of discussion only for those who agree with you is a poor thread.
-
The point of this entire thread is to point out the obvious that you CAN NOT through stricly scientific means convince the general public that the earth is flat.
If that's the case, then the point of this thread goes against the very purpose of the Flat Earth Society.
-
The point of this entire thread is to point out the obvious that you CAN NOT through stricly scientific means convince the general public that the earth is flat.
If that's the case, then the point of this thread goes against the very purpose of the Flat Earth Society.
I may have worded it incorrectly... The advancement of the theory will not take place solely through the scientific community. Considering "flat-earther" is a derogatory term I'd hope you would agree.
-
TheTruthIsOnHere,
Here are potentially some divergent thoughts to this discussion.
I do not believe in creationism as described by any religion.
I do not believe in evolution as described by the non-religious.
I believe that the lack of evidence firmly placing our ancestral lineage to align with the events as it corresponds with any religion or evolution is not reconcilable. Through the time we have been here reproducing our next generations there has been a concerted effort to distort the relative time that we have been here in addition to creating a multitude of divisions within society in furtherance of distorting our true history in this environment, we call Earth. Language is of the most persistent and prevalent of the factors restraining humanity's capacity to unify and answer our most technically challenging questions regarding our environment.
The argument of the chicken or the egg is simply answered by taking a completely unsupported (religious?) belief that they both came into existence simultaneously and by a quantity sufficient to sustain a balanced growth and attrition through its tenure in this environment. This applies to all matter within our environment.
The limitations we are aware of contribute to this spontaneous existence of which begs the question, what is the catalyst, and to what is the catalyst of the catalyst? The explanation we desire is a linear explanation that simply provides best to our sensibility, given our conditioning through generations. My current approach to this question is that while there is a design we can identify given its limitations, a substrate, physical or otherwise, is not required to produce this environment and manage it from outside, or in another layer superior to our own.
We see the division in place to prevent movement towards unveiling the answers to these absolute truths. Addressing the question of our environment is the most attainable as it we can collectively experience this truth and may provide insight to the two other questions representing true value.
I would wholeheartedly believe that this is not a novel concept, and that the management of humanity is in place to prevent absolute chaos upon realization of our condition here. This same management entity would comprise of those that control the functions of society in order to facilitate the further acquisition of truth if it hasn't yet been found in conjunction to suppressing this from being known.
It is more like an ant farm, I want to break the glass, at any cost to see what happens.
-
Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?
That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.
-
Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?
That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.
You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post. Not sure what you expect.
-
Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?
That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.
You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post. Not sure what you expect.
You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.
-
Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?
That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.
You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post. Not sure what you expect.
You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.
No. Because the thread assumes the Earth can be proven flat. Invoking God proves nothing as God can't be proven.
-
Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?
That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.
You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post. Not sure what you expect.
You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.
No. Because the thread assumes the Earth can be proven flat. Invoking God proves nothing as God can't be proven.
Obviously there is a disconnect here.
People believe in God.
85% of them in America, in fact.
The bible says that the world is flat and stationary.
Thus, it should be easier to advance the flat earth theory to the people that believe in God.
That is the sum of my argument.
Thanks for reading.
-
Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?
That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.
You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post. Not sure what you expect.
You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.
No. Because the thread assumes the Earth can be proven flat. Invoking God proves nothing as God can't be proven.
Obviously there is a disconnect here.
People believe in God.
85% of them in America, in fact.
The bible says that the world is flat and stationary.
Thus, it should be easier to advance the flat earth theory to the people that believe in God.
That is the sum of my argument.
Thanks for reading.
The Church admits it is not.
The Pope admits it is not.
Thus, saying it is is going against your current interpretation of religion which is infinitely harder than disproving science.
A person can be tricked into thinking science is wrong. Not so with their religion.
-
The Church admits it is not.
The Pope admits it is not.
Thus, saying it is is going against your current interpretation of religion which is infinitely harder than disproving science.
A person can be tricked into thinking science is wrong. Not so with their religion.
The other caveat about that 85% data I been talking about, those people are becoming increasingly less affiliated with a particular denomination. More people are abandoning traditional religion but still maintaining their belief in God.
So what the pope says is of little importance to, first of all, a very large portion of Christianity, and even less so to those that do not identify with a major denomination.
It's not about being tricked, it's more about people becoming more critical of tradition and taking things for granted, and more willing to find their own path and think for themselves.
-
The Church admits it is not.
The Pope admits it is not.
Thus, saying it is is going against your current interpretation of religion which is infinitely harder than disproving science.
A person can be tricked into thinking science is wrong. Not so with their religion.
The other caveat about that 85% data I been talking about, those people are becoming increasingly less affiliated with a particular denomination. More people are abandoning traditional religion but still maintaining their belief in God.
So what the pope says is of little importance to, first of all, a very large portion of Christianity, and even less so to those that identify with a major denomination.
It's not about being tricked, it's more about people becoming more critical of tradition and taking things for granted, and more willing to find their own path and think for themselves.
Those 85% also don't read the bible or take it literally.
ALSO...
How do you become more critical of tradition and taking things for granted then say "Read the bible, the old traditional book, as it has one or two passages about the Earth's shape."? It's contradictory.
-
How do you know? How can you make that assumption, do you have any data to back it up?
The common thread in all monotheistic religions is that we were created by a benevolent God. Not that we are a spec of dust in a vast universe without very much significance. Hermeticism, a philosophy that unites a lot of Christian and Jewish tradition with that of ancient religions, without having to do an absolute literal interpretation of "The Bible," seems to corroborate this reality.
Whether or not that influences the shape of the Earth, it definitely goes against the scientific interpretation of our existence. I'm not sure there are many true christians, hebrews, or muslims that believe in the Big Bang, which effectively is the glue that holds heliocentric theory together.
This thread only seeks to point out the irony in believing in God and science's model of our universe. Thus you can't invalidate my point that flat earth theory, which puts humanity back in the center of God's creation, would be better suited being geared towards those that already believe in intelligent design.
-
How do you know? How can you make that assumption, do you have any data to back it up?
The common thread in all monotheistic religions is that we were created by a benevolent God. Not that we are a spec of dust in a vast universe without very much significance. Hermeticism, a philosophy that unites a lot of Christian and Jewish tradition with that of ancient religions, and without having to do an absolute literal interpretation of "The Bible," seems to corroborate this reality.
Whether or not that influences the shape of the Earth, it definitely goes against the scientific interpretation of our existence. I'm not sure there are many true christians, hebrews, or muslims that believe in the Big Bang, which effectively is the glue that holds heliocentric theory together.
This thread only seeks to point out the irony in believing in God and science's model of our universe. Thus you can't invalidate my point that flat earth theory, which puts humanity back in the center of God's creation, would be better suited being geared towards those that already believe in intelligent design.
The early religions also didn't see that the American continents existed so there's that.
Plus, lets not forget the other religions that had various fun ways the world came about, such as it being the dead body of a god.
-
Most religious people I know and have meet in m life regard writings in religious books are not to be taken literally.
I also can find many people advocating the Bible proving the Earth is round.
http://www.revelation.co/2009/06/19/does-the-bible-say-earth-is-flat-or-round/
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
The above are just a sample. You can find many people interpreting the Bible in a way that supports the Earth not being flat.
Really depends on how you want to interpret what you read. I for one have not read any verse in the Bible that makes an absolute statement as to the Earth being flat or spherical. I have only read the English translations so that maybe why I have not seen any definitive statement.
Just curious why you believe God would create a flat Earth and not a roundish one?
-
At the author's request, I split the debate off this topic and moved it here:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4780.0
It wasn't a clean split, so I apologize. Feel free to repost your thoughts so long as it's on topic. Thank you.
-
Most religious people I know and have meet in m life regard writings in religious books are not to be taken literally.
I also can find many people advocating the Bible proving the Earth is round.
http://www.revelation.co/2009/06/19/does-the-bible-say-earth-is-flat-or-round/
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
The above are just a sample. You can find many people interpreting the Bible in a way that supports the Earth not being flat.
Really depends on how you want to interpret what you read. I for one have not read any verse in the Bible that makes an absolute statement as to the Earth being flat or spherical. I have only read the English translations so that maybe why I have not seen any definitive statement.
Just curious why you believe God would create a flat Earth and not a roundish one?
Christianity has always had a knack for assimilating whatever popular opinion is at the time so it could be more all-inclusive. It's no surprise to see "Christian scientists" trying to rectify heliocentric theory and their religion.
Some biblical passages that seem to support flat, stationary, geocentric earth:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Proverbs 8:27 When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
One commonly misused passage is:
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
Some people say that circle used here implies the earth is round, but the actual Hebrew word used here translates more accurately to "encircle."
Used also in:
Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.
Job itself is actually the oldest book in the Bible, predating even Genesis. Job 26 is fascinating in and of itself and has a lot of insight into how the ancients viewed the Earth.
-
But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?
-
But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?
What does christ have to do with anything? Those quotes are from 1300bc and obviously the concepts predate that to before written text. I guess stupid desert cultists like the Egyptians weren't too bright after all, their advancements in medicine and science weren't notable, and the pyramids they built are easily reproduced. You're right, we truly live in the age of enlightenment, just look at how well our superior education has done for us, we're about to nominate a self absorbed bigot to run for president.
-
But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?
What does christ have to do with anything? Those quotes are from 1300bc and obviously the concepts predate that to before written text. I guess stupid desert cultists like the Egyptians weren't too bright after all, their advancements in medicine and science weren't notable, and the pyramids they built are easily reproduced. You're right, we truly live in the age of enlightenment, just look at how well our superior education has done for us, we're about to nominate a self absorbed bigot to run for president.
What?.. Because you were talking about Christians and it's in the name, and you were trying (I think) to set some sort of grounding for those of a religious bent, to say FE was there from the beginning. Which if you actually read what people say isn't in dispute, as it's a primitive world view fully consistent with the pre-scientific world. What I am trying to point out is that as soon as people started to think deeply and do experiments they came to a different conclusion.
As some one who has crowed on about his ability to think outside the box you seem pretty keen on cleaving to a bunch of old myths to prop up an outdated world view.
-
But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?
What does christ have to do with anything? Those quotes are from 1300bc and obviously the concepts predate that to before written text. I guess stupid desert cultists like the Egyptians weren't too bright after all, their advancements in medicine and science weren't notable, and the pyramids they built are easily reproduced. You're right, we truly live in the age of enlightenment, just look at how well our superior education has done for us, we're about to nominate a self absorbed bigot to run for president.
What?.. Because you were talking about Christians and it's in the name, and you were trying (I think) to set some sort of grounding for those of a religious bent, to say FE was there from the beginning. Which if you actually read what people say isn't in dispute, as it's a primitive world view fully consistent with the pre-scientific world. What I am trying to point out is that as soon as people started to think deeply and do experiments they came to a different conclusion.
As some one who has crowed on about his ability to think outside the box you seem pretty keen on cleaving to a bunch of old myths to prop up an outdated world view.
My counter-point was that the Egyptians weren't just desert cultists. They were able to accomplish things we still don't understand, in this "golden age" of "deep thought" and "science."
If you think the Romans were primitive, and the philosophers of Ancient Greece were shallow, and people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson are the pinnacle of human thought, then you are completely wrong, on all accounts.
And again, I'm not using old myths (which I guess you can call the themes like the great flood, shared by civilizations never in contact with each other just products of a creative mind) to prop up anything. I simply asked the question, why believers of the flat earth aren't particularly interested in the spiritual, supernatural, and religious, when 85% of people do. I pointed to the irony in believing in a flat earth, while also believing in a big bang, and man evolved from a monkey.
You can call my views outdated, but until science can actually explain how a lucky coincidence produced the human circulatory system, I'm going to believe that we are the product of a greater consciousness unimaginable to man.
-
Just a few points, (as you don't seem to be able to assimilate more);
Isaiah, from a cursory check was a 7th century BC bloke from Judah, not 14th century BC and Aristarchus & Seleucus were Greeks.
Great flood themes on a world whose surface is 71% ocean is hardly a surprise (two catastrophic Tsunamis in the last decade).
The Human circulatory system has nothing to do with lucky coincidence, but evolution, a concept you will struggle with (see “man evolved from a monkey”), so don't bother. There is a greater force that's going to make it all, all right.
-
Just a few points, (as you don't seem to be able to assimilate more);
Isaiah, from a cursory check was a 7th century BC bloke from Judah, not 14th century BC and Aristarchus & Seleucus were Greeks.
Great flood themes on a world whose surface is 71% ocean is hardly a surprise (two catastrophic Tsunamis in the last decade).
The Human circulatory system has nothing to do with lucky coincidence, but evolution, a concept you will struggle with (see “man evolved from a monkey”), so don't bother. There is a greater force that's going to make it all, all right.
Don't agree with you, so of course I must be incapable of reading comprehension herp derp. Classical attempt to invalidate my ideas by making me out to be a buffoon.
But then you proceed to show your ignorance. The torah was written in 1300bc, dripping with myths and allegory dating to prehistory. The great flood allegory is very specific, not just a bunch of cultures saying, "yeah man, we totally had like a big flood that kind of sucked," it's very specific and deals with the extinction of humanity save for a select few that were chosen and two of each animal. Do I think it actually happened? Probably not, I don't take sacred texts as literal. There is a lot more to be learned through the subtext and the metaphorical interpretation of the rites of mithras or the crucifixion of Jesus.
Just because you believe your existence to be bleak, meaningless, and insignificant --which coincidentally fits in perfect with the scientific view of the cosmos-- doesn't mean I should feel obliged to agree out of fear of being ostracized by the contemporary glut of enlightened brilliant minds.
If it makes you feel better to think I'm pinning all my hopes on magic guy in the sky taking my bad feelings and make them good feelings then fine. But you may be relieved to know I believe that Man is perfectly capable of being a source of his own providence, happiness, and enlightenment. We're born with the faculties to think and feel in ways that make us stand apart from the countless other animals on this planet, monkeys included. Inherently, we have an ability to resonate with a higher state of being.
But of course we can also resign to the fact that life is meaningless and everything dies.
-
Well finally you are right about one thing, almost.
“Just because you believe your existence to be bleak, meaningless, and insignificant --which coincidentally fits in perfect with the scientific view of the cosmos “
The view you are desperately peddling is one where Humanity and by inclusion you, are the centre of all things, be it gods plan, the conspiracy or the universe itself.
Paranoia and narcissism are flip sides of the coin you keep tossing, therefore the fear of insignificance that the scientific view inevitably leads to, has to be kept at bay by any means.
However, life can still be fun and I am having a whale of a time, even though ultimately life is meaningless and everything does die.
-
Actually, cosmology has only proven how unique we actually are, so far. There's no way you can look out at the universe known to man, and into our own solar system, to see how incredibly blessed we are as a species.
The less life we find in space, the less "habitable" planets we find, the more this becomes obvious.
Until we find a being or a race obviously superior to us, I guess we have a free pass to be as narcissistic as we want.
I don't personally believe we are the center of the universe, rather we are mistaken about what the universe actually is. Even if we do imagine that we are in the midst of an infinite universe, there is entirely a possibility that there are beings that exist in a different dimension than the one we currently do. We are manifestations on a physical world, naturally bound to what we can see, hear, smell, touch or taste. Beyond that we couldn't perceive what else might exist.
I'm glad you are having a good time, I am too. I love everything about being alive, that includes embracing my instictual animal nature, as well as embracing my higher self, which even if it is somehow proven that there is no such thing, it is still a powerful way to improve one's self and be a more well rounded individual.
-
Back to something you mentioned earlier, not having missing links in evolution, you might find this interesting. http://earthsky.org/earth/chameleon-in-amber-is-worlds-oldest
-
Back to something you mentioned earlier, not having missing links in evolution, you might find this interesting. http://earthsky.org/earth/chameleon-in-amber-is-worlds-oldest
Fascinating stuff. I definitely can see how survival of the fittest can play out in speciation, and modified traits can pass on while others die out. But I still haven't seen any evidence of generations of fish with small legs, medium legs, full sized lizard legs, gills turning into enclosed lungs anywhere in the fossil record.
All the "missing links" between monkey and man eventually get proven to be hoaxes and forgeries by desperate people trying to capitalize on a gullible public.
The fact is, if evolution exists as they say, there would be tens of thousands of missing link bones to be found documenting the individual steps between becoming upright, our skull moving to the top of our spinal column, facial features changing, cranial cavity enlarging etc. But there isn't, and it's not for lack of trying.
The theory of evolution is another faith based science very similar to scientific cosmogony, or "the big bang."
-
But I still haven't seen any evidence of generations of fish with small legs, medium legs, full sized lizard legs, gills turning into enclosed lungs anywhere in the fossil record.
Now you have. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_tetrapods)
All the "missing links" between monkey and man eventually get proven to be hoaxes and forgeries by desperate people trying to capitalize on a gullible public.
That's not even close to being true. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution)
The fact is, if evolution exists as they say, there would be tens of thousands of missing link bones to be found documenting the individual steps between becoming upright, our skull moving to the top of our spinal column, facial features changing, cranial cavity enlarging etc. But there isn't, and it's not for lack of trying.
