Dawinists standing on the panic button.

#351
#351
red butler said:
That's true and I have as hard a time as anyone believing the Old Testament word for word. However, if Darwin knew the complexity of a single cell, even he would probably reconsider his theory of evolution (he was quoted as having trouble reconciling the complexity of the human eye). During Darwin's time, his answer for no proof of a "cross species" in the fossil record was that there would eventually be proof. Many years later with a greatly expanded fossil record and we are no closer to any proof that one species has ever evolved into another species.

Einstein could not admit to himself that the universe was expanding until it was mathmatically proven otherwise. The reason he had trouble with the universe expanding in all directions, is that when you rewind through time ... at some point there was a creation.

Going back to the complexity of a cell, I find the theory of irreducible complexity interesting. Simply put, when eliminating parts of every machine there is a point where eliminating any pieces will render it useless. Consider the basic mousetrap. If you take away any of it's pieces, it no longer works. The cell is an amazing machine that replicates thousands of pieces of information (DNA) with amazing precision and efficiency. If one of those pieces of information is replicated in the wrong sequence it would be the equivalent of the "blue screen of death" on a computer. Yet the simple cell does this thousands if not millions of times per day. With this knowledge of the cell, it is inconceivable that a major random change to a species DNA could successfully change an organism into a new species.

Like I said, I have as much trouble as anyone else believing the old testament word for word... but I am convinced the theory of evolution is garbage.
Click to expand...

I have to assume you mean macro evolution.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#352
#352
red butler said:
That's true and I have as hard a time as anyone believing the Old Testament word for word. However, if Darwin knew the complexity of a single cell, even he would probably reconsider his theory of evolution (he was quoted as having trouble reconciling the complexity of the human eye). During Darwin's time, his answer for no proof of a "cross species" in the fossil record was that there would eventually be proof. Many years later with a greatly expanded fossil record and we are no closer to any proof that one species has ever evolved into another species.

Einstein could not admit to himself that the universe was expanding until it was mathmatically proven otherwise. The reason he had trouble with the universe expanding in all directions, is that when you rewind through time ... at some point there was a creation.

Going back to the complexity of a cell, I find the theory of irreducible complexity interesting. Simply put, when eliminating parts of every machine there is a point where eliminating any pieces will render it useless. Consider the basic mousetrap. If you take away any of it's pieces, it no longer works. The cell is an amazing machine that replicates thousands of pieces of information (DNA) with amazing precision and efficiency. If one of those pieces of information is replicated in the wrong sequence it would be the equivalent of the "blue screen of death" on a computer. Yet the simple cell does this thousands if not millions of times per day. With this knowledge of the cell, it is inconceivable that a major random change to a species DNA could successfully change an organism into a new species.

Like I said, I have as much trouble as anyone else believing the old testament word for word... but I am convinced the theory of evolution is garbage.
Click to expand...

You're right. Good thing evolutionary theory doesn't claim that a random change could successfully change an organism into a new species.
 
#353
#353
IPorange said:
You're right. Good thing evolutionary theory doesn't claim that a random change could successfully change an organism into a new species.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, I thought evolutionary theory was based on organisms changing into new species. If it's not I don't see what the big deal is.
 
#354
#354
red butler said:
I'm confused, I thought evolutionary theory was based on organisms changing into new species. If it's not I don't see what the big deal is.
Click to expand...

Via many small changes over many, many generations. Not really from genetic mutations, either, but by natural selection.
 
#355
#355
kptvol said:
Via many small changes over many, many generations.
Click to expand...

That's the part that I'm pretty sure has been debunked. Even small changes are virtually impossible with all scientists have learned about DNA. Sure humans have gotten bigger and stronger the last couple of centuries with better nutrition and some bird species evolve longer beaks during droughts, but a human is still a human and a bird is still a bird. It's DNA cannot change.
 
#356
#356
red butler said:
That's the part that I'm pretty sure has been debunked. Even small changes are virtually impossible with all scientists have learned about DNA. Sure humans have gotten bigger and stronger the last couple of centuries with better nutrition and some bird species evolve longer beaks during droughts, but a human is still a human and a bird is still a bird. It's DNA cannot change.
Click to expand...


But there are macro traits that they share that suggest commonality. For instance, birds and humans both have vertebrates. Chimps and humans share greater than 90% of their DNA...etc.

And I think the theory rests on completely random genetic mutations that are ordered by natural selection. Without natural selection, it would be impossible to have as diverse of life we see on earth. Beneficial mutations are passed from generation to generation, and bad ones are weeded out. The longer this process happens, the more genetic mutations are accumulated, and more the species changes.
 
