Evolution

[Pooeypants]

Quoting from here.
Oh I do like the 3rd paragraph:
"This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolution and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, cannot be falsified, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."

Before we go through each of the evidences one by one where you will refute them all with scientific data that no doubt you have collected if you are to be so bold to dismiss evolution in favour of your invisible sky fairy's handy work.

As the article said, its for the scientifically minded, so I'm not sure how much you do know and if it's worth going over for you. No offence ofc.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by aphex@Sep 5 2003, 04:43 PM cachekntx: I really meant no sarcasm or personal attack by my post. Rather I was explaining what many see today to be a unfortunate compromise by those claiming to believe in the Bible. They have been convinced, along with everyone else, that the Bible is fanciful religion and evolution is modern scientific fact. Unfortunately this is far from the case, which I have been discussing in previous posts. As a result, they replace what is explained as a literal six day creation to be a mere analogy for a several billion year time period.

Evolution is as much a modern scientific fact as Gravity, Germs and Cells. It has not replaced the literal six day creation to be a mere analogy, geology, through scientific methods has proved the six day creation to be a complete load of bollocks. If you looked into the 19th century you would see that the work was done by mostly Christians who through studying geology realised that the earth and it's features took much longer to form than the 6000 years or so allowed by the bible. Obviously the notion was deeply opposed by most Victorians but the more data collect and examined, the more they realised the earth was more millions of years old. Maybe you don't like to know the facts and would rather cradle your holy book. Which reminds, how do we know that your holy book of creation is correct and the creation story of say, the Hindu are incorrect? Indeed for all creation stories...

[Fallen Angel]

Evolutionists still have'nt properly worked out the missing link between Man and the apes yet, but they know everything..

[Down]

Ok, this I a post of mine taken from another message board on this topic. It explains my understanding of what Evolution really is.

It seems that many of you dont really know how evolution works. Let me see how well I can explain this. Evolution occurs when there is any mutation at all, be it positive or negative, it is just that if the mutation happens to benefit the critter, then that critter will be more likely to reproduce more than one with a negative mutation. They would do this because the positive mutation would allow them to be more healthy, which generally goes along with reproduction. I am sure most of you have heard the term 'survival of the fittest'. Well, that term is really an incorrect representation of the theory of darwinian evolution. It should really be 'reproduction of the fittest' When one certain 'group' of similarly mutated critters reproduces more than another group, they will eventually become their own 'species' so to speak. Once they are in their own group, there will eventually be another positive mutation, and the whole process with start over again. Another thing that could cause two seperate, but similar species would be an environmental factor. If there is a herd of, say, Elk that is going to try and cross a river, some of them may not be able to cross. The ones who would not be able to cross (for any number of reasons-- size, strength, etc.) Would either stay on the other side of that river, or try to cross, but end up dead. This 'seperation' of a single species would create two identifiably different groups. Over time, the process of evolution in the form of mutations would eventually make them two distinct species. Over billions of years, there would be so many mutations and seperations that would have happened, that the wide variety of species we have on earth today would be there. In reference to the whole 'neanderthal theory', it is pretty much generally agreed upon in the anthropology field that humans are not direct descendants of neanderthals. Some of the biggest proof of this is that there have been many skulls found which are dated to be older than some neanderthal skulls. These appear to be much more like 'homo sapiens sapiens' than ' homo sapiens neanderthalensis'. Also, the amount of 'mutation' that would need to occur between 140,000 years ago (when neanderthals were around) and now is much greater than what is curently considered possible. Edit----------- As a side note, it has been argued that the human race has become so interconnected, that we have pretty much stopped evolving seperately. When an entire species with 6 billion members is forced to evolve all at once, almost no evolution occurs. Any mutation is so drowned out and 'watered down' that it in essense has no effect.

Here is the link to the rest of that thread: http://www.tutorialforums.com/showthread.p...15&pagenumber=1

And another link to a webpage that i think is very relevant: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

[Fallen Angel]

As a creationalist/evolutionist, I would say we have reached the end of our evolution, here on Earth at least, I think evolution occurs when challenge is consistantly met and delt with, as technology is making physical challenge for the average human being (western ones anyway) an impossibility, I can already see the human spirit deteriorating.
One humurous drawing I looked at once, showed a western human being in 50 years time, a fat soft grey skinned hairless blob of either sex, but with incredibly fast and elongated nimble fingers.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@Sep 8 2003, 01:22 PM Evolutionists still have'nt properly worked out the missing link between Man and the apes yet, but they know everything..

lmao, creationists still haven't worked out where their Creator is hiding :D
btw, did you know that between 90 to 99% of life that has ever existed on earth will never been known as a lot of them didn't die in conditions where fossilisation could occur...