Even if I take your word for it that we don't have fossils documenting those specific steps (something I'm doubtful of, given your obvious lack of research), your logic is extremely fallacious and intellectually lazy. You are demanding perfection, and seizing upon the lack of it as proof that this branch of science is all a big lie. I'm actually going to quote two posts from the old FES here, as the authors explained it better than I probably could:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55960.msg1395670#msg1395670
There are MANY transitional fossilized skeletons found for many different families of animal (including Humans). Here's some of the problems with your argument, in easy to digest bullet format:
* You misunderstand what constitutes a transitional feature.
* You are ignoring the large number of fossils found.
* You are denying what the transitions those fossils represent.
* You are creating an expectation of accuracy far beyond what is necessary to illustrate transition.
* You are dismissing definitive examples of transitional forms, focusing on the ones that remain undiscovered.
* Your argument essentially moves the hypothetical goalposts every time a "gap" is filled, as each discovery of a transitional form creates two new gaps.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55960.msg1396165#msg1396165
Because not every bone fossilizes. In fact most bones don't fossilize. In fact almost nothing fossilizes. There is also a huge bias when it comes to the fossilization process. Certain areas generate fossils much better. Large hard things tend to fossilize really well while soft things tend to do so rather poorly. Etc Etc. This means that animals that live in the right place, are the right size, and have the right types of bones will become the majority of fossils while most animals (entire species even) will never leave a single fossil on the earth.
So while we have found more than enough transitional fossils to establish some very solid evidence of common descent, we obviously don't have a record of every mutation and adaptation there has even been in the history of life. I don't think it's reasonable to expect there to be one. In any case, you're not going to disprove evolution just by nitpicking the fossil record, not when we already have so much molecular and cellular evidence proving evolution to be true independently of any fossils. Let me ask this, do you dispute that cells mutate? That's pretty much the key to how evolution works.
-
True, cells may mutate, but it's hardly ever lead to anything beneficial to the affected creature. To think that cellular mutations are the mechanism by which monkeys developed demonstrably superior traits is plain stupid.
Have you actually looked at the evidence used behind postulating the existence of other human species? It's based on circumstantial shit like Piece of a jaw bone. Even when it's more, it's based on one skull. Not thousands, or even hundreds if similar fossils. I know, it's a shame that there just isn't a glut of fossils to substantiate these assertations, but one mutated skull, of an ape or a man doesn't an entire species make.
An excerpt from the wiki page you linked about transitional species, perhaps you should do more than link the first google result to prove a point:
Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion that man emerged from a primordial ooze and life somehow emerged from it.
-
True, cells may mutate, but it's hardly ever lead to anything beneficial to the affected creature.
Which is why evolution is slow. But once that beneficial trait keeps getting passed on, you have evolution.
To think that cellular mutations are the mechanism by which monkeys developed demonstrably superior traits is plain stupid.
Why? Bigger brains, opposable thumbs, using tools. Hell, monkeys use tools now. And can be taught rudamentary sign language. We're the first species to be this complex on Earth but maybe not the last. Or maybe we're not the first but the other ones have evolved so far beyond us that they don't need houses ans computers and KFC.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion that man emerged from a primordial ooze and life somehow emerged from it.
The only other option is that Aliens genetically made all life on Earth.
Or we spontaniously came into existence one day, Earth and all.
But if you really want evolutionary proof vs Intelligent design, look no further than tectonic plates.
When the landmasses were in different spots, climate was different. Most current species would not have survived. Thus, they either didn't exist and came into existence at some point by God/Aliens or they evolved.
Also, if evolution doesn't exist, why don't we find all modern species fossilized? Surely monkeys have been around for a billion years, right? Humans too?
-
To OP (and anyone else interested) Set your browser up to replace "no one" with "God" and vice versa. Whether hilarious or profound, I guarantee you'll enjoy the results. There are plenty of compatible plugins for Firefox or Chrome to do this. Edit: "monkey" and "human" works wonders as well.
Ugh. Seems everyone here is already tired of xyzed arguments, so I'll spare. The BILLIONS one is what gets under my skin, there you know the chink in my armor. Just know, they have found (https://www.google.com/search?q=soft+tissue+dinosaurs) soft tissue for dinosaurs, so we don't completely understand fossilization apparently; blood vessels, complete cells, ligaments, you name it.
Also not a creationist, just as I said tired.
-
Oh hey!
Man made evolution (no magic or genetic engineering) just old fashioned selective breeding.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153652785842293&id=610702292
-
Oh hey!
Man made evolution (no magic or genetic engineering) just old fashioned selective breeding.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153652785842293&id=610702292
Selective breeding is not evolution. You can breed dogs, cats, and live stock, but you're not going to make any of them turn into complete different animals. You can't selectively breed a lower primate to become a human.
I never said speciation wasn't a thing. I dispute that single cell organisms mystically became multi cellular, then became vertebrates then slithered onto land and became everything we see today.
-
Oh hey!
Man made evolution (no magic or genetic engineering) just old fashioned selective breeding.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153652785842293&id=610702292
Selective breeding is not evolution. You can breed dogs, cats, and live stock, but you're not going to make any of them turn into complete different animals. You can't selectively breed a lower primate to become a human.
I never said speciation wasn't a thing. I dispute that single cell organisms mystically became multi cellular, then became vertebrates then slithered onto land and became everything we see today.
But selective breeding IS evolution, just wih a human hand.
You agree with microevolution: making a new breed of dog. Well macroevolution is micro over a million years. They won't have the same DNA, won't look the same either.
Question for you then: what is the difference between a chimpanzee and a human? Why are they considered different species? They're 96% genetically identical. Why don't you call them a different breed of human?
-
Dude, did selective breeding introduce more or less chromosomes to the watermelon? Or is it genetically the same? Do any dogs, even with over a thousand sub species, have more than 39 chromosomes? To make it even seem possible, without any observed evidence, biologists invent ridiculous theoretical models to explain how chromosomes could ever increase in animal. Evolution is fraught with fantastic equations just like modern physics designed to obfuscate the truth of existense itself, which is we are products of intelligent design.
-
Dude, did selective breeding introduce more or less chromosomes to the watermelon? Or is it genetically the same?
Irrelevant. A chicken has the same count as a dog. Are they the same?
Do any dogs, even with over a thousand sub species, have more than 39 chromosomes?
Yes!
The maned wolf has 2 chromosomes less than a dog or wolf.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Yes, its a canine. Same as a dog and wolf.
Go look through that. Not all species have the same count despite being related.
To make it even seem possible, without any observed evidence, biologists invent ridiculous theoretical models to explain how chromosomes could ever increase in animal. Evolution is fraught with fantastic equations just like modern physics designed to obfuscate the truth of existense itself, which is we are products of intelligent design.
Oh, you wanna see extra chromosomes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy
Extra chromosomes in humans.
Thought that was impossible? :P
-
Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.
-
Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.
You were talking abiut chromosomes and how they don't gain more. Well, they do. Or lose some.
But you're missing the point: thst .001% exception? If that makes survival/breeding easier, it becomes more common until its no longer .001% but 95%.
And now to swing the thread back on topic.
Science doesn't have the answers to everything but its the best tools we have. However, much like you're demonstrating now, it doesn't always change minds. Science has the best chance of doing it, but if anyone is as firmly grounded on the Earth's shape as you are on evolution, no amount of debate, evidence, or faith is going to change it.
Now imagine we had this debate on evolution and my only response is "God did it." Or "Have Faith".
Would it really be more convincing than the evidence you ignore?
-
Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.
You were talking abiut chromosomes and how they don't gain more. Well, they do. Or lose some.
But you're missing the point: thst .001% exception? If that makes survival/breeding easier, it becomes more common until its no longer .001% but 95%.
And now to swing the thread back on topic.
Science doesn't have the answers to everything but its the best tools we have. However, much like you're demonstrating now, it doesn't always change minds. Science has the best chance of doing it, but if anyone is as firmly grounded on the Earth's shape as you are on evolution, no amount of debate, evidence, or faith is going to change it.
Now imagine we had this debate on evolution and my only response is "God did it." Or "Have Faith".
Would it really be more convincing than the evidence you ignore?
I get your last point for sure. Thats why I didn't take it off faith alone to make my decision. Logically, as pointed out in OP, it is just too damn hard for me to accept the extremely ridiculous probabilities involved with big bang and evolution being the cause of our existence. I'd more likely believe an intelligent being, "aliens" did it, but that is approaching it from adherence to a stricly physical model of existence. I have experienced super natural phenomenon in my life, the likes of which studying the physical universe would never be able to explain.
Interestingly enough, if you follow the path modern physics is on, it is more and more becoming metaphysical. Where everything is a field, and nothing really exists, just manifestations of vibrations interacting with various mediums.
It is generally accepted that what we perceive is a small fraction of the totality of existence. It's not that I don't find science fiction fascinating, it's just that I'm entirely more fascinated with a deeper level of understanding than Neil DeGrasse Tyson could provide.
-
Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.
You were talking abiut chromosomes and how they don't gain more. Well, they do. Or lose some.
But you're missing the point: thst .001% exception? If that makes survival/breeding easier, it becomes more common until its no longer .001% but 95%.
And now to swing the thread back on topic.
Science doesn't have the answers to everything but its the best tools we have. However, much like you're demonstrating now, it doesn't always change minds. Science has the best chance of doing it, but if anyone is as firmly grounded on the Earth's shape as you are on evolution, no amount of debate, evidence, or faith is going to change it.
Now imagine we had this debate on evolution and my only response is "God did it." Or "Have Faith".
Would it really be more convincing than the evidence you ignore?
I get your last point for sure. Thats why I didn't take it off faith alone to make my decision. Logically, as pointed out in OP, it is just too damn hard for me to accept the extremely ridiculous probabilities involved with big bang and evolution being the cause of our existence. I'd more likely believe an intelligent being, "aliens" did it, but that is approaching it from adherence to a stricly physical model of existence. I have experienced super natural phenomenon in my life, the likes of which studying the physical universe would never be able to explain.
Interestingly enough, if you follow the path modern physics is on, it is more and more becoming metaphysical. Where everything is a field, and nothing really exists, just manifestations of vibrations interacting with various mediums.
It is generally accepted that what we perceive is a small fraction of the totality of existence. It's not that I don't find science fiction fascinating, it's just that I'm entirely more fascinated with a deeper level of understanding than Neil DeGrasse Tyson could provide.
Rediculous (astronomical) probabilities really begs the question: is it really? Gravity naturally makes planets and stars. Once you have all sorts of elememts and chemicals on a hunk of rock, the probability of something happening increases.
But even if it is, time solves the issue. If its a 1 in a quintillion chance then it'll happen eventually.
The Universe is (as far as we know) 13 Billion years old. And its a very big place. Billions of galaxies exist each with billions of stars. And there could be 10s of billions of planets per galaxy. How big do you need it before even the nearly impossible happens?
-
Time alone doesn't just make inert materials become organic beings. Something had to happen. The odds of one, two, or ten of the factors needed for Earth to exist may somehow develop over a few billion years. But the 40+ criterion for it to be the bastion of life it is are one in some crazy big number like a septillion or something like that. Divide that into 13 billion and see if there would be enough time for a planet like ours to naturally come about.
Also, please explain the mechanism by which "Gravity naturally makes planets and stars." Isn't gravitation just a property of mass? If there is star dust out there what makes it pull to a central point? Wouldn't every piece of dust be attracted to one another, or whatever big object is closest to each particle? You say absurd crap like that with absolutely no proof or evidence, then ridicule me for alluding to faith and religion.
Anyway, we're obviously on total opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. But if we are being totally honest, and using logic and reason over faith, it becomes increasingly clear how remarkable our existence is. I refuse to accept it's a very happy coincidence in light of that.
-
True, cells may mutate, but it's hardly ever lead to anything beneficial to the affected creature.
Yes, beneficial mutations are rare, but when they do appear, they're more likely to be retained and spread throughout the population precisely because they increase the species's odds of survival. Over time - millions of generations - many surviving species have been molded into highly-complex organisms.
Have you actually looked at the evidence used behind postulating the existence of other human species? It's based on circumstantial shit like Piece of a jaw bone. Even when it's more, it's based on one skull. Not thousands, or even hundreds if similar fossils. I know, it's a shame that there just isn't a glut of fossils to substantiate these assertations, but one mutated skull, of an ape or a man doesn't an entire species make.
I wouldn't say hundreds, but there's a fair amount of them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils)
An excerpt from the wiki page you linked about transitional species, perhaps you should do more than link the first google result to prove a point:
Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms.
That's not surprising, given how many species have come and gone over this planet's long history. I don't know why you quoted that as if it somehow counters my arguments, though. Are you saying that natural selection might have happened for all those extinct species, but not for the currently living ones?
I respectfully disagree with your opinion that man emerged from a primordial ooze and life somehow emerged from it.
I didn't say that. I have no idea how life first began, but that subject and natural selection are two different things.
-
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.
Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?
-
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.
Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.
You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc. It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men? (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man")
You are putting entirely too much weight of your argument into the "fossil record." It is hopelessly incomplete, for many of the reasons others have listed in this thread. It is a complete fallacy to think it offers any accurate snapshot of history life on this earth.
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?
Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
-
we don't know for certain how life began, therefore we know for certain that god created life.
compelling.
-
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568)
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/ (http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/)
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life (http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth (http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth)
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance (http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance)
Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
So? From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 102,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist. Probability is often misleading. Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.
The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.
1040 is still less than the number of planets in the universe. After all, there's roughly 1028 Stars in the universe. That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.
Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.
You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.
Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates. Like Triolbites. Plants are also pretty common.
It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men? (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man")
Woah now. Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils)
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life. He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle.
You've got a lot of wrong information. No wonder you're so confused.
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?
Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
Barely represented?!
How do you figure that?
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
1. 3 Billion years is a long time. The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and is not the same as Evolution. It's less understood, actually.
-
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568)
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/ (http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/)
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life (http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth (http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth)
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance (http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance)
Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
So? From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 102,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist. Probability is often misleading. Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.
The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.
1040 is still less than the number of planets in the universe. After all, there's roughly 1028 Stars in the universe. That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.
Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.
You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.
Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates. Like Triolbites. Plants are also pretty common.
It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men? (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man")
Woah now. Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils)
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life. He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle.
You've got a lot of wrong information. No wonder you're so confused.
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?
Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
Barely represented?!
How do you figure that?
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
1. 3 Billion years is a long time. The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and is not the same as Evolution. It's less understood, actually.
Dave, I'm done with you man. All you did is cherry pick things I say and address it whatever way makes you feel superior. Doesn't change the validity of my arguments in any meaningful way whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. I'm so wrong and confused but you said probability of something happening is 1. Since you have such a firm grasp on evolutionary science, and pretty much every god damn thing else, I really hope you are doing well for yourself in some kind of professional sense.
It's actually called "abiogenesis" btw, and your wikipedia article is exactly what is wrong with science and, in general, the dissemination of unproven hypothetical concepts as facts.
-
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568)
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/ (http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/)
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life (http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth (http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth)
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance (http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance)
Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
So? From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 102,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist. Probability is often misleading. Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.
The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.
1040 is still less than the number of planets in the universe. After all, there's roughly 1028 Stars in the universe. That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.
Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.
You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.
Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates. Like Triolbites. Plants are also pretty common.
It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men? (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man")
Woah now. Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils)
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life. He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle.
You've got a lot of wrong information. No wonder you're so confused.
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?
Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
Barely represented?!
How do you figure that?
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
1. 3 Billion years is a long time. The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and is not the same as Evolution. It's less understood, actually.
Dave, I'm done with you man. All you did is cherry pick things I say and address it whatever way makes you feel superior. Doesn't change the validity of my arguments in any meaningful way whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. I'm so wrong and confused but you said probability of something happening is 1. Since you have such a firm grasp on evolutionary science, and pretty much every god damn thing else, I really hope you are doing well for yourself in some kind of professional sense.
It's actually called "abiogenesis" btw, and your wikipedia article is exactly what is wrong with science and, in general, the dissemination of unproven hypothetical concepts as facts.
Cherry pick? I literally went point by point. I did not take a sentence, I took the whole post. So no, I did not cherry pick.
Secondly, your arguments are based on wrong information yet you think its still valid? How is that?
Third: yes. Mispelling on my part. And yes, abiogenesis is unproven. Nothing in that article says otherwise. Care to explain where it says "Abiogenesis is a fact."?
-
Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.
If there was a place to clearly clarify that it is strictly hypothetical, the introductory paragraph would've been the right place to do it.
Example of cherry picking is trying to refute my point about the unreliable, untrustworthy, and fairly recent phenomenon know as the study of fossils BUT you never address the reality of the numerous "paleontologists" found to be complete hacks and frauds. You conveniently don't address any of the highly plausible reasons for skepticism, you just gloss over looking for a convenient place to interject your wikipedia information. This whole thread you have glossed over a paragraph of my reasoning to attack a few words or a sentence and ignoring the rest.