#357
#357
rjd-- so are we to assume you find Greek philosophers crap too because of the time period they lived in?

You never got to that one, kind of curious.
 
#358
#358
rjd970 said:
But there are macro traits that they share that suggest commonality. For instance, birds and humans both have vertebrates. Chimps and humans share greater than 90% of their DNA...etc.

And I think the theory rests on completely random genetic mutations that are ordered by natural selection. Without natural selection, it would be impossible to have as diverse of life we see on earth. Beneficial mutations are passed from generation to generation, and bad ones are weeded out. The longer this process happens, the more genetic mutations are accumulated, and more the species changes.
Click to expand...

But the fossil record does not support the theory of gradual changes to a species over time. In fact, there are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory. The fossil record suggests species remain static over millions of years followed by the sudden appearance of new species. Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. Darwin's evolutionary theory doesn't make sense to me. When I think of the complexity of the universe and nature it seems it requires more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
 
Last edited:
#359
#359
red butler said:
Darwin's evolutionary theory doesn't make sense to me. When I think of the complexity of the universe and nature it seems it requires more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
Click to expand...

That's your perspective and you are entitled to it. I don't see how you can pick at the fossil record as not supporting the theory of evolution, when the very existence of all these fossils of different extinct creatures from millions of years ago seems to defy creationism. It's like saying all these trees are too short to constitute a forest... and thus there are no trees.
 
#360
#360
IPorange said:
That's your perspective and you are entitled to it. I don't see how you can pick at the fossil record as not supporting the theory of evolution, when the very existence of all these fossils of different extinct creatures from millions of years ago seems to defy creationism. It's like saying all these trees are too short to constitute a forest... and thus there are no trees.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense at all. Extinction and fossils say nothing at all about creation. The trees and forest example was tough for me. Are you saying there are transitional trees where the lack of transitional fossils is a problem with macro evolution?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#361
#361
IPorange said:
That's your perspective and you are entitled to it. I don't see how you can pick at the fossil record as not supporting the theory of evolution, when the very existence of all these fossils of different extinct creatures from millions of years ago seems to defy creationism. It's like saying all these trees are too short to constitute a forest... and thus there are no trees.
Click to expand...

I would agree the very existence of all these fossils of different extinct creatures from millions of years ago seems to defy creationism as told in the Old Testament of the Bible. I don't think the Old Testament can be taken as literally as some people take it. But I don't think that discounts creationism either. From my perspective the people in ancient history had stories to explain things they could not understand, just like every culture. Some historians believe Genesis was eventually written fairly recently in human history. I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity, my problem is that professors and teachers push evolution on impressionable minds as though it is a fact. When the fact is, it's shaky at best and there is zero proof. In fact the more scientists learn, the more evidence there is to disprove Darwin's evolution. I just think scientists refuse to accept the current alternative (creation), and will continue to support evolution until another theory is developed that can be explained scientifically. Here are some recent studies that disprove evolution as it was tought to me in school:

Of chimps and men - more genetic difference!

Previous genetic studies have shown that chimpanzee and humans DNA differs by about 1.5%. However, this difference was determined by examining the base pair sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.">substitutions within certain sequenced genes. Recently, the human genome was completely sequenced and sequencing of the chimpanzee genome is well on its way. Preliminary results confirm previous results regarding base pair substitutions (estimated at 1.4%). However, sequencing reveals that insertions and deletions result in another 3.4% difference between human and chimp DNA. Therefore, the overall difference between chimp and human DNA is nearly 5%, which represents an almost insurmountable amount of rapid evolution.

Ancient human DNA shows humans did not evolve from Neandertals

A new study has examined the mtDNA sequences of two Cro-Magnon specimens dated to 23,000 and 25,000 years old. One specimen (Paglicci-25) had no sequence differences from the modern reference sequence, and the other (Paglicci-12) only one substitution. It is remarkable that so little change in the sequence had occurred over the last 23,000 years. The ancient Cro-Magnon mtDNA and modern European mtDNA differed by only 2-3 base pairs on average (see table below). This difference is even less than that observed among modern Europeans! In contrast, these ancient modern humans differed from nearly contemporary Neandertals by an average of 24 base pairs.

"Although only six HVRI sequences of ancient a.m.h [anatomically modern humans] and four sequences of Neandertals are available to date, the sharp differentiation among them represents a problem for any model regarding the transition from archaic to modern humans as a process taking place within a single evolving human lineage."
 