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@Sep 9 2003, 10:36 AM As a creationalist/evolutionist, I would say we have reached the end of our evolution, here on Earth at least, I think evolution occurs when challenge is consistantly met and delt with, as technology is making physical challenge for the average human being (western ones anyway) an impossibility, I can already see the human spirit deteriorating. One humurous drawing I looked at once, showed a western human being in 50 years time, a fat soft grey skinned hairless blob of either sex, but with incredibly fast and elongated nimble fingers.

I know what you mean, with medicine advancing at such a great rate it seems there are no selection pressure in the western world, almost any1 can reproduce and pass on their genes. But I guess genetic engineering is going to change all that. People might oppose it at first but we all know that it'll be intregrated into society eventually.

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by Pooeypants+Sep 10 2003, 06:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants @ Sep 10 2003, 06:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Fallen Angel@Sep 9 2003, 10:36 AM As a creationalist/evolutionist, I would say we have reached the end of our evolution, here on Earth at least, I think evolution occurs when challenge is consistantly met and delt with, as technology is making physical challenge for the average human being (western ones anyway) an impossibility, I can already see the human spirit deteriorating. One humurous drawing I looked at once, showed a western human being in 50 years time, a fat soft grey skinned hairless blob of either sex, but with incredibly fast and elongated nimble fingers.

I know what you mean, with medicine advancing at such a great rate it seems there are no selection pressure in the western world, almost any1 can reproduce and pass on their genes. But I guess genetic engineering is going to change all that. People might oppose it at first but we all know that it'll be intregrated into society eventually. [/b][/quote]
Genetic engineering, I would like to see them unlock the secret to reversing the aging gene, rejuvenation every time you get to 65, you get put in a tank and couple of months later whooska! back to 20 again.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel+Sep 11 2003, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fallen Angel @ Sep 11 2003, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Pooeypants@Sep 10 2003, 06:48 AM <!--QuoteBegin-Fallen Angel @Sep 9 2003, 10:36 AM As a creationalist/evolutionist, I would say we have reached the end of our evolution, here on Earth at least, I think evolution occurs when challenge is  consistantly met and delt with, as technology is making physical challenge for the average human being (western ones anyway) an impossibility, I can already see the human spirit deteriorating. One humurous drawing I looked at once, showed a western human being in 50 years time, a fat soft grey skinned hairless blob of either sex, but with incredibly fast and elongated nimble fingers. I know what you mean, with medicine advancing at such a great rate it seems there are no selection pressure in the western world, almost any1 can reproduce and pass on their genes. But I guess genetic engineering is going to change all that. People might oppose it at first but we all know that it'll be intregrated into society eventually.

Genetic engineering, I would like to see them unlock the secret to reversing the aging gene, rejuvenation every time you get to 65, you get put in a tank and couple of months later whooska! back to 20 again. [/b][/quote]
There's also the hypothesis that Oxygen itself causes ageing by damaging the DNA etc. There are some testings done to prove this but only on a small scale with a type of invertebrate.

Basically, with what you suggested, we'll need nano bots in those tanks that are capable of repairing our DNA as well the rest of cells in the skin and organs. Although I'm skeptical on how they'd repair the Brain cells without perhaps altering our memory.

[Down]

Originally posted by Pooeypants@Sep 11 2003, 09:42 AM Although I'm skeptical on how they'd repair the Brain cells without perhaps altering our memory.

Im guessing that somehow mad skills would come into play.

Seriously, though. I think something like this is one of those 'in the future' ideas that never really happen. In the 1950s, we were all supposed to be flying around in car like hover vehicles, and there was supposed to be a giant civilization on the moon. I think that advanced nano-technology will probably happen at some point, but that point is AGES away.

Some Nano tech. already exists. The army has been experimenting with such things as the armor suit that is soft as cotton but hardens when struck with a bullet. Embroyonic Stem Cell Research has promised such a hope as brain repair but they failed to mention that most of the cells they will be able to repair are superfluous and not the most critical ones. But never say they can't do something, because its only a matter of time before they do it. DOWN, we may not have flying cars but we have made other inventions that were far beyond expectations of the 50s.

Originally posted by Pooeypants, lmao, creationists still haven't worked out where their Creator is hiding btw, did you know that between 90 to 99% of life that has ever existed on earth will never been known as a lot of them didn't die in conditions where fossilisation could occur...

What do you mean creationists don't know where their Creator is. What a stupid remark. Don't critisize something you haven't researched or studied. If you asked a true follower of God they could tell you exactly where he is. I can't believe you made that remark.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by theophysics, What do you mean creationists don't know where their Creator is. What a stupid remark. Don't critisize something you haven't researched or studied. If you asked a true follower of God they could tell you exactly where he is. I can't believe you made that remark.

The answer such as "Everywhere and nowhere" does not suffice. I was refering to some physical volume in spacetime where by the God entity be located and detected. Hence you can very much believe I said it.

The Christian god has made physical apperances on this earth according to bible history. Its only human skepticism that his history has been mocked and forgotten. Believing in God is perfect the way it is. You have just enough evidence to believe it with faith, but not enough to blatenly prove of his physical presence. Do you agree?