Let me be clear: I am not an authority on all things evolution. I am not an authority on all things creation. I'm not particularly, or do I want to be an authority on much. I'm perfectly fine knowing that I can't know everything, and accepting that some things most likely will never be known. It's when bullshit hypothesis are taught in our schools, and passed off as fact (as it was presented to me during my middle school and high school education) that I see a problem. The only reason I researched flat earth in the first place is because the irony involved in the fallibility of our science. Every hundred years or so conveniently sweeping under the rug all the shit that was proven to be fallacy, and pretending like it didn't happen. Like Geocentrism. Knowing the Earth was flat, brilliant minds believing in the Aether.
But here is Lord Dave with all the fucking answers, praise be to science and hail hydra!
-
Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.
If there was a place to clearly clarify that it is strictly hypothetical, the introductory paragraph would've been the right place to do it.
Why? The intro is defining what Abiogenesis is, which is a fact. The idea that life arose on Earth from abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Hence why they wrote "It is thought to have occurred..."
Example of cherry picking is trying to refute my point about the unreliable, untrustworthy, and fairly recent phenomenon know as the study of fossils BUT you never address the reality of the numerous "paleontologists" found to be complete hacks and frauds. You conveniently don't address any of the highly plausible reasons for skepticism, you just gloss over looking for a convenient place to interject your wikipedia information. This whole thread you have glossed over a paragraph of my reasoning to attack a few words or a sentence and ignoring the rest.
I point out when you have incorrect information. If you'd LIKE praise for having one correct statement then fine.
Yes, there are frauds. You'll find frauds everywhere. What is your point? They are frauds and through scientific discovery, they were found to be frauds. Science checked itself. Not sure what "numerous" is supposed to mean. 10? 20? 50? Or are you implying that a large chunk(25%?) of paleontologists are frauds?
As for your "highly plausible reasons for skepticism", well, I fail to see why you shouldn't be skeptical. If you aren't going to test science over and over again, there's no point in doing it. Just do it with the correct facts, alright?
Let me be clear: I am not an authority on all things evolution. I am not an authority on all things creation. I'm not particularly, or do I want to be an authority on much. I'm perfectly fine knowing that I can't know everything, and accepting that some things most likely will never be known. It's when bullshit hypothesis are taught in our schools, and passed off as fact (as it was presented to me during my middle school and high school education) that I see a problem. The only reason I researched flat earth in the first place is because the irony involved in the fallibility of our science. Every hundred years or so conveniently sweeping under the rug all the shit that was proven to be fallacy, and pretending like it didn't happen. Like Geocentrism. Knowing the Earth was flat, brilliant minds believing in the Aether.
Wow, a lot to take in.
Ok, first off, a hypothesis (if you were taught correctly) is an idea that has no supporting data but is testable. Evolution has supporting data. Thus it's classified as a theory. Well... it has been proven to happen, just not on the long term, complex organism scale.
Secondly, the term Evolution exists. You can't say it doesn't. Now, I don't know what kind of teachers you had so I'm just going to assume poor or bad textbooks or you just didn't pay attention enough. Doesn't matter. So here's the laydown.
The Theory of Evolution states that complex life arose from simple life through natural selection and genetic mutation over long spans of time. There are numerous supporting data for evolution of various species throughout the history of the planet but we have yet to observe one species of animal changing into another. Mostly because we haven't existed long enough.
Secondly, science has not "swept under the rug" it's failures. Schools still teach that geocentrism existed, for example. Science doesn't forget the lessons of the past. But the Earth being flat? We've known that since before the scientific method existed. Not to mention the 4 humors of the body and what-not. It was wrong, sure. And what we know today may be proven wrong. But you wanna know what won't prove it wrong? Religion.
But here is Lord Dave with all the fucking answers, praise be to science and hail hydra!
I don't have all the answers. I just link to basic information you seem to be wrong on. Maybe you should do some reading and pay attention in science class more?
-
So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.
Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.
You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc. It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men? (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man")
You are putting entirely too much weight of your argument into the "fossil record." It is hopelessly incomplete, for many of the reasons others have listed in this thread. It is a complete fallacy to think it offers any accurate snapshot of history life on this earth.
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?
Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
I have pretty much decided that you are a Gainsaying troll, the alternative to this is you have a massively overinflated view of your own meagre knowledge, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the former.
Here’s why;
In your rebuttal based on very big numbers you add a bunch of links, in the third that mentions the number 1040 specifically, is the quote.
“Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.
In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 litres, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.”
So, you either never read it or …(see my first line).
You then erroneously state that “no one found anything notable” until Darwin.
Have you even checked this? Origin of species – 1859, Megalosaurus bucklandi named in 1827, Richard Owen’s (an opponent of Darwin but dino’ man) Dinosauria – 1842, the Crystal Palace Dinosaur sculptures representing 15 genera’s of extinct animals 1852, Mary Anning (she sells sea shells) for gods sake 1799-1847 and so on.
Megalosaurus bones had been recorded much earlier in the 17th century and had been catalogued as both a Roman war Elephant and a biblical giant, that from memory and a quick search for confirmation.
No way couldn’t you have found this or any number of other examples, unless… (See first line).
Hoaxes? Misinterpretations? Where humans/money are involved, seriously! Proved to be hoaxes by scientists not priests or (See first line)?
I could go on down your list of badly researched tirade but you get my drift.
And then finally, “it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!” Well no shit Sherlock! Nobody is saying it does! But science is the process of trying by incremental steps, each building on the former to join the dots, we may never know, but how is that either a surprise or an argument? If you stretch out your arms either side of you, take that width as a representation of the age of the Earth, the whole of human history would be erased with one stroke of a nail file. That is how insignificant we are, that is the relative time span you expect science to have all the answers for, all in the scrape of a file.
The truth is on here, but you can’t handle the truth.
-
I have pretty much decided that you are a Gainsaying troll, the alternative to this is you have a massively overinflated view of your own meagre knowledge, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the former.
Here’s why;
In your rebuttal based on very big numbers you add a bunch of links, in the third that mentions the number 1040 specifically, is the quote.
“Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.
In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 litres, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.”
So, you either never read it or …(see my first line).
I did read it. I just wanted to supply a link to a source that wasn't strictly some creationist website. The fact still remains, 1040 is a big fucking number. And saying that "the first stages of abiogenesis could have started..." isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Not only that, the author also states that "self-replicating peptides" aren't even the consensus view on origins of life and there is an RNA model instead.
You then erroneously state that “no one found anything notable” until Darwin.
Have you even checked this? Origin of species – 1859, Megalosaurus bucklandi named in 1827, Richard Owen’s (an opponent of Darwin but dino’ man) Dinosauria – 1842, the Crystal Palace Dinosaur sculptures representing 15 genera’s of extinct animals 1852, Mary Anning (she sells sea shells) for gods sake 1799-1847 and so on.
Megalosaurus bones had been recorded much earlier in the 17th century and had been catalogued as both a Roman war Elephant and a biblical giant, that from memory and a quick search for confirmation.
No way couldn’t you have found this or any number of other examples, unless… (See first line).
I didn't claim to be an authority on fossils. I just thought it was interesting that trying to prove that these extinct animals were transitional species of any kind whatsoever is a post-darwin phenomenon.
Hoaxes? Misinterpretations? Where humans/money are involved, seriously! Proved to be hoaxes by scientists or priests or (See first line)?
Are you doubting that hoaxes have occurred?
http://hoaxes.org/archive/display/category/paleontology
http://tumblehomelearning.com/top-ten-top-10-fraudulentfake-fossil-cases-in-history/
http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_data/5_greatest_palaeontology_hoaxes_all_time_4_irritator-75974
http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html (careful it's a creationist website, you might get turnt)
http://www.neatorama.com/2011/11/10/10-massive-screw-ups-in-paleontology/
That is just a few pages, and they don't even represent an exhaustive list of any kind, most are a top 10 or top 5. Piltdown man isn't the only "missing link" shown to be seriously missing credibility.
I could go on down your list of badly researched tirade but you get my drift.
And then finally, “it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!” Well no shit Sherlock! Nobody is saying it does! But science is the process of trying by incremental steps, each building on the former to join the dots, we may never know, but how is that either a surprise or an argument? If you stretch out your arms either side of you, take that width as a representation of the age of the Earth, the whole of human history would be erased with one stroke of a nail file. That is how insignificant we are, that is the relative time span you expect science to have all the answers for, all in the scrape of a file.
The truth is on here, but you can’t handle the truth.
As I said before, please feel free to continue you're apparently meaningless, insignificant life.
-
I swear! Pearls before swine.
I did read it.
But didn't get the bit about the numbers.
Could have started
Of course "could" it was billions of years ago you muppet.
I didn't claim to be an authority on fossils.
And trust me no one is mistaking you for one, but don't write as if you are.
Are you doubting that hoaxes have occurred?
No read it s l o w l y.
Not sure if I should have given you the benefit of the doubt now.
-
Attempts to discredit creationist
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=612;type=avatar)
Uses biblical metaphor to do so
New meme, ironic evolutionist.
-
The existence of these hoaxes demonstrates the strength of science, not its weakness. They show that scientists, far from being yes-men who just go along with current trends, thoroughly investigate potential new evidence and discount it if it doesn't hold up. Which is what happened with every single one of these hoaxes - they were exposed for what they were by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists. Creationists, or skeptics standing on the sideline complaining that science is unreliable and evolution is all a lie, have never managed to disprove or debunk anything in evolutionary science. It's always scientists who correct the mistakes of earlier scientists.
-
Discredits creationist
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=612;type=avatar)
Uses biblical metaphor to do so
New meme, ironic evolutionist.
I'll take that.
And take the mighty Saddams post as the best explanation of my hoax line, as you obviously need it spelling out.
-
The existence of these hoaxes demonstrates the strength of science, not its weakness. They show that scientists, far from being yes-men who just go along with current trends, thoroughly investigate potential new evidence and discount it if it doesn't hold up. Which is what happened with every single one of these hoaxes - they were exposed for what they were by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists. Creationists, or skeptics standing on the sideline complaining that science is unreliable and evolution is all a lie, have never managed to disprove or debunk anything in evolutionary science. It's always scientists who correct the mistakes of earlier scientists.
Why would you have to debunk something that hasn't been adequately proven in the first place? There is no concrete "scientific" evidence of any species becoming any other species. Evolution can not be replicated, in any form or shape, in any experimental sense. Isn't that what science is? You can not tell me, with a straight face, that the theory of evolution complies with any aspect of the scientific method.
Regardless, there are Christian Scientists, as stated in my OP, 15% of scientists apparently believe in some form of God. The consensus among them? Evolution is just as faith based as belief in a benevolent creator. Even the staunchest atheist evolutionists admit that you can not prove there is no God. However, it is evolutionists prerogative, at all costs, to reject any evidence suggesting the existence of a supernatural Creator; yet they cling to an unproven, pseudo-scientific worldview as the only alternative.
Bottom line, if you're an atheist, evolution is your religion. You are just as attached to your philosophical worldview, and predisposed to be existentially uncomfortable with anything that points to the contrary, as a bible-thumping soccer mom in Texas.
-
The existence of these hoaxes demonstrates the strength of science, not its weakness. They show that scientists, far from being yes-men who just go along with current trends, thoroughly investigate potential new evidence and discount it if it doesn't hold up. Which is what happened with every single one of these hoaxes - they were exposed for what they were by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists. Creationists, or skeptics standing on the sideline complaining that science is unreliable and evolution is all a lie, have never managed to disprove or debunk anything in evolutionary science. It's always scientists who correct the mistakes of earlier scientists.
Why would you have to debunk something that hasn't been adequately proven in the first place? There is no concrete "scientific" evidence of any species becoming any other species. Evolution can not be replicated, in any form or shape, in any experimental sense.
Isn't that what science is? You can not tell me, with a straight face, that the theory of evolution complies with any aspect of the scientific method.
That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Regardless, there are Christian Scientists, as stated in my OP, 15% of scientists apparently believe in some form of God. The consensus among them? Evolution is just as faith based as belief in a benevolent creator.
And? They have their opinions. Now let them prove it.
Even the staunchest atheist evolutionists admit that you can not prove there is no God. However, it is evolutionists prerogative, at all costs, to reject any evidence suggesting the existence of a supernatural Creator; yet they cling to an unproven, pseudo-scientific worldview as the only alternative.
Correct, you can't prove God exists or doesn't exist because by definition, God can simply alter any experiment to avoid detection. Similarly, we don't know of anything reliable that will make God do something that we can attribute to God. Prayer doesn't do anything. Killing people doesn't do anything. War, famine, disease, none of it causes God to intervene. God is the equivalent of a unicorn. We have pictures and an idea of a horse with a horn but no other evidence exists nor can we prove one never existed before.
Bottom line, if you're an atheist, evolution is your religion. You are just as attached to your philosophical worldview, and predisposed to be existentially uncomfortable with anything that points to the contrary, as a bible-thumping soccer mom in Texas.
No.
Right now there are only two option for life: Intelligent Design and Evolution. Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence. Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way. That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.
Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans? Why is our history so small? If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years. Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years. Right? Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?
-
That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
This does not at all show E.Coli becoming a different species of bacteria. At best it shows how mutations can affect an organism over time, but as experimentally proven and described by the author, detrimentally. There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so.
No.
Right now there are only two option for life: Intelligent Design and Evolution. Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence. Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way. That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Fossil_record
If you can cut through the muck in the article, what it shows is that the earliest fossil of this, dated to 360million years ago lead researchers to believe it was a transitional species to amphibious animals. It was believed to become extinct 66 million years ago. Well, when they found a live one in 1938, and again in the late 90's, it was apparent that over 360 million years they couldn't identify any major changes in the skeletal structure of the fish whatsoever. Why was this fish, once touted as a transitional missing link between fish and amphibians, apparently immune to the effects of evolution? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest anything other than the fact that we were "made this way."
Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans? Why is our history so small? If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years. Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years. Right? Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?
Because technology didn't exist for humans to thrive the way they do today. The agricultural age brought about the ability to support more human life on this planet than the previous hunter gatherer paradigm could. Our history only dates to what we can find, and what was written. Oral history certainly goes back further than written history, but how could you possibly date it? Also, just because a species exists for a long time doesn't particularly mean it is suited to "take over" it's habitat. Humans are pretty much the only animal on this planet that live outside of any kind of meaningful ecosystem. The rest of nature displays a delicate balance, the likes of which we don't have the self-discipline or the foresight to subject ourselves to.
-
That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
This does not at all show E.Coli becoming a different species of bacteria. At best it shows how mutations can affect an organism over time, but as experimentally proven and described by the author, detrimentally. There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so.
Your definition of what a new species is, is very odd. It's like you only consider something a new species when you say so. What criteria do you use, exactly? Because as the article stated, the dna did change in the e.coli.
No.
Right now there are only two option for life: Intelligent Design and Evolution. Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence. Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way. That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Fossil_record
If you can cut through the muck in the article, what it shows is that the earliest fossil of this, dated to 360million years ago lead researchers to believe it was a transitional species to amphibious animals. It was believed to become extinct 66 million years ago. Well, when they found a live one in 1938, and again in the late 90's, it was apparent that over 360 million years they couldn't identify any major changes in the skeletal structure of the fish whatsoever. Why was this fish, once touted as a transitional missing link between fish and amphibians, apparently immune to the effects of evolution? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest anything other than the fact that we were "made this way."
How do you get that leap of logic? Sharks have been largely unchanged for millions of years. Doesn't mean everything else is. You also seem to have this odd idea that evolution is like some kind of switch. "Oh, we have an evolved form, all old fish will now upgrade." That's not how it works. In fact, a species can have an evolutionary branch and still exist. Just because there's an evolutionary change in a species does not mean the previous species goes extinct. They can coexist, especially with isolated populations.
Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans? Why is our history so small? If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years. Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years. Right? Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?
Because technology didn't exist for humans to thrive the way they do today. The agricultural age brought about the ability to support more human life on this planet than the previous hunter gatherer paradigm could. Our history only dates to what we can find, and what was written. Oral history certainly goes back further than written history, but how could you possibly date it? Also, just because a species exists for a long time doesn't particularly mean it is suited to "take over" it's habitat. Humans are pretty much the only animal on this planet that live outside of any kind of meaningful ecosystem. The rest of nature displays a delicate balance, the likes of which we don't have the self-discipline or the foresight to subject ourselves to.
There is no evidence humans ran with the T-Rex. Not even oral stories.
And what about plate techtonics and environment? Antarctica didn't always uses to be so cold. Did penguins always live there? What about polar bears? Were they always around?
-
Your definition of what a new species is, is very odd. It's like you only consider something a new species when you say so. What criteria do you use, exactly? Because as the article stated, the dna did change in the e.coli.
There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so. The DNA changed due to a mutation damaging DNA replication. Hardly evidence of "natural selection." The term species is actually still debated to this day by biologists, for the simple fact it easier to define in male and female reproductive organisms and harder to define in bacteria etc. You require two animals with identical chromosome count in order to produce a healthy, fertile offspring. Bacterium can reproduce asexually by cell division etc. Still remains the fact that in order for any variants with any adaptions to be labeled a new species, they must be different in chromosome count and unable to reproduce with each other. Which is not the case with variants of a species.