#362
#362
JZVOL said:
rjd-- so are we to assume you find Greek philosophers crap too because of the time period they lived in?

You never got to that one, kind of curious.
Click to expand...

With regards to tacit claims about the cosmos, sicence, and technology...yes.

"Science" from that time period involved crap like alchemy and astrology. In the middle ages...way after the greek philosophers....they believed the plague was the result of God's wrath...with absolutely no idea it was caused by bacteria from the fleas that lived on rats.

And I will certainly believe evolution over what the first century superstitious people believed about man being created out of dust and divine breath in a garden, with a talking snake. Back then, this wasn't mere interpretation of the Bible, they had no reason to believe it wasn't literal fact.
 
Last edited:
#363
#363
red butler said:
I would agree the very existence of all these fossils of different extinct creatures from millions of years ago seems to defy creationism as told in the Old Testament of the Bible. I don't think the Old Testament can be taken as literally as some people take it. But I don't think that discounts creationism either. From my perspective the people in ancient history had stories to explain things they could not understand, just like every culture. Some historians believe Genesis was eventually written fairly recently in human history. I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity, my problem is that professors and teachers push evolution on impressionable minds as though it is a fact. When the fact is, it's shaky at best and there is zero proof. In fact the more scientists learn, the more evidence there is to disprove Darwin's evolution. I just think scientists refuse to accept the current alternative (creation), and will continue to support evolution until another theory is developed that can be explained scientifically. Here are some recent studies that disprove evolution as it was tought to me in school:

Of chimps and men - more genetic difference!

Previous genetic studies have shown that chimpanzee and humans DNA differs by about 1.5%. However, this difference was determined by examining the base pair sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.">substitutions within certain sequenced genes. Recently, the human genome was completely sequenced and sequencing of the chimpanzee genome is well on its way. Preliminary results confirm previous results regarding base pair substitutions (estimated at 1.4%). However, sequencing reveals that insertions and deletions result in another 3.4% difference between human and chimp DNA. Therefore, the overall difference between chimp and human DNA is nearly 5%, which represents an almost insurmountable amount of rapid evolution.

Ancient human DNA shows humans did not evolve from Neandertals

A new study has examined the mtDNA sequences of two Cro-Magnon specimens dated to 23,000 and 25,000 years old. One specimen (Paglicci-25) had no sequence differences from the modern reference sequence, and the other (Paglicci-12) only one substitution. It is remarkable that so little change in the sequence had occurred over the last 23,000 years. The ancient Cro-Magnon mtDNA and modern European mtDNA differed by only 2-3 base pairs on average (see table below). This difference is even less than that observed among modern Europeans! In contrast, these ancient modern humans differed from nearly contemporary Neandertals by an average of 24 base pairs.

"Although only six HVRI sequences of ancient a.m.h [anatomically modern humans] and four sequences of Neandertals are available to date, the sharp differentiation among them represents a problem for any model regarding the transition from archaic to modern humans as a process taking place within a single evolving human lineage."
Click to expand...

Where did all this come from? I would be willing to bet it was from a less than unbiased website.

Furthermore, how can you dismiss all scientific evidence that supports evolution with the wave of a hand, and accept those that purportedly support your position? Again, the specifics of the evolutionary process are still in vigorous debate, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is widespread agreement that it did happen in some form. The evidence for far outweighs the evidence against.
 
#364
#364
rjd970 said:
Where did all this come from? I would be willing to bet it was from a less than unbiased website.

Furthermore, how can you dismiss all scientific evidence that supports evolution with the wave of a hand, and accept those that purportedly support your position? Again, the specifics of the evolutionary process are still in vigorous debate, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is widespread agreement that it did happen in some form. The evidence for far outweighs the evidence against.
Click to expand...

I bet all the stuff you read and people you believe are totally unbiased.
 
#365
#365
emainvol said:
1) You can say that all you want to. There aren't too many people on here that will buy that just because you say so.

2) I never said it should be taught as fact.
Click to expand...

1. One believer is worth more than a dozen iffers.

The fact that we now have 'sensitivity' training, aka sex education in our public schools is even worse than darwinian doodle and will have no good results. (and has had not good results)

Did you see Oprah Monday??

In case not, here is a brief;

It was about child pornography on the internet in Florida. They showed a map of Florida with red marks for active investigations and it almost blanketed the state. They went along with one investigation and determined the computer in question was downloading child porn at the time.