Nope. There is not enough evidence to believe in God's existence. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since there is NO evidence of a god's existence, clearly NO evidence is required for believers to accept on faith a god's existence. I could write a book, say a god inspired it's writting, and maybe I could convince others what I say is true. If so, several decades later, there would be a church based on my writtings. Would that prove I was right and inspired by a deity?

[ruiner]

To believe that all life could have appeared by chance is like believing a 747 could form very quickly and spontaneously from an explosion in a very small junkyard.

The truth is, and more and more scientists are writing books on this, is that all life must have been created as we see it today by an intelligent being - ie God.

The "Guess of Evolution" is in bad shape nowadays yet it is still being taught in schools as atheist propaganda. By now it was supposed to be fixed but many missing links are still missing and new genetic problems keep on arising and they found a screwdriver in 50 million year old rocks. Just recently there was the piltdown and nebraska man scandal that rocked science and peoples faith in it. It has been predicted by trends that evolution itself will soon be an extinct species of science!

Ruiner. These scientist, missing links, and other problems you mentioned are probably well documented in religious communities' writtings but not among the rest of us. The problem of the "missing link," has not been discussed in the non-religious scientific community for about thirty years. It was and is a non issue in the theory of evolution.
Personally, I outgrew the need of an organized religion many years ago. I do still know many christians and many who believe in evolution. The two, evolution and religion, are not exclusive beliefs. These christians, and I when I was younger, simply view evolution and the mechanism which god used to create life and the universe. Have you ever heard of the primal cause. Since every effect has a cause, the universe, via the big bang, must have been caused by something. This something, primal cause, is god. God, established all the laws of the universe and then, bang, started the whole thing. As established back in the 1950s, if you add all the ingredients for life and add energy, life will spontaneously happen. Life springs up all over the place on its own. IF you don't believe me don't clean your toilet bowl for a few days and see what happens.
Back in College in the late 1980s, a christian activist once handed me a brouchere decrying evolution as incorrect. The young man started telling me about the missing link and other reasons why the theory of evolution was wrong. I began looking at his pamphlet and noticed it was dated 1960. After pointing out that there was a bit of scientific discovery in the last 30 years, the young man decided he neede to fall back and regroup. Maybe you should also do a bit more homework.

Ruiner. These scientist, missing links, and other problems you mentioned are probably well documented in religious communities' writtings but not among the rest of us. The problem of the "missing link," has not been discussed in the non-religious scientific community for about thirty years. It was and is a non issue in the theory of evolution.
Personally, I outgrew the need of an organized religion many years ago. I do still know many christians and many who believe in evolution. The two, evolution and religion, are not exclusive beliefs. These christians, and I when I was younger, simply view evolution and the mechanism which god used to create life and the universe. Have you ever heard of the primal cause. Since every effect has a cause, the universe, via the big bang, must have been caused by something. This something, primal cause, is god. God, established all the laws of the universe and then, bang, started the whole thing. As established back in the 1950s, if you add all the ingredients for life and add energy, life will spontaneously happen. Life springs up all over the place on its own. IF you don't believe me don't clean your toilet bowl for a few days and see what happens.
Back in College in the late 1980s, a christian activist once handed me a brouchere decrying evolution as incorrect. The young man started telling me about the missing link and other reasons why the theory of evolution was wrong. I began looking at his pamphlet and noticed it was dated 1960. After pointing out that there was a bit of scientific discovery in the last 30 years, the young man decided he neede to fall back and regroup. Maybe you should also do a bit more homework.

Ruiner. These scientist, missing links, and other problems you mentioned are probably well documented in religious communities' writtings but not among the rest of us. The problem of the "missing link," has not been discussed in the non-religious scientific community for about thirty years. It was and is a non issue in the theory of evolution.
Personally, I outgrew the need of an organized religion many years ago. I do still know many christians and many who believe in evolution. The two, evolution and religion, are not exclusive beliefs. These christians, and I when I was younger, simply view evolution and the mechanism which god used to create life and the universe. Have you ever heard of the primal cause. Since every effect has a cause, the universe, via the big bang, must have been caused by something. This something, primal cause, is god. God, established all the laws of the universe and then, bang, started the whole thing. As established back in the 1950s, if you add all the ingredients for life and add energy, life will spontaneously happen. Life springs up all over the place on its own. IF you don't believe me don't clean your toilet bowl for a few days and see what happens.
Back in College in the late 1980s, a christian activist once handed me a brouchere decrying evolution as incorrect. The young man started telling me about the missing link and other reasons why the theory of evolution was wrong. I began looking at his pamphlet and noticed it was dated 1960. After pointing out that there was a bit of scientific discovery in the last 30 years, the young man decided he neede to fall back and regroup. Maybe you should also do a bit more homework.

OOOPPS. Can someone remove the last two posts please?