How do you get that leap of logic? Sharks have been largely unchanged for millions of years. Doesn't mean everything else is. You also seem to have this odd idea that evolution is like some kind of switch. "Oh, we have an evolved form, all old fish will now upgrade." That's not how it works. In fact, a species can have an evolutionary branch and still exist. Just because there's an evolutionary change in a species does not mean the previous species goes extinct. They can coexist, especially with isolated populations.
You asked for evidence of life existing the same way "a billion years ago" and I gave you evidence of something existing the same way for 360 million years. There is no actual proof of any "evolutionary branch" ever happening. So your conjecture is based no false reasoning to begin with.
There is no evidence humans ran with the T-Rex. Not even oral stories.
And what about plate techtonics and environment? Antarctica didn't always uses to be so cold. Did penguins always live there? What about polar bears? Were they always around?
Are you just going to keep diverting everytime I make a logical point?
How about this, if you want to talk about environments let's examine "natural selection." Why do many animals near the equator have such thick fur? Why do animals in the arctic have bare skin? Wouldn't it be advantageous to develop appropriate protection from the elements? Why do humans near the equator have darker skin? Why do eskimos have light skin? Wouldn't it be advantageous to the human to evolve a lighter skin tone to reflect more light in the tropics? Wouldn't it be advantageous to eskimos to have darker skin, and more hair on their bodies?
Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not by changing their DNA. Advantageous translations of DNA provide an answer for variation of species but not outright creation of new species let alone a genera.
-
There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so. The DNA changed due to a mutation damaging DNA replication. Hardly evidence of "natural selection." The term species is actually still debated to this day by biologists, for the simple fact it easier to define in male and female reproductive organisms and harder to define in bacteria etc. You require two animals with identical chromosome count in order to produce a healthy, fertile offspring. Bacterium can reproduce asexually by cell division etc. Still remains the fact that in order for any variants with any adaptions to be labeled a new species, they must be different in chromosome count and unable to reproduce with each other. Which is not the case with variants of a species.
The definition of a species is rather well known aside from some special cases. As you said, what can reporoduce. Chromosome count is not the factor, however, otherwise we'd be able to fuck Sable antelope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sable_antelope) and have kids. No, it's compatible RNA.
That being said, no, we have not yet witnessed single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms. Mostly because the experimental work has only been going on for 30 years. You did know that such complex evolution requires at LEAST a few thousand years, right? That being said, plenty of evidence to support it and plenty to disprove spontaneous existence.
You asked for evidence of life existing the same way "a billion years ago" and I gave you evidence of something existing the same way for 360 million years. There is no actual proof of any "evolutionary branch" ever happening. So your conjecture is based no false reasoning to begin with.
No, I asked for proof of HUMANS existing a billion years ago. Nice try. I made no argument that everything evolves. Quite simply, some things never die out because they are so well adapted to their environment and their environment doesn't change.
Are you just going to keep diverting everytime I make a logical point?
Your "logical" point was "Humans took a billion years to learn to farm that's why we have no evidence of their existence before hand. Also, humans don't balance with nature but live outside it. Also they couldn't take over their habitat."
Yeah, no. Agriculture allowed for settlements and stability, not increased population. Not the size you're thinking of anyway. Hunter-gatherer could sustain a decent sized tribe. The native Americans of North America were hunter-gatherers and they have a ton of evidence that they existed. What? Did it take humans a billion years to make fire? Or use pointy rocks? And how do you know? What Evidence do you have to show that humans have existed for a billion years? Or are you arguing from ignorance?
How about this, if you want to talk about environments let's examine "natural selection." Why do many animals near the equator have such thick fur?
Name 1 because I'm only really seeing the three-toed sloth and that thing uses it's fur (and the algae that grows in it) for camoflague.
Why do animals in the arctic have bare skin?
Polar bears do not.
Seals, penguins, and other animals that are aquatic do for speed in the water. Hair makes you slower.
Wouldn't it be advantageous to develop appropriate protection from the elements?
They did! The fact that you THINK they don't makes me wonder how you can then accept intelligent design as that clearly shows a lack of intelligence, doesn't it?
Why do humans near the equator have darker skin?
Why do eskimos have light skin?
Vitamin D. It's essential for human survival and it's created by sunlight on the skin.
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/
Light skin allows for the most vitamin D creation while dark skin limits it but protects better from sunburn. But at the equator, you get a lot more sun exposure (due to it being in the sky longer during the year) so you will get enough vitamin D creation even though it's much less than if you had light skin. It's basically trading more vitamin D than you need for less severe sun burn.
Wouldn't it be advantageous to the human to evolve a lighter skin tone to reflect more light in the tropics?
Wouldn't it be advantageous to eskimos to have darker skin, and more hair on their bodies?
You seem to not understand how the human body works with regard to temperature. Nor how sunlight works, apparently.
SO! Here's the deal. Your skin will absorb infrared rays from the sun. That's what it does. The color is irrelevant to this. Your body also produces heat. A lot of it, actually. Normally, the heat produced is LESS than the outside temperature so the skin cools. However, when enough IR has been absorbed, the body will heat up. The sweat glands then remove said heat by having water evaporate on the skin, which removes heat.
So, where am I going with this? Well, Eskimos are not a separate species. Nor did they evolve in the arctic. They, like most humans, migrated. Current archeological evidence suggests that humans originated from Africa. This is why hair was slowly lost over the course of several thousand years: The ice age ended and the planet warmed so the insulating hair wasn't needed as much anymore. We still have some (chest, genitals, armpits, face, back, head) but not as much as we likely did prior. Humans then expanded outwards across the world and landed in cold areas. Hair was very helpful but since most of it was lost prior, they supplemented with animal skins.
Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not by changing their DNA. Advantageous translations of DNA provide an answer for variation of species but not outright creation of new species let alone a genera.
I really have no idea how to make you understand this. You have the pieces yet you just won't put them together.
Ok, lets try this:
Take a book. Say.. War and Peace.
Change 1 word.
Is it still War and Peace? I mean, you just changed the word Apple to Orange but the story isn't altered. It's still the same story, thus, the same book.
Change 1 more word. Ok, you changed Andrei Nikolayevich Bolkonsky to Andrew Nikolavevich Bolkonsky. Is it still the same book? Story hasn't changed, right? Just one instance of the character's name. It's just a typo, really.
Keep doing that. When will it be a different story?
-
On mobile, so I wont be able to dissect your post, but just to be clear: there is still no experimental evidence of evolution. Correct?
And about your book metaphor... In actual realistic scenario, who is arranging the words? Who is changing the letters? If left up to time and nature alone, which unequivocally trends towards chaos aka entropy, you will end up with a book full of jibberish. You won't end up with an even more masterful piece of literature. It's more like assuming that given time a Dr. Zuess' Red Fish Blue Fish will become War and Peace.
Don't have the exact link but I've read about a computer simulation running over 15 billion times or something insane, just to properly sequence half of the alphabet in order. I will look for source when I'm on my computer, but you have to agree, extrapolating that to how complicated and precise our DNA has to replicate to result in healthy fertile offspring seems like a tough task.
Oh btw, happy Easter ;D
-
On mobile, so I wont be able to dissect your post, but just to be clear: there is still no experimental evidence of evolution. Correct?
And about your book metaphor... In actual realistic scenario, who is arranging the words? Who is changing the letters? If left up to time and nature alone, which unequivocally trends towards chaos aka entropy, you will end up with a book full of jibberish. You won't end up with an even more masterful piece of literature. It's more like assuming that given time a Dr. Zuess' Red Fish Blue Fish will become War and Peace.
Don't have the exact link but I've read about a computer simulation running over 15 billion times or something insane, just to properly sequence half of the alphabet in order. I will look for source when I'm on my computer, but you have to agree, extrapolating that to how complicated and precise our DNA has to replicate to result in healthy fertile offspring seems like a tough task.
Oh btw, happy Easter ;D
How lucky you were on your mobile, because he demolished you, especially your childlike understanding of natural selection and environments.
And the book analogy A bit clumsy but if each of the changed words has to make sense (i.e. promote survival or at least not hinder it) it kind of works.
But still there is a wealth of studies that show evolution in action, the continued examination of ring species like the Ensatina salamander amongst many others.
But you want us to believe that we have always been here (with the dinosaurs?), that sky god pops in every now and then to give us some tablets and to sacrifice someone to prove the point, raise a city or two to the ground to prove some other thing, whilst insisting we worship it or else.
Give me science with its gradual uncovering of the beauty of natures workings over religion and its fear based mutterings any day.
-
On mobile, so I wont be able to dissect your post, but just to be clear: there is still no experimental evidence of evolution. Correct?
And about your book metaphor... In actual realistic scenario, who is arranging the words? Who is changing the letters? If left up to time and nature alone, which unequivocally trends towards chaos aka entropy, you will end up with a book full of jibberish. You won't end up with an even more masterful piece of literature. It's more like assuming that given time a Dr. Zuess' Red Fish Blue Fish will become War and Peace.
Don't have the exact link but I've read about a computer simulation running over 15 billion times or something insane, just to properly sequence half of the alphabet in order. I will look for source when I'm on my computer, but you have to agree, extrapolating that to how complicated and precise our DNA has to replicate to result in healthy fertile offspring seems like a tough task.
Oh btw, happy Easter ;D
How lucky you were on your mobile, because he demolished you, especially your childlike understanding of natural selection and environments.
And the book analogy A bit clumsy but if each of the changed words has to make sense (i.e. promote survival or at least not hinder it) it kind of works.
But still there is a wealth of studies that show evolution in action, the continued examination of ring species like the Ensatina salamander amongst many others.
But you want us to believe that we have always been here (with the dinosaurs?), that sky god pops in every now and then to give us some tablets and to sacrifice someone to prove the point, raise a city or two to the ground to prove some other thing, whilst insisting we worship it or else.
Give me science with its gradual uncovering of the beauty of natures workings over religion and its fear based mutterings any day.
I'm waiting for him to disect my post. Its been 2 days.
-
There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.
-
There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.
Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you. You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority. We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.
I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority?
-
There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.
Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you. You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority. We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.
I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority?
You can have this forum, I'm talking about the 85% of Americans that share my view that life is too magnificent, too complex, too improbable to be the result of lightning striking a primordial ooze.
You haven't refuted a thing I've said. In fact, throughout this debate I've been the one knocking down any circumstantial wikipedia article you've posted.
As I said, if you really think you have converted anyone on the fence who would even look at this miserable thread, which no one is, it's just us, then you would be ashamed to find out your conjectures and circle logic failed at making me rethink my position for even one split second.
Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."
EDIT:
And this isn't a pecker contest Dave. I'm not here to prove my superiority over anyone. Ideas aren't validated on an ego to ego basis. Obviously you have some deep sense of self on the line here, where becoming inferior is a real possible outcome to an internet forum debate. Logic trumps emotion and you acting like a little bitch right now.
-
There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.
Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you. You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority. We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.
I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority?
You can have this forum, I'm talking about the 85% of Americans that share my view that life is too magnificent, too complex, too improbable to be the result of lightning striking a primordial ooze.
Logical fallacy. Ad populum.
You haven't refuted a thing I've said. In fact, throughout this debate I've been the one knocking down any circumstantial wikipedia article you've posted.
If you say so.
As I said, if you really think you have converted anyone on the fence who would even look at this miserable thread, which no one is, it's just us, then you would be ashamed to find out your conjectures and circle logic failed at making me rethink my position for even one split second.
Yeah, I noticed. You're one of those people who would proclaim something as fact even if God himself came from heaven and told you otherwise.
Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."
Oh, it talks about microscopic organisms? Or is it just "Wash your hands after touching pig shit"?
-
Logical fallacy. Ad populum.
Funny, you certainly made a point to let me know just how alone I was on this forum. You know, how much of a minority I was here. I guess it's only a valid logical argument when it comes from someone with the same point of view as you.
You haven't refuted a thing I've said. In fact, throughout this debate I've been the one knocking down any circumstantial wikipedia article you've posted.
If you say so.
Still absolutely no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming multi-cellular, OR any evidence of a species branching "up" to become a new genera, OR any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that any fossil is a transitional species, as opposed to just another extinct species.
Oh, and I demolished your idea that, given time, the 1040 probability of life in its present form eventually, naturally happens. The Third Law of Thermodynamics destroys that idea, and we realize that time alone doesn't make the impossible possible. Your book metaphor was slain by very simple logic.
Yet every time, you just pull some other trick from your hat to divert from the Truth we've discovered together.
Yeah, I noticed. You're one of those people who would proclaim something as fact even if God himself came from heaven and told you otherwise.
Was the irony there intentional? I do admit though, you give yourself a lot of credit to equate your words to those of God's himself. Maybe your inferiority complex isn't as bad I've inferred.
Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."
Oh, it talks about microscopic organisms? Or is it just "Wash your hands after touching pig shit"?
You'd be surprised just how uncommon that knowledge was. Doctors used to think washing their hands was a waste of time until the 19th century. Also tell me how one verifies the existence of microscopic organisms when a microscope wasn't invented for another 3,000 years.
Remember Dave, this isn't a battle with winners or losers. Even engaging in a conversation like this there is something we can learn. May God bless you in your journeys.
-
Yet again you fail to check your own figures, 85% of Americans may well believe in a god but they sure as fuck don't all agree with you. In fact of those Americans in the largest 12 Christian denominations, 71% belong to churches that support evolution education, including Catholics, United Methodists, National baptist convention, Presbyterian church (USA), Lutherans & Episcopal churches.
The McLean Vs Arkansas lawsuit against the balanced treatment for creation science and evolution science was instigated by the Reverend William McLean a United Methodist and 11 other clergy from differing religious groups.
So if you do actually believe any of the rubbish you post, it's from some back water fundamentalist standpoint that just a small percentage of loons accept.
But you don't have to check any thing because you are just trolling, you lose every argument have no one on your side but the troll goes on.
-
Yet again you fail to check your own figures, 85% of Americans may well believe in a god but they sure as fuck don't all agree with you. In fact of those Americans in the largest 12 Christian denominations, 71% belong to churches that support evolution education, including Catholics, United Methodists, National baptist convention, Presbyterian church (USA), Lutherans & Episcopal churches.
The McLean Vs Arkansas lawsuit against the balanced treatment for creation science and evolution science was instigated by the Reverend William McLean a United Methodist and 11 other clergy from differing religious groups.
So if you do actually believe any of the rubbish you post, it's from some back water fundamentalist standpoint that just a small percentage of loons accept.
But you don't have to check any thing because you are just trolling, you lose every argument have no one on your side but the troll goes on.
Saying the theory of evolution isn't incompatible with religion isn't the same as professing that it actually happened. Besides, Christianity has a long history of assimilating popular views, as I've already been over. With that said, I'm yet to see any scientific experimental evidence of evolution. In fact, we're all waiting for that smoking gun that propels evolution out of theory into reality. In the mean time, I'd respect you more if you would admit that evolution is as faith based as religion is.
Take solace in the one or two other people here trying to discredit what I say, who I am, what I believe etc. You aren't indicative of any reasonable cross section of people who's opinion would even matter to me. You, in particular, are an affront to civilized discourse. You devolved this conversation into name calling and insults from the beginning, all with an overwhelming air of smug pretentiousness that probably makes you a blast at parties. At least Dave tries to use information and logic in his argument (poorly). You, however, just try to attack my intellect, and convince me that I'm wrong just because you say so. Please go watch some more clouds and leave the logical, reason ruled conversation for the men.
-
Still absolutely no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming multi-cellular, OR any evidence of a species branching "up" to become a new genera, OR any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that any fossil is a transitional species, as opposed to just another extinct species.
Stop watching Law & Order. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for legal evidence.
Oh, and I demolished your idea that, given time, the 1040 probability of life in its present form eventually, naturally happens. The Third Law of Thermodynamics destroys that idea, and we realize that time alone doesn't make the impossible possible. Your book metaphor was slain by very simple logic.
The Earth is an open system, constantly receiving more energy. The 3rd law of thermodynamics does not apply to the development of life on Earth.
By the way, where does your absurd factoid of 1040 probability even come from? Can you cite the paper that calculates it?
Yet every time, you just pull some other trick from your hat to divert from the Truth we've discovered together.
Yeah, I noticed. You're one of those people who would proclaim something as fact even if God himself came from heaven and told you otherwise.
Was the irony there intentional? I do admit though, you give yourself a lot of credit to equate your words to those of God's himself. Maybe your inferiority complex isn't as bad I've inferred.
Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."
Oh, it talks about microscopic organisms? Or is it just "Wash your hands after touching pig shit"?
You'd be surprised just how uncommon that knowledge was. Doctors used to think washing their hands was a waste of time until the 19th century. Also tell me how one verifies the existence of microscopic organisms when a microscope wasn't invented for another 3,000 years.
So nothing about germs then? Yeah we knew.
-
But time and time again you post stuff that just doesn't bear up to the slightest of tests, claiming 85% of the USA is with you, is just the last, and the figure for how many Americans don't believe in Humans developing from earlier species is nearer 40% according to a study in Science, with the amount that do about the same, so even in your backward leaning neck of the woods there is no consensus, the study looked at 32 European countries and Japan and apart from Turkey you were the lowest in believers, across most of Europe & Japan it was closer to 80% that do believe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg/960px-Views_on_Evolution.svg.png
I don't have to insult your intellect, the fact you are unable to understand evolution, the laws of thermodynamics (see Rama above) or statistical analysis is testament enough.