They busted the house and eventually found that the culprit was the 18 year old son.

You don't even want to hear about what was on the downloads. One could knock Christians and Christianity all they want but in the end it has supplied this nation with a set of morals that work fairly well for two hundred + years, without it most anything goes.

As the well respected Princeton ethics professor who is considered the godfather of animal rights says; "For the animal rights movement to succeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition must be destroyed", and "there are only two taboos left that need to be broken, sex with children and bestiality."

Those taboos were broken on the videos on the Monday Oprah show. (Not shown but described)

2. Glad we've gotten that out of the away.

They should not be teaching same sex sex is ok either, it isn't.
 
#367
#367
rjd970 said:
Well, I found the website he was using....copy and paste direct...

Recent Problems in Evolution - 2002

I'll let anybody conclude how unbiased any of that business is.
Click to expand...

So if you read from people/reports/books or whatever from people who are pro-evolution and anti-God it's unbiased?

How is it not the exact same?

Both sides are biased and make good arguments, but I fail to see how there is a difference between you and him.
 
#369
#369
JZVOL said:
So if you read from people/reports/books or whatever from people who are pro-evolution and anti-God it's unbiased?

How is it not the exact same?

Both sides are biased and make good arguments, but I fail to see how there is a difference between you and him.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "pro-evolution" about it. Facts are one thing, opinions are another. If evolution is wrong, so be it. There far more abundant and compelling evidence it did happen as opposed to not.

HighWire Press -- Search Results


There. That is about 7000, peer reviewed, academic journal articles that would refute the conclusions of his copied and pasted "Of chimps and men - more genetic difference!" garbage from a "godandscience" website. Even if only a tenth of those academic article directly addressed the specific issue, it would still be a close and shut case.

That is a huge difference. And one argument is better than the other, especially if we are talking specifically about evolution.
 
#371
#371
rjd970 said:
There is nothing "pro-evolution" about it. Facts are one thing, opinions are another. If evolution is wrong, so be it. There far more abundant and compelling evidence it did happen as opposed to not.

HighWire Press -- Search Results


There. That is about 7000, peer reviewed, academic journal articles that would refute the conclusions of his copied and pasted "Of chimps and men - more genetic difference!" garbage from a "godandscience" website. Even if only a tenth of those academic article directly addressed the specific issue, it would still be a close and shut case.

That is a huge difference. And one argument is better than the other, especially if we are talking specifically about evolution.
Click to expand...
I believe this is true as to microevolution. The macro stuff is much more about magic.
 
#372
#372
rjd970 said:
There is nothing "pro-evolution" about it. Facts are one thing, opinions are another. If evolution is wrong, so be it. There far more abundant and compelling evidence it did happen as opposed to not.

HighWire Press -- Search Results


There. That is about 7000, peer reviewed, academic journal articles that would refute the conclusions of his copied and pasted "Of chimps and men - more genetic difference!" garbage from a "godandscience" website. Even if only a tenth of those academic article directly addressed the specific issue, it would still be a close and shut case.

That is a huge difference. And one argument is better than the other, especially if we are talking specifically about evolution.
Click to expand...

The academia world is about as biased as it gets. My philosophy teacher wanted us to open our minds, not be biased and explore both sides of everything blah, blah, blah. Yet when it came to evolution he found a Christian that believed in evolution to come speak to the class as to why we should believe evolution.

Funny though there was no opposing viewpoint.
 
#373
#373
BigPapaVol said:
irony here is funny as hell (which doesn't exist OBTW).
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what would you say the biased agenda is of what I post? Or what I may read? Do you really believe it is simply going out of my way to try and prove God doesn't exist?
 
#374
#374
JZVOL said:
The academia world is about as biased as it gets. My philosophy teacher wanted us to open our minds, not be biased and explore both sides of everything blah, blah, blah. Yet when it came to evolution he found a Christian that believed in evolution to come speak to the class as to why we should believe evolution.

Funny though there was no opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I get it, it must be a conspiracy theory against all Judeo-Christians. It's nothing more than scientific persecution of religious beliefs.
 
#375
#375
rjd970 said:
Just out of curiosity, what would you say the biased agenda is of what I post? Or what I may read? Do you really believe it is simply going out of my way to try and prove God doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
I believe that you love this topic and have spent an extraordinary amount of time convincing yourself of something. You can't come at this without an enormous bias (nor can most of us), but you bust everyone else's chops for their inherent bias.

Your pasted stuff is also coming from a litany of biased folks, yet you don't footnote it as such.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top