When you had finished typing “ leave the logical, reason ruled conversation for the men. “ didn't you cringe just a little? Run it past a woman that is currently in your life at the moment, I'm guessing it will have to be your Mom.
-
But time and time again you post stuff that just doesn't bear up to the slightest of tests, claiming 85% of the USA is with you, is just the last, and the figure for how many Americans don't believe in Humans developing from earlier species is nearer 40% according to a study in Science, with the amount that do about the same, so even in your backward leaning neck of the woods there is no consensus, the study looked at 32 European countries and Japan and apart from Turkey you were the lowest in believers, across most of Europe & Japan it was closer to 80% that do believe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg/960px-Views_on_Evolution.svg.png
I don't have to insult your intellect, the fact you are unable to understand evolution, the laws of thermodynamics (see Rama above) or statistical analysis is testament enough.
When you had finished typing “ leave the logical, reason ruled conversation for the men. “ didn't you cringe just a little? Run it past a woman that is currently in your life at the moment, I'm guessing it will have to be your Mom.
You may not directly insult me, but it's more of an annoying, subtle prick and poke. I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I'd have an easier time digesting your points of view if they weren't so drenched in a poisonous layer of contempt. I've tried to remain civil with the lot of you but the personal attacks have made this conversation very unpalatable. I'll stand on what I've said because as Dave stated, God himself could come down and tell you the reality of our existence and you would remain unconvinced.
-
For between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle. - Hobbes
-
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
-
For between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle. - Hobbes
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9f/e7/11/9fe711f9d6c5e654f9d621dbe5e12d0a.jpg)
Relevant?
I get it. I've got to be a bible thumping, inbred, hillbilly moron to ever hold the beliefs I do. But my beliefs aren't the result of being told something by a pastor when I was a kid. My beliefs are the result of years of research and study. You may not agree with them but to label them a result of ignorance is insulting.
Regardless how you feel, some people need guidance in their lives. The golden rule isn't always obvious to some. That is the reason why religion as an institution is supposed to exist. I dont consider myself any particular religion, I have an eclectic view that makes sense to me. Through logic, which all men (and some women :p) have been gifted, we can strip away the layers that shroud any mystery and find truth.
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of things about evolution in particular don't make sense to me. And it's not for lack of trying, or inability to understand. Belief in God may be the same to you. But I'm not going to call you ignorant if you haven't read the entire bible, or looked deeper into the meanings behind the symbols we see everyday.
It is your personal decision to believe whatever you may, and I'm not an evangelical so I really don't care what you want to believe either. I apologize for any insults I've sent your way, internet forums have a way of bringing the worst out in people. If you still want to personally think of me as an idiot for what I believe, then that's fine, but please don't continue to insinuate that lack of knowledge is why I have arrived where I have. Thanks.
-
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
I threw him on ignore. It seems to help.
-
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
I threw him on ignore. It seems to help.
The funny thing is some one seems to have told him that just because you have a beautiful woman as an avatar, that makes you a woman. I would seriously look at your life choices again if you have been with a woman like me!
It did serve to highlight the depths of his prejudice though.
-
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
I threw him on ignore. It seems to help.
He "threw me on ignore" because he had no answers for the questions I raised. He continued to push the debate forward though, even after I told him so many times I was done with his never ended cycle of bullshit.
Saddam you have to put it into context of the entire conversation. Otherwise don't highlight one part of one post and call me out on it if you haven't been around for the rest of it. Jura, if you are a man with an avatar of a women, on an internet forum, then I would seriously question your lifestyle. I may be "prejudiced," but you are just a mean-spirited, arrogant, condescending person (man or woman).
I don't know why I expected any kind of different experience than any other online community I've ever been to. A bunch of cliquey "regulars" that like to try to silence dissenting voices in order to maintain their private little safe space and remain ignorant to new ideas (as you've arbitrary decided I am)
I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't. Petty insults, and condescending wastes of posts aside, there is something to be learned here, and besides the opinion of a very small, insignificant group of anonymous people on the internet, my logic is solid. My original post raises a very valid question.
I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.
-
But I'm not going to call you ignorant if you haven't read the entire bible, or looked deeper into the meanings behind the symbols we see everyday.
Why not? In that context, if it is accurate, the person is ignorant. Ignorance is not pejorative, it is a state of lacking knowledge, nothing more.
I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't.
...
I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.
Can you please justify the latter part of this quote in the context of the former part? You seem to be suffering from a severe case hypocrititis.
-
But I'm not going to call you ignorant if you haven't read the entire bible, or looked deeper into the meanings behind the symbols we see everyday.
Why not? In that context, if it is accurate, the person is ignorant. Ignorance is not pejorative, it is a state of lacking knowledge, nothing more.
I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't.
...
I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.
Can you please justify the latter part of this quote in the context of the former part? You seem to be suffering from a severe case hypocrititis.
I should've specified, "wholly, willfully" ignorant. I'm being constantly accused of that style of ignorance even though I've studied evolution, was taught evolution in school as a fact, and have honestly learned more about the theory since we've started this post. Have many of you actually spent the time to look into creationism as a realistic possibility? As I said, I don't expect you to have to read the entire bible. You can deduce through logic and reason that the big bang, and it's sheer improbability of being the origin of life is too much to surmise.
I don't understand your issue with the second quote. I've looked at the issue of evolution and big bang from a logical point of view, and have personally decided to eliminate it as a possibility. Does this prove that creation or intelligent design is the answer? No. The truth isn't mutually exclusive to the two concepts. It's just the best two guesses we have right now. And they both require an incredible amount of faith, and suspension of disbelief to fully accept.
I do, however, lean towards Intelligent Design. But I won't pretend to be 100% certain, or accost those that don't agree with me. I wont talk down to anyone for believing, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of evolution either. Everyone is free to come up with their own conclusions, but to accuse me of lacking intelligence for my views, is only a desperate maneuver to invalidate what I have to say. As I said, I've apologized for taking the bait and letting this type of personal attack make me stray from the original intent of this discussion. I won't hold my breath waiting for others to do the same.
-
even though I've studied evolution, was taught evolution in school as a fact
No, you haven't. Or if you did, you completely half-assed it and/or didn't bother paying attention. I know because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you've said or asked that isn't incredibly basic, run-of-the-mill Evolution 101 material. You may never accept that evolution is real, but you have to at least understand that neither you nor your arguments are exceptional or unusually well-informed. Every creationist or skeptic of evolution says what you say and asks what you ask. They're all very, very common fallacies that have been asked and answered a thousand times before. God of the gaps. Hoyle's fallacy. "There are no transitional fossils." Conflating evolution with the origin of life. Bringing up hoaxes as if they somehow prove something. There's nothing insightful or original about any of them.
-
even though I've studied evolution, was taught evolution in school as a fact
No, you haven't. Or if you did, you completely half-assed it and/or didn't bother paying attention. I know because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you've said or asked that isn't incredibly basic, run-of-the-mill Evolution 101 material. You may never accept that evolution is real, but you have to at least understand that neither you nor your arguments are exceptional or unusually well-informed. Every creationist or skeptic of evolution says what you say and asks what you ask. They're all very, very common fallacies that have been asked and answered a thousand times before. God of the gaps. Hoyle's fallacy. "There are no transitional fossils." Conflating evolution with the origin of life. Bringing up hoaxes as if they somehow prove something. There's nothing insightful or original about any of them.
Regardless if they are basic questions or not, they're still questioned to this day, because they haven't been answered beyond a reasonable doubt. Something basic should have a quick ready answer, shouldn't it? Can't you consult your evolution wikis with it's pre-loaded responses to fire back at me? Of course it would just be easier to insult and slander me into submission, though.
Is asking for scientific experimental evidence of evolution happening a reasonable request? Oh, yeah, it would take thousands of years for that to happen. You haven't offered anything to the conversation, except criticism. So you can continue to criticize all you want, but until you begin to draw from your infinite wisdom and start answering questions then I will look at you as nothing more than the arrogant and pretentious [person] you appear to be.
-
I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't.
...
I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.
Can you please justify the latter part of this quote in the context of the former part? You seem to be suffering from a severe case hypocrititis.
I don't understand your issue with the second quote. I've looked at the issue of evolution and big bang from a logical point of view, and have personally decided to eliminate it as a possibility. Does this prove that creation or intelligent design is the answer? No. The truth isn't mutually exclusive to the two concepts. It's just the best two guesses we have right now. And they both require an incredible amount of faith, and suspension of disbelief to fully accept.
You dismiss out of hand, and quite aggressively, anyone who gives credence to the Big Bang and/or evolution, and also call Lord Dave "(a) scared little (man)" yet two paragraphs earlier claim to be objective. If you cannot even allow that someone can construct a logical position around the Big Bang theory and/or evolution, and if you must resort to Ad Hominems on those that support it, then you obviously have a bias you are not disclosing.
Personally I find the argument from probability to be incredibly underwhelming because it is misleading for a few reasons: 1. No matter how improbable a scenario, it's probability after occuring is 1; 2. Any calculation in to the probability of the Big Bang occuring will always suffer from a lack of knowledge of the initial conditions which would be crucial to the calculation I hope you agree, and as such could never be considered reliable; 3. You offer no probability of what the likelihood of God existing and deciding to create the universe we observe.
If you can address these, I will give credence to the "improbability of the Big Bang", until then you appear to just be parroting Answer in Genesis or some such other group.
As for evolution, I have to agree with Saddam. You really seem to either misunderstand or misrepresent what the theory supposes so I am not sure why I should take you seriously on the matter.
Regardless if they are basic questions or not, they're still questioned to this day, because they haven't been answered beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a criminal legal standard, why do you keep applying it to other subjects?
Something basic should have a quick ready answer, shouldn't it?
No. That is a preposterous statement that is as illogical as it is unfounded in the world we live in.
Is asking for scientific experimental evidence of evolution happening a reasonable request? Oh, yeah, it would take thousands of years for that to happen.
That is simply not true. Evolution happens on a generational time scale, and given sufficient generations, you see evolution working, for example the London Underground Mosquito (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito). Natural selection is obviously present, as humans can induce it in controlled breeding, so if you have an issue that small changes can lead to larger ones, perhaps you should explain why, of course noting that you are wrong about the 3rd law of thermodynamics.
You haven't offered anything to the conversation, except criticism.
So what?
So you can continue to criticize all you want, but until you begin to draw from your infinite wisdom and start answering questions then I will look at you as nothing more than the arrogant and pretentious [person] you appear to be.
Asking for answers to everything is a real epistemological problem, because it assumes that all questions have an answer we can fathom or access. Believing this will ultimately cause you to make a misstep like supposing a creator of the universe...
-
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me. :'( :'( :'(
This is a criminal legal standard, why do you keep applying it to other subjects?
Because it is a very good standard of proof, that's why.
That is simply not true. Evolution happens on a generational time scale, and given sufficient generations, you see evolution working, for example the London Underground Mosquito. Natural selection is obviously present, as humans can induce it in controlled breeding, so if you have an issue that small changes can lead to larger ones, perhaps you should explain why, of course noting that you are wrong about the 3rd law of thermodynamics.
No one is debating the role that the environment has on giving rise to different variations of a species. The environment alone doesn't change the DNA of an organism. Time alone doesn't change the DNA. Selective breeding doesn't change the DNA. And tell me how I'm wrong about 3lot? Please elaborate. Things naturally trend towards entropy. A pile of sticks in my backyard doesn't turn into a log cabin. Rewriting war and peace one word at a time results in jibberish. Time alone doesn't make the impossible, possible, regardless your unique, personal views on probability.
Asking for answers to everything is a real epistemological problem, because it assumes that all questions have an answer we can fathom or access. Believing this will ultimately cause you to make a misstep like supposing a creator of the universe...
Which is precisely why I avoid putting faith into evolutionary biologists who have staked their careers on supposing to have the answer. And if you check a previous post of mine, I don't claim that eliminating evolution as a possibility automatically makes creation the correct answer. It's interesting to note though, that many religious entities have accepted evolution as a possibility, not exclusive to God's creation. Evolutionists on the other hand prefer to abolish the thought of God, or any possibility of an intelligent hand guiding the process.
-
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me. :'( :'( :'(
Do you insult women who ignore you too?
This is a criminal legal standard, why do you keep applying it to other subjects?
Because it is a very good standard of proof, that's why.
So then why do you believe in God?
No one is debating the role that the environment has on giving rise to different variations of a species. The environment alone doesn't change the DNA of an organism. Time alone doesn't change the DNA. Selective breeding doesn't change the DNA.
No one has said otherwise have they?
And tell me how I'm wrong about 3lot? Please elaborate.
I already did, here I go again: A system tends toward entropy when it is closed, as in no new energy is being added to the system. You may have noticed that there is new energy coming to the Earth almost every second of the day, therefore there is plenty of excess energy to do things like create life.
Things naturally trend towards entropy. A pile of sticks in my backyard doesn't turn into a log cabin. Rewriting war and peace one word at a time results in jibberish. Time alone doesn't make the impossible, possible, regardless your unique, personal views on probability.
I find it really interesting that you concede that one factor alone does not make evolution possible. No one has ever asserted that, rather that it is a combination of all those factors.
Asking for answers to everything is a real epistemological problem, because it assumes that all questions have an answer we can fathom or access. Believing this will ultimately cause you to make a misstep like supposing a creator of the universe...
Which is precisely why I avoid putting faith into evolutionary biologists who have staked their careers on supposing to have the answer. And if you check a previous post of mine, I don't claim that eliminating evolution as a possibility automatically makes creation the correct answer. It's interesting to note though, that many religious entities have accepted evolution as a possibility, not exclusive to God's creation. Evolutionists on the other hand prefer to abolish the thought of God, or any possibility of an intelligent hand guiding the process.
[/quote]
No they stake their career on looking for the answer competently. I leave it to you to discern the difference.
-
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me. :'( :'( :'(
I find it interesting that someone who walks away from an aggrevating person is "scared". Do you understand what fear is? Because I don't think you do. I have no risk of personal harm, financial harm, or social harm. I'm not afraid of embarassing myself either.
So what am I supposed to be afraid of? I put you on ignore because you are like a brick wall I'm tired of trying to argue with. Out of sight, out of mind.
Except with quotes.
-
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me. :'( :'( :'(
I find it interesting that someone who walks away from an aggrevating person is "scared". Do you understand what fear is? Because I don't think you do. I have no risk of personal harm, financial harm, or social harm. I'm not afraid of embarassing myself either.
So what am I supposed to be afraid of? I put you on ignore because you are like a brick wall I'm tired of trying to argue with. Out of sight, out of mind.
Except with quotes.
A brick wall that called him out on his bullshit. "Ignoring" someone is a bitch move. His "superiority" was on the line as he said so himself, so of course he had to bow out of the "argument" in the most passive aggressive way he could.
So then why do you believe in God?
Because that is my faith based choice after carefully looking at the evidence. Just like evolution and the big bang are yours.
-
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me. :'( :'( :'(
I find it interesting that someone who walks away from an aggrevating person is "scared". Do you understand what fear is? Because I don't think you do. I have no risk of personal harm, financial harm, or social harm. I'm not afraid of embarassing myself either.
So what am I supposed to be afraid of? I put you on ignore because you are like a brick wall I'm tired of trying to argue with. Out of sight, out of mind.
Except with quotes.
A brick wall that called him out on his bullshit. "Ignoring" someone is a bitch move. His "superiority" was on the line as he said so himself, so of course he had to bow out of the "argument" in the most passive aggressive way he could.
So objective. So brave.
So then why do you believe in God?
Because that is my faith based choice after carefully looking at the evidence. Just like evolution and the big bang are yours.
I can't believe you actually wrote that. It's even worse if you believe it. Evolution is a matter of empiricism and is thoroughly documented and researched, unlike God. All the faith I require is that the laws of physics have been the same throughout history. As far as axioms go, that is fairly mild. Unlike the God proposition.
Tell Ken Hovind I say "what's up"
-
You are a mass of contradictions, you apologise for taking the bait and straying into personal attacks and in your very next post you call Saddam arrogant and pretentious.
Your "alternative", "new ideas", are anything but, based as they are on 2,000 year old books.
You say you have studied evolution but if you have you have failed to understand it, as you continue to do also with thermodynamics, something I am surprised you dare quote as apparently scientists are wrong about everything else.
You claim that your logic is solid, in the face of everybody else who has expressed an opinion seeing the holes.
You ask us why we haven't "looked at creationism as a realistic possibility", well it needs a creator as a first principle, something that if you called for the same rigorous amount of evidence you do for evolution would be a non starter. So you invoke faith, basically the suspension of that need for proof in favour of conviction based on said old books.
I have no doubt that you will be the last man standing here, please don't mistake that for winning the argument, as some one once said “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
-
“Although it is cloaked in the guise of science, the theory of evolution is nothing but a deceit: a deceit defended only for the benefit of materialistic philosophy; a deceit based not on science but on brainwashing, propaganda, and fraud. The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step. The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life. Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed? They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird. Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in their elaborately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that.” -Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (214-215)
-
“Although it is cloaked in the guise of science, the theory of evolution is nothing but a deceit: a deceit defended only for the benefit of materialistic philosophy; a deceit based not on science but on brainwashing, propaganda, and fraud. The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step. The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life. Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed? They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird. Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in their elaborately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that.” -Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (214-215)
What is the positive evidence to support the claim "not even a single chance-formed protein can exist"?
-
half-fish/half-reptile
So an Amphibian?
-
Damn, just when I thought he'd gone away , he done gone and read a book! A book (not) written by a cult leader convicted of running a criminal organisation, not in itself necessarily a reason to not take it seriously, so lets take one bit of the rubbish you quote.
“They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird. “
Well, “Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993) “
And, “Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992). “ From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird.
Go read another book.
-
Damn, just when I thought he'd gone away , he done gone and read a book! A book (not) written by a cult leader convicted of running a criminal organisation, not in itself necessarily a reason to not take it seriously, so lets take one bit of the rubbish you quote.
“They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird. “
Well, “Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993) “
And, “Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992). “ From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird.
Go read another book.
So please tell me: if natural selection is the reason why reptiles grew wings... What benefit were the half turned, non functional wings that clearly had to be passed on for hundreds if not thousands of generations? How would having half a wing suit an animal for survival better than a limb with claws?
-
It could help them survive a fall. Or make a jump without falling.
-
Flying squirrels, flying fish, frogs, geckos & flying tree snakes, non can truly fly but all use gliding to evade predation, it's also an energy efficient way of travelling between stands of trees (not the fish) rather than climbing down running across exposed ground and climbing back up. To find food or a mate.
Like it said in my post (if you had bothered to read it) Archaeopteryx wouldn't have been a true flyer.
And it (and all the other examples in the link) rubbishes the statement that no transitional forms have been found.
-
Flying squirrels, flying fish, frogs, geckos & flying tree snakes, non can truly fly but all use gliding to evade predation, it's also an energy efficient way of travelling between stands of trees (not the fish) rather than climbing down running across exposed ground and climbing back up. To find food or a mate.
Like it said in my post (if you had bothered to read it) Archaeopteryx wouldn't have been a true flyer.
And it (and all the other examples in the link) rubbishes the statement that no transitional forms have been found.
So falling down out of trees would be better. Thanks. I think I'd keep my fully functional legs with claws if I'm a reptile.
Interestingly enough there aren't any fossils highlighting this gradual change either. It's just here is one species... here is another. Where's the fossils with the quarter wings, half wings, 3/4 wings.
Besides, a highly suspicious, possibly unauthentic fossil doesn't provide evidence of a transitional species that should have lived for thousands of generations.
But wait, we all know it is legit, 100% without a doubt no way anyone would ever forge a missing link fossil. Oh wait, someone did? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor) Maybe after they got busted for this one they got a little bit better at it on the next go.
-
Why is it that evolution is scrutinized so much, added to, confused with ambiogenesis, etc... But when asked "who made God" the answer is " God has always existed". Its a copout yet we're not allowed to call you out on it.
-
Flying squirrels, flying fish, frogs, geckos & flying tree snakes, non can truly fly but all use gliding to evade predation, it's also an energy efficient way of travelling between stands of trees (not the fish) rather than climbing down running across exposed ground and climbing back up. To find food or a mate.
Like it said in my post (if you had bothered to read it) Archaeopteryx wouldn't have been a true flyer.
And it (and all the other examples in the link) rubbishes the statement that no transitional forms have been found.
So falling down out of trees would be better. Thanks. I think I'd keep my fully functional legs with claws if I'm a reptile.
Interestingly enough there aren't any fossils highlighting this gradual change either. It's just here is one species... here is another. Where's the fossils with the quarter wings, half wings, 3/4 wings.
Besides, a highly suspicious, possibly unauthentic fossil doesn't provide evidence of a transitional species that should have lived for thousands of generations.
But wait, we all know it is legit, 100% without a doubt no way anyone would ever forge a missing link fossil. Oh wait, someone did? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor) Maybe after they got busted for this one they got a little bit better at it on the next go.
Ack, this reply is lacking intellect on so many levels, you can do better than this!
As if you're the first person in the world to carry these thoughts, come on! It shouldn't be necessary to explain the insane amount of variables needed to be just right to perfectly preserve a fossil, let alone being able to find them in the first place. Even archeologists have had their doubts, but then they wake up and realize that they need to keep digging.
And yes, you being a creationist is a BIG thing, not just to me, but to this whole debate. You claim you're undecided on the shape of the planet, yet you only refute perfectly reproducible round earth facts. You only inject doubt into this particular discussion no matter what's thrown at you, all while subscribing to a religion that believes the earth is 6000 years old.
You expect all or nothing, even though you know this field, and any other scientific field is in a continuous state of research. You can't possibly be that that dumb, so stop trolling.
-
Ack, this reply is lacking intellect on so many levels, you can do better than this!
As if you're the first person in the world to carry these thoughts, come on! It shouldn't be necessary to explain the insane amount of variables needed to be just right to perfectly preserve a fossil, let alone being able to find them in the first place. Even archeologists have had their doubts, but then they wake up and realize that they need to keep digging.
So the insane amount of variables needed for natural selection and mutation to be a reasonable solution to organisms emerging from a single cell into infinitely more complex families of animalia in such an incredibly short amount of time is OK though. Sure bud.
And yes, you being a creationist is a BIG thing, not just to me, but to this whole debate. You claim you're undecided on the shape of the planet, yet you only refute perfectly reproducible round earth facts. You only inject doubt into this particular discussion no matter what's thrown at you, all while subscribing to a religion that believes the earth is 6000 years old.
You expect all or nothing, even though you know this field, and any other scientific field is in a continuous state of research. You can't possibly be that that dumb, so stop trolling.
I don't subscribe to any particular religion, that has been established. I don't expect the mysteries to ever be solved, especially while we go down this rabbit hole filled with erroneous assumption after assumption. Natural Selection and prebiotic primordial ooze isn't the answer.
Why is it that evolution is scrutinized so much, added to, confused with ambiogenesis, etc... But when asked "who made God" the answer is " God has always existed". Its a copout yet we're not allowed to call you out on it.
Call me out all you want, don't pretend you guys haven't at every turn. Here is a quote from a different thread that basically sums out how I feel about evolution, by someone who has obviously done more research than me. Read it, or don't, that's your decision. But don't insult my intelligence and call me ignorant if you refuse to look at the logical arguments presented by scientists and biologists actually in the field.
There is no evidence for an intelligent creator because logically, there cannot be. Science only finds explanations that involve the physical, a metaphysical being cannot be discovered by science.
The scientific explanations exclude any kind of evolution theory.
'Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.
"By what devices the genes direct the formation of patterns of neurons that constitute innate behavioral patterns is entirely enigmatic. Yet not only do animals respond appropriately to manifold needs; they often do so in ways that would seem to require something like forethought" (p. 68). R. Wesson adds: "An instinct of any complexity, linking a sequence of perceptions and actions, must involve a very large number of connections within the brain or principal ganglia of the animal. If it is comparable to a computer program, it must have the equivalent of thousands of lines. In such a program, not merely would chance of improvement by accidental change be tiny at best. It is problematic how the program can be maintained without degradation over a long period despite the occurrence from time to time of errors by replication" (p. 81).
Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).
M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).
In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that certain RNA molecules, called "ribozymes,"
could cut themselves up and stick themselves back together again, acting as their own
catalysts. This led to the following speculation: If RNA is also an enzyme, it could perhaps
replicate itself without the help of proteins. Scientists went on to formulate the theory of the "RNA world," according to which the first organisms were RNA molecules that learned to synthesize proteins, facilitating their replication, and that surrounded themselves with lipids to form a cellular membrane; these RNA-based organisms then evolved into organisms with a genetic memory made of DNA, which is more stable chemically. However, this theory is not only irrefutable, it leaves many questions unsolved. Thus, to make RNA, one must have nucleotides, and for the moment, no one has ever seen nucleotides take shape by chance and line up to form RNA. As microbiologist JamesShapiro writes, the "experiments conducted up until now have shown no tendency for a plausible prebiotic soup to build bricks of RNA. One would have liked to discover ribozymes capable of doing so, but this has not been the case. And even if one were to discover any, this would still not resolve the fundamental question: where did the first RNA molecule come from?". He adds: "After ten years of relentless research, the most common and remarkable property of ribozymes has been found to be the capacity to demolish other molecules of nucleic acid. It is difficult to imagine a less adapted activity than that in a prebiotic soup where the first colony of RNA would have had to struggle to make their home".
The contents of this famous soup are problematic. In 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
did an experiment that was to become famous; they bombarded a test tube containing water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane with electricity, supposedly imitating the atmosphere of the primitive earth with its permanent lightning storms; after a week, they had produced 2 of the 20 amino acids that nature uses in the construction of proteins. This experiment was long cited as proof that life could emerge from an inorganic soup. However, in the 1980s, geologists realized that an atmosphere of methane and ammoniac would rapidly have been destroyed by sunlight and that our planet’s primitive atmosphere most probably contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and traces of hydrogen. When one bombards the latter with electricity, one does not obtain biomolecules. So the prebiotic soup is increasingly considered to be a "myth".
Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: "In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."
During the 1980s, it became possible to determine the exact sequence of amino acids in given proteins. This revealed a new level of complexity in living beings. A single nicotinic receptor, forming a highly specific lock coupled to an equally selective channel, is made of five
juxtaposed protein chains that contain a total of 2,500 amino acids lined up in the right order. Despite the improbability of the chance emergence of such a structure, even nematodes, which are among the most simple multicellular invertebrates, have nicotinic receptors.
Confronted by this kind of complexity, some researchers no longer content themselves with the usual explanation. Robert Wesson writes in his book Beyond natural selection: "No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics."
Other researchers have pointed out the improbability of the mechanism that is supposed to be the source of variation — namely, the accumulation of errors in the genetic text. It seems
obvious that "a message would quickly lose all meaning if its contents changed continuously in an anarchic fashion." How, then, could such a process lead to the prodigies of the natural
world, of which we are a part?
Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.
Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."
In the middle of the 1990s, biologists sequenced the first complete genomes of free-living
organisms. So far, the smallest known bacterial genome contains 580,000 DNA letters. This
is an enormous amount of information, comparable to the contents of a small telephone
directory. When one considers that bacteria are the smallest units of life as we know it, it
becomes even more difficult to understand how the first bacterium could have taken form
spontaneously in a lifeless, chemical soup. How can a small telephone directory of information
emerge from random processes?
The genomes of more complex organisms are even more daunting in size. Baker’s yeast is a
unicellular organism that contains 12 million DNA letters; the genome of nematodes, which are rather simple multicellular organisms, contains 100 million DNA letters. Mouse genomes, like human genomes, contain approximately 3 billion DNA letters.'
-
You quoted Sandokan?!
Bwahahahahabhahahahahahhahahah!!!
Fun fact: Sandokan aka Levee, is insane.
-
You regard millions to billion years a short amount of time, while at the same time living for 100 years yourself is rather an accomplishment?
-
You quoted Sandokan?!
Bwahahahahabhahahahahahhahahah!!!
Fun fact: Sandokan aka Levee, is insane.
fun fact: none of the text there is original thought of his own, all quotes from literature that one typically would be interested in if he wanted to learn the truth of a matter.
You regard millions to billion years a short amount of time, while at the same time living for 100 years yourself is rather an accomplishment?
It is a short time, considering the evolution from single celled organisms that is purported to have happened would need untold billions of years. Yet, life as we know it, and any transition from these simple organisms, remained unaccounted for in your precious fossil until the explosion of life that was the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. Species rapidly appeared at a rate that natural selection and random mutation could not POSSIBLY have accounted for.
I've only lived 30 years, and I've seen no indication of things becoming other things, but I've witnessed plenty of extinctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_species) so far.
-
It is a short time, considering the evolution from single celled organisms that is purported to have happened would need untold billions of years.
All evidence to the contrary.
Yet, life as we know it, and any transition from these simple organisms, remained unaccounted for in your precious fossil until the explosion of life that was the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. Species rapidly appeared at a rate that natural selection and random mutation could not POSSIBLY have accounted for.
Stephen J. Gould would disagree with you. Are you a biologist? He is.
I've only lived 30 years, and I've seen no indication of things becoming other things, but I've witnessed plenty of extinctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_species) so far.
How did you witness an extinction? If wikipedia is your source, I have linked, in this thread, one species of mosquito evolving in to another in living history, so what are you on about?
-
You quoted Sandokan?!
Bwahahahahabhahahahahahhahahah!!!
Fun fact: Sandokan aka Levee, is insane.
fun fact: none of the text there is original thought of his own, all quotes from literature that one typically would be interested in if he wanted to learn the truth of a matter.
You regard millions to billion years a short amount of time, while at the same time living for 100 years yourself is rather an accomplishment?
It is a short time, considering the evolution from single celled organisms that is purported to have happened would need untold billions of years. Yet, life as we know it, and any transition from these simple organisms, remained unaccounted for in your precious fossil until the explosion of life that was the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. Species rapidly appeared at a rate that natural selection and random mutation could not POSSIBLY have accounted for.
I've only lived 30 years, and I've seen no indication of things becoming other things, but I've witnessed plenty of extinctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_species) so far.
That's strange. Even though humans helped the process along, different breeds of dogs only took a couple hundred years to evolve, some maybe close to a Millennium, everything from great Danes to chihuahuas to huskeys. While they all look very different in shapes and sizes, they serve quite different purposes, and excel in each of their own environments, while sharing 99% of their genes with wolves. That's evolution right there.
Humans share, what, 96% of their genes with chimpanzees? Have you seen how different humans look from each other? Or how some humans can live a whole lifetime in 4500 meters of altitude, have different colors, some have an extra bone etc, and yet, the human genome across all these variants of the human species are 99.8-99.9% alike.
Ignoring the obvious clues of evolution, even though we're not able to uncover everything because time, is only possible if you choose actively to just disagree with everything and not being a so-called "conformist", being religious and believe the earth is not older than 6000 years, or lacking intellect.
Being eloquent and throwing off the simple minds with well put statements does not equal intellect. You should try and leave the safe boundaries that is your America and see the world as it is. Even if it's in the comfort of your desk chair.
Edit: Without looking it up, would you say a Hyena is canine or feline?
-
All evidence to the contrary.
What evidence? *Crickets*
Stephen J. Gould would disagree with you. Are you a biologist? He is.
Are you? There is a litany of biologists that don't agree with the very basic concepts and doodles presented by Darwin... that's why there is a thing called "neo-darwinism."
How did you witness an extinction? If wikipedia is your source, I have linked, in this thread, one species of mosquito evolving in to another in living history, so what are you on about?
You don't say? By golly, did the mosquito become a hummingbird? Oh, the mosquito became a mosquito... fascinating. For someone who knows what "suspension of disbelief is" you certainly go against all logic and reason when it fits your worldview.
That's strange. Even though humans helped the process along, different breeds of dogs only took a couple hundred years to evolve, some maybe close to a Millennium, everything from great Danes to chihuahuas to huskeys. While they all look very different in shapes and sizes, they serve quite different purposes, and excel in each of their own environments, while sharing 99% of their genes with wolves. That's evolution right there.
Humans share, what, 96% of their genes with chimpanzees? Have you seen how different humans look from each other? Or how some humans can live a whole lifetime in 4500 meters of altitude, have different colors, some have an extra bone etc, and yet, the human genome across all these variants of the human species are 99.8-99.9% alike.
Ignoring the obvious clues of evolution, even though we're not able to uncover everything because time, is only possible if you choose actively to just disagree with everything and not being a so-called "conformist", being religious and believe the earth is not older than 6000 years, or lacking intellect.
Being eloquent and throwing off the simple minds with well put statements does not equal intellect. You should try and leave the safe boundaries that is your America and see the world as it is. Even if it's in the comfort of your desk chair.
Edit: Without looking it up, would you say a Hyena is canine or feline?
Do you even understand what you're saying? Yes there are thousands of variants of dogs... BUT IT'S STILL A FUCKING DOG. That is NOT EVOLUTION, that is selective breeding. Your quip about how the human genome is 99.9% the same across all environments is OBVIOUS PROOF THAT NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T OCCUR. A Hyena is a separate type of animal altogether. Where are the obvious clues of evolution?
I've said my piece, as far as this thread goes, I'm finished. Really nothing left to do at this point. I'm not here to make any of you change your entire conception of the universe, just to point out the inconsistencies you're willing to accept to protect that concept. You can argue with me and doubt God and question my intelligence and personal beliefs all you want, but the evidence speaks for itself.
Also, the OP still stands as sound logic... Christian apologetics aside, the bible taken literally does describe a flat earth. Trying to discuss a topic such as the earth's shape with people who so hypocritically shovel shit like evolution down their gullets in the name of science and progress will never agree, for one second, to ponder any alternative to Carl Sagan's cosmos. Those who don't believe that humanity and life itself is a lucky accident on an insignificant speck of dust in the middle of an ever expanding universe might. Those at odds with the direction of modern science might. Explains why geocentrists and anti-relativity people are actually a more pleasant group to deal with then the glut of conformists here, and they're not very pleasant at all.
It's been real folks, but now I know that Politics, Religion, and now even Science itself is a hot topic to be avoided at all costs. What progress we've made in the 21st century, I tell ya.
-
Stephen J. Gould would disagree with you. Are you a biologist? He is.
Are you? There is a litany of biologists that don't agree with the very basic concepts and doodles presented by Darwin... that's why there is a thing called "neo-darwinism."
Who said Darwin was infallible? Stephen J. Gould does not agree with Darwin on all counts either. Like any first inquiry in to a subject, it is far from complete.
How did you witness an extinction? If wikipedia is your source, I have linked, in this thread, one species of mosquito evolving in to another in living history, so what are you on about?
You don't say? By golly, did the mosquito become a hummingbird? Oh, the mosquito became a mosquito... fascinating. For someone who knows what "suspension of disbelief is" you certainly go against all logic and reason when it fits your worldview. [/quote]
So I suppose you don't agree with the definition of species now? Please tell me again how illogical -I- am.
Do you even understand what you're saying? Yes there are thousands of variants of dogs... BUT IT'S STILL A FUCKING DOG. That is NOT EVOLUTION, that is selective breeding. Your quip about how the human genome is 99.9% the same across all environments is OBVIOUS PROOF THAT NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T OCCUR. A Hyena is a separate type of animal altogether. Where are the obvious clues of evolution?
I've said my piece, as far as this thread goes, I'm finished. Really nothing left to do at this point. I'm not here to make any of you change your entire conception of the universe, just to point out the inconsistencies you're willing to accept to protect that concept. You can argue with me and doubt God and question my intelligence and personal beliefs all you want, but the evidence speaks for itself.
Also, the OP still stands as sound logic... Christian apologetics aside, the bible taken literally does describe a flat earth. Trying to discuss a topic such as the earth's shape with people who so hypocritically shovel shit like evolution down their gullets in the name of science and progress will never agree, for one second, to ponder any alternative to Carl Sagan's cosmos. Those who don't believe that humanity and life itself is a lucky accident on an insignificant speck of dust in the middle of an ever expanding universe might. Those at odds with the direction of modern science might. Explains why geocentrists and anti-relativity people are actually a more pleasant group to deal with then the glut of conformists here, and they're not very pleasant at all.
It's been real folks, but now I know that Politics, Religion, and now even Science itself is a hot topic to be avoided at all costs. What progress we've made in the 21st century, I tell ya.
All you have done is an inability to understand how traits can build up over time and how long a billion years is. Trying to paint those who can as fascists is a nice touch. The progress in the 21st century is divorcing people's notion of universe from religious views as far as empirical pursuits are concerned, but there is still a long way to go.
-
Troll comes on, states his badly conceived position, refuses, or more likely can't process the information we freely give him to try and bring him up to date, calls “God did it!” sound logic and then accuses us of being narrow minded, priceless!
-
First and foremost is the fact that the OP is placing limits on God and His Creation to fit the OP's personal view of what he believes it should be. The OP seems... Strike that. IS convinced that God did not then, nor does now, have the power to create the Big Bang. That God is so puny that a small little FE under a small dome is all He is capable of.
Second, the OP, is like Intikam, though more polite in that he hints, rather than getting in your face, that if you don't take the Creation Account word for word you deny God.
Third, the OP forgets that the Creation Account was told to, and written by, people with a very a limited vocabulary. They had no concept of the vastness of Creation, nor were they capable of understanding what it was God was showing them. God reduced it the understanding of the lowest common denominator.
Keeping on with the above point, all one needs do is read the Revelation of John. John was shown further events and did his best to describe them to his readers. I daresay, his descriptions are still unintelligible to the reader, though many have attempt to guess what was described.
Fourth, the OP like many others, past, present and future, have attempted to make science and God into one Being. Religion, or in the OP's case, God, is WHO did it. Science was, is, and always will be HOW it was done.
Which brings us to the the fifth point. Science is not Anti-God. Not even the Atheist Scientist is anti-God, simply because God not provable. One can observe, but there is no experiment, there is no math to prove Him. There never will be. God is about Faith.
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
It is clear, science has no part in this.
One more point that needs to be understood, thoughI have doubts the OP will seek to understand.
Humans on a Blue Marble orbiting a star orbiting a galaxy orbiting billions of other galaxies are still special to God, because He STILL created us.
It is sad the OP believes he has to limit God's Creation in order see himself as worthy of God and it misses the point of the New Testament completely.
Open your eyes and LOOK at His Creation. ALL of it. AMAZING
-
First and foremost is the fact that the OP is placing limits on God and His Creation to fit the OP's personal view of what he believes it should be. The OP seems... Strike that. IS convinced that God did not then, nor does now, have the power to create the Big Bang. That God is so puny that a small little FE under a small dome is all He is capable of.
Second, the OP, is like Intikam, though more polite in that he hints, rather than getting in your face, that if you don't take the Creation Account word for word you deny God.
Third, the OP forgets that the Creation Account was told to, and written by, people with a very a limited vocabulary. They had no concept of the vastness of Creation, nor were they capable of understanding what it was God was showing them. God reduced it the understanding of the lowest common denominator.
Keeping on with the above point, all one needs do is read the Revelation of John. John was shown further events and did his best to describe them to his readers. I daresay, his descriptions are still unintelligible to the reader, though many have attempt to guess what was described.
Fourth, the OP like many others, past, present and future, have attempted to make science and God into one Being. Religion, or in the OP's case, God, is WHO did it. Science was, is, and always will be HOW it was done.
Which brings us to the the fifth point. Science is not Anti-God. Not even the Atheist Scientist is anti-God, simply because God not provable. One can observe, but there is no experiment, there is no math to prove Him. There never will be. God is about Faith.
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
It is clear, science has no part in this.
One more point that needs to be understood, thoughI have doubts the OP will seek to understand.
Humans on a Blue Marble orbiting a star orbiting a galaxy orbiting billions of other galaxies are still special to God, because He STILL created us.
It is sad the OP believes he has to limit God's Creation in order see himself as worthy of God and it misses the point of the New Testament completely.
Open your eyes and LOOK at His Creation. ALL of it. AMAZING
I'm assuming I'm OP, even though a lot of that doesn't seem to correlate to my position whatsoever.
First and foremost there is no limit to the Creator. I never implied that. The implication is that evolution and the big bang are not sound logically. Another important thing worth mentioning, and has been mentioned --i forgive you for not reading all 8 or so pages of this-- is evolution excludes God, and is an alternative to Creation. Creation does NOT exclude evolution, though I'm more inclined to believe that it has not been demonstrated how a single cell can turn into a fish into an ape into a man. Another thing that evolution has absolutely no answer for is the Origin of Life. I've been accused of conflating evolution and origin of life, via stupidity and or malicious intent, repeatedly. However we know this basic tenet of existence: Life comes from other life. There is no answer for that first spark of Life within the confines of Godless modern cosmogony. There is no example of an inorganic compound becoming an INFINITELY and INFINITESIMALLY complex living being, even a single celled organism.
You seem to be a believer in Creation, but you must realize you are at odds with even an atheist scientist, who's personal agenda is to remove God from the equation. You can say he can't be anti-god but isn't that what atheism is in the first place? Agnosticism is maybe what you are referring to, someone that admits they can't prove or disprove God's existence. There is, in my opinion, an active malevolent agenda to condition people into believing life is a meaningless, fleeting, material thing. What better way then to remove God from creation, and teach people they are a lucky accident on a speck in the Universe. This is the implication. This is the accepted dogma. I'm not making this up. It is evolution vs creationism education being debated across the country, even though I went to public school in the North East and evolution was completely and totally taught as a fact.
Of course all of Creation would be precious to the Creator. I do agree with that. I don't doubt for a second that there are possibly thousands, or millions of other planets that have life on it like ours. I don't pretend to be special in that sense. I am strictly bringing to light the agenda in which the Creator is being actively removed from the Creation in society. You should be able to tell by the degradation of values and morals and even the family structure itself just how effective this agenda has been.
Perhaps, though, maybe you missed the intent of this post in the first place. I didn't come here to debate creation/evolution/big bang at all. I came here to discuss the inherent error with trying to debate the shape of the Earth within the confines of the scientific community. As you can see I've been staunchly rebuked, and even attacked personally for my belief in God-- of which I'm in the majority of humanity. To try to discuss the Earth possibly being flat in that same arena is a disaster.
I do, however, want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the discussion. Discourse and debate are great ways to find the truth of a situation, but not always the best way to come to understand someone. Just because one doesn't believe the same exact things as another, that doesn't make them any less worthy of having a say. If my treatment here is any indication, you can see just how judgemental and close-minded we have become as a society. America in particular was built upon the principle of giving the minority a say in how there life is ran, built upon allowing dissenting voices to be heard, not silencing them.
Of course, I must be trolling if I believed that those principles are dear to our leaders or the general public anymore.
-
I'm assuming I'm OP, even though a lot of that doesn't seem to correlate to my position whatsoever.
First and foremost there is no limit to the Creator. I never implied that. The implication is that evolution and the big bang are not sound logically. Another important thing worth mentioning, and has been mentioned --i forgive you for not reading all 8 or so pages of this-- is evolution excludes God, and is an alternative to Creation. Creation does NOT exclude evolution, though I'm more inclined to believe that it has not been demonstrated how a single cell can turn into a fish into an ape into a man. Another thing that evolution has absolutely no answer for is the Origin of Life. I've been accused of conflating evolution and origin of life, via stupidity and or malicious intent, repeatedly. However we know this basic tenet of existence: Life comes from other life. There is no answer for that first spark of Life within the confines of Godless modern cosmogony. There is no example of an inorganic compound becoming an INFINITELY and INFINITESIMALLY complex living being, even a single celled organism.
You seem to be a believer in Creation, but you must realize you are at odds with even an atheist scientist, who's personal agenda is to remove God from the equation. You can say he can't be anti-god but isn't that what atheism is in the first place? Agnosticism is maybe what you are referring to, someone that admits they can't prove or disprove God's existence. There is, in my opinion, an active malevolent agenda to condition people into believing life is a meaningless, fleeting, material thing. What better way then to remove God from creation, and teach people they are a lucky accident on a speck in the Universe. This is the implication. This is the accepted dogma. I'm not making this up. It is evolution vs creationism education being debated across the country, even though I went to public school in the North East and evolution was completely and totally taught as a fact.
Of course all of Creation would be precious to the Creator. I do agree with that. I don't doubt for a second that there are possibly thousands, or millions of other planets that have life on it like ours. I don't pretend to be special in that sense. I am strictly bringing to light the agenda in which the Creator is being actively removed from the Creation in society. You should be able to tell by the degradation of values and morals and even the family structure itself just how effective this agenda has been.
Perhaps, though, maybe you missed the intent of this post in the first place. I didn't come here to debate creation/evolution/big bang at all. I came here to discuss the inherent error with trying to debate the shape of the Earth within the confines of the scientific community. As you can see I've been staunchly rebuked, and even attacked personally for my belief in God-- of which I'm in the majority of humanity. To try to discuss the Earth possibly being flat in that same arena is a disaster.
I do, however, want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the discussion. Discourse and debate are great ways to find the truth of a situation, but not always the best way to come to understand someone. Just because one doesn't believe the same exact things as another, that doesn't make them any less worthy of having a say. If my treatment here is any indication, you can see just how judgemental and close-minded we have become as a society. America in particular was built upon the principle of giving the minority a say in how there life is ran, built upon allowing dissenting voices to be heard, not silencing them.
Of course, I must be trolling if I believed that those principles are dear to our leaders or the general public anymore.
Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?
Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.
-
Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?
Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.
Who said religious institutions aren't apart of this degradation? I certainly didn't. Samuel L. Jackson said it best in Pulp Fiction: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."
Interestingly enough, that isn't even an actual bible passage. The message however is as real as it gets. There are selfish, tyrannical men in many positions of power all across every facet of society, political, religious, industrial, law, media, the list goes on.
Man is inherently fallible because of our inherently fallible flesh, and the desires of it. Therefore we must strive to overcome the lust for the worldly things that satisfy our most immediate desires. We must metaphorically sacrifice our lower selves which are controlled by ego and attempt to attain a higher principled version of yourself more in tune with compassion and empathy. It is a never ending struggle, nobody is perfect, so we must be mindful of our flawed nature in this regard. We can begin by putting more emphasis on genuine emotional connections and less on the temporary material things in this world.
There are some of the values I try to live by, I hope you've found reading them worthwhile.
-
Actually no!
I'm all for the lust.
-
Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?
Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.
Who said religious institutions aren't apart of this degradation? I certainly didn't. Samuel L. Jackson said it best in Pulp Fiction: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."
Interestingly enough, that isn't even an actual bible passage. The message however is as real as it gets. There are selfish, tyrannical men in many positions of power all across every facet of society, political, religious, industrial, law, media, the list goes on.
Man is inherently fallible because of our inherently fallible flesh, and the desires of it. Therefore we must strive to overcome the lust for the worldly things that satisfy our most immediate desires. We must metaphorically sacrifice our lower selves which are controlled by ego and attempt to attain a higher principled version of yourself more in tune with compassion and empathy. It is a never ending struggle, nobody is perfect, so we must be mindful of our flawed nature in this regard. We can begin by putting more emphasis on genuine emotional connections and less on the temporary material things in this world.
There are some of the values I try to live by, I hope you've found reading them worthwhile.
You need to read some Buddhist thought if you think that emotional connections are most lasting and permanent than physical ones.
-
Ah yes, the "degradation of values and morals" is inevitably down to some shadowy "agenda" by evil (insert favorite enemy here). Suddenly, when things go wrong, everyone else is responsible, not the religios? Perhaps we would see less of a degradation if the churches had not decided, in the age of enlightenment, to staunchly stand their ground, and gotten themselves reduced to the "God of the gaps"? Perhaps they would be more successfull in teaching values and morals if their systems would not be based do much on hate and exclusion, but rather on love and unity?
Sure there is a lamentable lack of values and morals in todays society. But instead of blaming everyone else and their shadowy "agenda", it would probably more effective to actually try to communicate your values again.
Who said religious institutions aren't apart of this degradation? I certainly didn't. Samuel L. Jackson said it best in Pulp Fiction: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."
Interestingly enough, that isn't even an actual bible passage. The message however is as real as it gets. There are selfish, tyrannical men in many positions of power all across every facet of society, political, religious, industrial, law, media, the list goes on.
Man is inherently fallible because of our inherently fallible flesh, and the desires of it. Therefore we must strive to overcome the lust for the worldly things that satisfy our most immediate desires. We must metaphorically sacrifice our lower selves which are controlled by ego and attempt to attain a higher principled version of yourself more in tune with compassion and empathy. It is a never ending struggle, nobody is perfect, so we must be mindful of our flawed nature in this regard. We can begin by putting more emphasis on genuine emotional connections and less on the temporary material things in this world.
There are some of the values I try to live by, I hope you've found reading them worthwhile.
You need to read some Buddhist thought if you think that emotional connections are most lasting and permanent than physical ones.
I have very eclectic views on spirituality... if I wrote them all out most would think I'm some kind of lunatic. But I am inclined to believe that reincarnation is real. I'm not inclined to believe that you can become a bug or a dog or something, more so that your soul is infinite in nature and undergoes a refinement process through physical manifestation. Since the Creator is merciful, you aren't destroyed for your sins, you are given the opportunity to reach "nirvana" through this metaphorical refinement process akin to the process used to purify gold. Maybe most never reach this point, and maybe there is a limited number of chances, who knows. One thing though is that I do not believe this life to be the end all be all of existence. Hence my disillusionment with the worship of the mundane and material that we see celebrated these days. In my opinion, there is either an active campaign by mortal men who wish to horde the secrets of the universe and the powers unlocked in that knowledge to themselves, or a more spiritual battle sanctioned by the great deceiver himself in order to keep humanity from reaching Oneness with the Creator and realization of their divine origin.
Or maybe human's just fucking suck, and there is no enemy except ourselves. Either way, it is beneficiary to all mankind to practice self-discipline, and to try to live a more principled life. In that regard, even if all teachings boiled down to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others..." then that is a great a place to start. Followed eventually by "Do for others..." "Teach others..."
And no, flesh isn't inherently evil... I embrace all aspects of my creation, as they are all aspects of the Creator. Life is about balance. It's easy to avoid lust living on a mountain as a monk, a lot more challenging being in the world. You shouldn't let any aspect of yourself dominate your life because then you'll miss just how magical and complex it is.
-
God made humans have hunger and need food.
God gave humans fear and predators and disease.
God gave us Greed.
We are what God made us to be. We fight because we fear death. We steal because we are hungry or greedy.
Humans, if made by God, are so flawed in design it makes you wonder how an all knowing, perfect creator could fail so hard.
-
God made humans have hunger and need food.
God gave humans fear and predators and disease.
God gave us Greed.
We are what God made us to be. We fight because we fear death. We steal because we are hungry or greedy.
Humans, if made by God, are so flawed in design it makes you wonder how an all knowing, perfect creator could fail so hard.
God gave is free choice and WE screwed it up.
-
We screwed it up because God created us imperfectly. What an asshole.
-
God made humans have hunger and need food.
God gave humans fear and predators and disease.
God gave us Greed.
We are what God made us to be. We fight because we fear death. We steal because we are hungry or greedy.
Humans, if made by God, are so flawed in design it makes you wonder how an all knowing, perfect creator could fail so hard.
God gave is free choice and WE screwed it up.
Nope. God gave us curiosity. He also gave us the freedom to chose, but only one choice he allowed. Tell me, how many choices do you have when one is forbidden and punishable by suffering?
Humans had only one choice: not change. Not give into their god given curiosity. Not seek answers God would not provide.
God made us his way.
-
We screwed it up because God created us imperfectly. What an asshole.
There is no denying, whichever way you cut the God made us story, he always comes out as an asshole.
Sticks us in a garden, “right this is home, do what you like, except touch the fucking apples”.
After giving us the "ignore all warnings about the apple thingy" gene, and letting a duplicitous snake have free reign.
Knowing this (as he is omniscient) he then gets all righteous and punishes all their descendants too, asshole!
-
God made humans have hunger and need food.
God gave humans fear and predators and disease.
God gave us Greed.
We are what God made us to be. We fight because we fear death. We steal because we are hungry or greedy.
Humans, if made by God, are so flawed in design it makes you wonder how an all knowing, perfect creator could fail so hard.
God gave is free choice and WE screwed it up.
Nope. God gave us curiosity. He also gave us the freedom to chose, but only one choice he allowed. Tell me, how many choices do you have when one is forbidden and punishable by suffering?
Humans had only one choice: not change. Not give into their god given curiosity. Not seek answers God would not provide.
God made us his way.
How convenient.
-
Free will is a myth. We are all the products of our internal and external influences.
-
God made humans have hunger and need food.
God gave humans fear and predators and disease.
God gave us Greed.
We are what God made us to be. We fight because we fear death. We steal because we are hungry or greedy.
Humans, if made by God, are so flawed in design it makes you wonder how an all knowing, perfect creator could fail so hard.
God gave is free choice and WE screwed it up.
Nope. God gave us curiosity. He also gave us the freedom to chose, but only one choice he allowed. Tell me, how many choices do you have when one is forbidden and punishable by suffering?
Humans had only one choice: not change. Not give into their god given curiosity. Not seek answers God would not provide.
God made us his way.
How convenient.
I don't make the mythology, I just repeat it.
-
Free will is a myth. We are all the products of our internal and external influences.
Who is writing this post then? Blind causality?
We all experience freedom first hand. But obviously all experience of outside events is already framed in terms of cause and effect, so we don't perceive it in others.
-
How could you ever gauge someone's resilience if they never had to face adversity. Physical existence on Earth isn't supposed to be perfect. Everything decays around us, our body, our world, our relationships. All religions talk about a "heaven" or a "nirvana" state. If life is a test, meant to weed out those who love worldly things and themselves, how could you determine who passes or fails if everyone has everything, and no sacrifices ever have to be made.
The point of the Garden of Eden story is the original intention was to give us everything. At some point our souls existed on a higher plane closer to the Creator. Our love of this world, and pursuit of flesh desires, generation after generation, pulls us away from a higher everlasting metaphysical existence to a fleeting physical one.
You can't blame God for why humanity is fucked up. We've shown time and again how self-destructive we are as species. Even animals we deem beneath us aren't dumb enough to continuously do things to jeopardize their existence. The answers are here, and there is enough for everyone... it's greed, stupidity, and selfishness that has us in the situation we're in right now. We have the tools and ability to solve our problems, don't blame God for us not using them.
-
How could you ever gauge someone's resilience if they never had to face adversity. Physical existence on Earth isn't supposed to be perfect. Everything decays around us, our body, our world, our relationships. All religions talk about a "heaven" or a "nirvana" state. If life is a test, meant to weed out those who love worldly things and themselves, how could you determine who passes or fails if everyone has everything, and no sacrifices ever have to be made.
The point of the Garden of Eden story is the original intention was to give us everything. At some point our souls existed on a higher plane closer to the Creator. Our love of this world, and pursuit of flesh desires, generation after generation, pulls us away from a higher everlasting metaphysical existence to a fleeting physical one.
You can't blame God for why humanity is fucked up. We've shown time and again how self-destructive we are as species. Even animals we deem beneath us aren't dumb enough to continuously do things to jeopardize their existence. The answers are here, and there is enough for everyone... it's greed, stupidity, and selfishness that has us in the situation we're in right now. We have the tools and ability to solve our problems, don't blame God for us not using them.
Why would God need to test us? He literally made us. He also should know what we'll do before we do it. Thus, the need for testing is irrelevant. You only need to test something if you aren't perfect or all knowing.
Secondly: If the garden of eden was meant to give us everything, why then:
1. Did we NOT have everything?
2. Why did we NOT have the ability to reproduce?
3. Why did we want more? What made us want more than "everything"? I mean, who invented greed, desire, and selfishness?
We can't do more than our creator has deemed us to do. We can't do less either. Unless you admit that God created us imperfect which means he did it intentionally or he is imperfect himself.
-
We were created in the image of God. Do you really believe that phrase means God is some dude, with like a beard, and eyes and a nose and mouth? Our immortal soul itself is what that is referring to. The garden of eden is a metaphor of when our souls were more pure and closer to God.
I believe something went wrong somewhere, obviously. There are different accounts, the fruit from the tree obviously, and I've even read stuff about an actual rebellion led by Satan himself in heaven.
The obvious solution for a merciless God would be outright destruction of all impure souls. But by all accounts the Creator is merciful. Maybe even souls are indestructible, along the lines of matter cannot be created or destroyed. Maybe thanks to His forgiveness we are able to, through physical manifestation, attempt to purify our soul in an attempt to return back to metaphorical garden.
Without temptation, there is no struggle. Without hunger there is no sacrifice. It is your choice to go up or down the ladder, per se, according to your "works" or deeds.
It's not that we were created imperfect, it's that we've become this way. And if we are taught and led to believe that there is no existence beyond what you see, hear, touch, taste and smell, we will continue this downward spiral, and never know our true potential as infinite beings all connected through the Oneness of God.
-
Free will is a myth. We are all the products of our internal and external influences.
Who is writing this post then? Blind causality?
We all experience freedom first hand. But obviously all experience of outside events is already framed in terms of cause and effect, so we don't perceive it in others.
We experience the illusion of freedom, nothing more. Your own actions are determined by cause and effect just as much as outside events are. You might feel like you freely make choices, but you don't decide what your internal influences are. You don't have any control over how angry you feel, how patient you feel, how happy you feel, etc.
-
We were created in the image of God. Do you really believe that phrase means God is some dude, with like a beard, and eyes and a nose and mouth? Our immortal soul itself is what that is referring to. The garden of eden is a metaphor of when our souls were more pure and closer to God.
I believe something went wrong somewhere, obviously. There are different accounts, the fruit from the tree obviously, and I've even read stuff about an actual rebellion led by Satan himself in heaven.
The obvious solution for a merciless God would be outright destruction of all impure souls. But by all accounts the Creator is merciful. Maybe even souls are indestructible, along the lines of matter cannot be created or destroyed. Maybe thanks to His forgiveness we are able to, through physical manifestation, attempt to purify our soul in an attempt to return back to metaphorical garden.
Without temptation, there is no struggle. Without hunger there is no sacrifice. It is your choice to go up or down the ladder, per se, according to your "works" or deeds.
It's not that we were created imperfect, it's that we've become this way. And if we are taught and led to believe that there is no existence beyond what you see, hear, touch, taste and smell, we will continue this downward spiral, and never know our true potential as infinite beings all connected through the Oneness of God.
All of which is part of God's plan (or he is not omniscient) and superfluous (or he is not omnipotent). He is either God and an asshole, or not God.
-
We experience the illusion of freedom, nothing more. Your own actions are determined by cause and effect just as much as outside events are. You might feel like you freely make choices, but you don't decide what your internal influences are. You don't have any control over how angry you feel, how patient you feel, how happy you feel, etc.
How do you know it is an illusion? An illusion is an appearance which does not conform to reality. But you don't know the reality. All you have is appearances. Things appear to be determined by cause and effect. But aren't cause and effect the illusion? After all, you cannot observe cause and effect without the principle already formed. You cannot prove it's reality unless you assume it as the premise. It is just as much in your mind as the appearance of freedom. You may be able to say that empirical reality is, by definition, determined by cause and effect. But your own consciousness isn't part of the outside world, and so you cannot know whether it is governed by the same principles.
As to your feelings and outside influences: Who says you cannot decide against them? Who says you cannot influence your feelings? Lot's of people seem to think you can determine how you feel by thinking the right thoughts. Sure, we don't know that we're free, for the same reason we don't know we're unfree. But it is possible. We have the appearance of freedom in our minds. In the absence of evidence of the reality, which can never be obtained, we are allowed to assume our freedom, just as we assume the appearance of the outside world is actual reality.
-
Free will is a myth. We are all the products of our internal and external influences.
Who is writing this post then? Blind causality?
We all experience freedom first hand. But obviously all experience of outside events is already framed in terms of cause and effect, so we don't perceive it in others.
We experience the illusion of freedom, nothing more. Your own actions are determined by cause and effect just as much as outside events are. You might feel like you freely make choices, but you don't decide what your internal influences are. You don't have any control over how angry you feel, how patient you feel, how happy you feel, etc.
To a certain extent, freedom is an illusion. Your decisions are obviously based on prior experience, and the people and situations you attract are directly related to the energy you project and the thoughts you have.
But it is entirely possible through conscious effort to alter your mind state. It is in your power to focus your energies to change the way you think, and to change the type of people and situations you attract to yourself.
I don't believe in predetermination for those reasons. I do believe in potentiality and actuality in regards to behavior, however, and I do believe that everyone is predisposed with certain ability that is a sum of their being: ancestral and the degree of which their consciousness (soul) has evolved.
That would explain why some people are seemingly born great musicians or artists etc. The potential and purpose is there in all of us, but it is our decision whether or not to actualize that potential. We can't make a cake without the ingredients. You are born with the right stuff, you obviously just need a recipe, and the right cooks in the kitchen.
-
First and foremost is the fact that the OP is placing limits on God and His Creation to fit the OP's personal view of what he believes it should be. The OP seems... Strike that. IS convinced that God did not then, nor does now, have the power to create the Big Bang. That God is so puny that a small little FE under a small dome is all He is capable of.
Second, the OP, is like Intikam, though more polite in that he hints, rather than getting in your face, that if you don't take the Creation Account word for word you deny God.
Third, the OP forgets that the Creation Account was told to, and written by, people with a very a limited vocabulary. They had no concept of the vastness of Creation, nor were they capable of understanding what it was God was showing them. God reduced it the understanding of the lowest common denominator.
Keeping on with the above point, all one needs do is read the Revelation of John. John was shown further events and did his best to describe them to his readers. I daresay, his descriptions are still unintelligible to the reader, though many have attempt to guess what was described.
Fourth, the OP like many others, past, present and future, have attempted to make science and God into one Being. Religion, or in the OP's case, God, is WHO did it. Science was, is, and always will be HOW it was done.
Which brings us to the the fifth point. Science is not Anti-God. Not even the Atheist Scientist is anti-God, simply because God not provable. One can observe, but there is no experiment, there is no math to prove Him. There never will be. God is about Faith.
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
It is clear, science has no part in this.
One more point that needs to be understood, thoughI have doubts the OP will seek to understand.
Humans on a Blue Marble orbiting a star orbiting a galaxy orbiting billions of other galaxies are still special to God, because He STILL created us.
It is sad the OP believes he has to limit God's Creation in order see himself as worthy of God and it misses the point of the New Testament completely.
Open your eyes and LOOK at His Creation. ALL of it. AMAZING
I'm assuming I'm OP, even though a lot of that doesn't seem to correlate to my position whatsoever.
First and foremost there is no limit to the Creator. I never implied that. The implication is that evolution and the big bang are not sound logically. Another important thing worth mentioning, and has been mentioned --i forgive you for not reading all 8 or so pages of this-- is evolution excludes God, and is an alternative to Creation. Creation does NOT exclude evolution, though I'm more inclined to believe that it has not been demonstrated how a single cell can turn into a fish into an ape into a man. Another thing that evolution has absolutely no answer for is the Origin of Life. I've been accused of conflating evolution and origin of life, via stupidity and or malicious intent, repeatedly. However we know this basic tenet of existence: Life comes from other life. There is no answer for that first spark of Life within the confines of Godless modern cosmogony. There is no example of an inorganic compound becoming an INFINITELY and INFINITESIMALLY complex living being, even a single celled organism.
You seem to be a believer in Creation, but you must realize you are at odds with even an atheist scientist, who's personal agenda is to remove God from the equation. You can say he can't be anti-god but isn't that what atheism is in the first place? Agnosticism is maybe what you are referring to, someone that admits they can't prove or disprove God's existence. There is, in my opinion, an active malevolent agenda to condition people into believing life is a meaningless, fleeting, material thing. What better way then to remove God from creation, and teach people they are a lucky accident on a speck in the Universe. This is the implication. This is the accepted dogma. I'm not making this up. It is evolution vs creationism education being debated across the country, even though I went to public school in the North East and evolution was completely and totally taught as a fact.
Of course all of Creation would be precious to the Creator. I do agree with that. I don't doubt for a second that there are possibly thousands, or millions of other planets that have life on it like ours. I don't pretend to be special in that sense. I am strictly bringing to light the agenda in which the Creator is being actively removed from the Creation in society. You should be able to tell by the degradation of values and morals and even the family structure itself just how effective this agenda has been.
Perhaps, though, maybe you missed the intent of this post in the first place. I didn't come here to debate creation/evolution/big bang at all. I came here to discuss the inherent error with trying to debate the shape of the Earth within the confines of the scientific community. As you can see I've been staunchly rebuked, and even attacked personally for my belief in God-- of which I'm in the majority of humanity. To try to discuss the Earth possibly being flat in that same arena is a disaster.
I do, however, want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the discussion. Discourse and debate are great ways to find the truth of a situation, but not always the best way to come to understand someone. Just because one doesn't believe the same exact things as another, that doesn't make them any less worthy of having a say. If my treatment here is any indication, you can see just how judgemental and close-minded we have become as a society. America in particular was built upon the principle of giving the minority a say in how there life is ran, built upon allowing dissenting voices to be heard, not silencing them.
Of course, I must be trolling if I believed that those principles are dear to our leaders or the general public anymore.
I must apologize for taking so long to reply. I missed the notification sent to me of your response.
Yes you are OP as in Original Poster.
I am a Christian, and I try hard to understand the Bible, I drive my long time friend who is now a Pastor nuts with questions. Questions that even involve this site. Which should point out for the record, that I don't it all. And if I asked my Pastor friend, he would say the same thing.
I do question your 15% of scientist believe in God stat you mentioned in the OP. An admittedly down and dirty internet search indicates the figure ranges from 33% to 41% or more that twice your figure.
This is a personal observation, and is of course dated. But when I was in school, it was not the Science Teachers that mentioned God or religion. The teachers that went out of their way to slam religion, focusing on Christianity, were Social Studies and Humanities.
Yet in fact, religion and science are two separate studies. As I posted earlier, religion says who and science attempts show how. There is no reason for either "side" to castigate the other for their views. Science is not evil. It IS just a tool for explaining things. Religion is unprovable, it is faith in things not seen.
You see it though, as do I. Leaving the rainfly off my tent at 10 thousand feet on a clear night and watching the sky... I see God's work. Or watching the sun chase the moon in circles at 3 am in July in a camp west of Nome Alaska. FANTASTIC.
Evolution is a sticking point. But only because each side feel a silly need to prove the other wrong. Science will never find that spark of life. But at the same time they should never give up the attempt. Leaning is in the journey, not the destination. Religion should not attempt prove science wrong. Science is a faith, it is only an explanation and in my opinion, with evolution a poor one at that. Too many missing parts and far too long a timespan between them.
I am not saying evolution is Biblical. But there are some interesting parallels between the two. The Bible says life started in the sea. So does evolution. Both agree in as to what life appeared in what order.
I think the sticking point is WHO started it, not how He did it, and that means digging in our heels and not listening to what is really being explained, for BOTH sides.
The Big Bang does not belittle God. That it was some 14 billion years ago does not take anything away from God's word. What does take away God's word is our foolish need to place limits on what God did and why He did it.
The Big Bang is awesome. Black Holes, Super Novas, Comets, ALL of it, AWESOME. That we were created with stuff of stars, SUPPER AWESOME.
A limitless God. I got nothing I say to describe that.
And I appreciate that unlike another you don't call others Satanist because we believe in a globe and a vast universe. I think that if you can come to understand the different functions of religion and science, you will come to see that, the political rhetoric aside Science is not against you or me or anyone else. It is like the gun issue. Guns don't kill. PEOPLE do. Science is not anti-God, some of the PEOPLE who happen to be Scientist are.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/23/new-fossil-find-points-to-rapid-evolution-of-marine-reptiles-after-mass-extinction
I wonder how this rapid evolution model reconciles with the generally accepted slow, unmethodical, lucky singular beneficial mutation at a time over millions of years.