# Do you believe in macroevolution?



## Surroundx (Feb 18, 2012)

*Disclaimer:* This thread has _nothing_ to do with religion, which is a topic which may offend some (or many) people, and is consequently banned from being discussed on this forum. Many religious persons are quite comfortable with the idea that species have evolved from other species over geological periods of time (_macroevolution_), and hence, at least at a practical level, acceptance of the reality of macroevolution does not necessarily entail the rejection of theism (broadly, the belief in a personal god) and/or deism (broadly, the belief in an impersonal god). And likewise, the only alternative to evolution is not necessarily creation by god, whether direct or indirect (strongly-actualized or weakly-actualized as philosophers would say). Perhaps life was seeded on Earth (the Gaia principle), perhaps from beings on other planets (aliens?).

*Post:* Many people do not believe that one species can evolve into another species, but do accept that change within a relatively fixed "type" _can_ occur (microevolution). The poll question under consideration is whether or not one species can transform so significantly that it may be deemed to be a wholly different species from the ancestral stock from which it is derived (macroevolution).

Please feel free to add any of your thoughts on the subject, but please do not bring religion into the discussion as I do not want this thread to be deleted or closed, but to stay open. Thankyou.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

Absolutely. There has been so many studies done with artificial selection that have shown insane amounts of change in a species over a very small number of generations, I have no doubt that these effects multiplied over a long period of time would very easily lead to unbelievable levels of change.


----------



## saximus (Feb 18, 2012)

I'm not sure it's a matter of belief. I'm pretty sure it's been done in the lab with bacteria and certain kinda of fly


----------



## PMyers (Feb 18, 2012)

It is truly a sign of the sad state of affairs when the type of disclaimer typed above is deemed necessary. Alas, it most definitely is!

I consider myself to be scientifically minded, but I am certainly no scientist - I haven't put in the hard yards necessary to deem myself as such, and likely never will. However I have always found the notion of evolution to be fascinating, and for some reason it simply clicks with me, meaning I can understand the basic principals with ease. Of course the more technical and in-depth instances of evolution, or "theories-within-the-theory" seem to get a tad beyond my means 

So yes; to answer your question, I do believe in macro-evolution. Quite emphatically so. I can see the evidence (which those of you who have read my rantings on such topics as the recent "panther" thread would know I hold in the highest regard) through fossilised records, which to me read as clearly as a flowchart.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

Saximus, that's microevolution. But yes, it's no longer really a matter of belief, there is enough evidence to classify macroevolution as a theory as far as I'm aware.


----------



## cement (Feb 18, 2012)

However I do remember reading about a study done on fruit flies as they have a very fast generational turnover, and the results were that no different species evolved. Sure there was mutations etc but in the end they were still just left with fruit fly.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

Why would they evolve though? They were kept in conditions that were specifically to house them comfortably, so it is still just normal survival of the fittest. There is no characteristics that could come out in that sort of time-frame that would benefit the flies to any great degree, so there was no factor pushing evolution.


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 18, 2012)

Instances of speciation have been observed both in the wild and also in the laboratory. For a full list of research papers documenting speciation events visit Observed Instances of Speciation


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 18, 2012)

There is enough scientific material to totally prove Evolution not just microevolution. If stuff did not evolve then we wouldnt have the animals we have today after the meteor hit and wiped out 90% of the planet. They can prove certain types of marine life are unchanged in 135 million years and crocs have been around for millenia but mammals as we know are only in the last million years give or take a week. Humans are the best example of micro evolution, we get faster taller stronger every generation or so this is evolving and as its on a tiny basis it is microevolution. Take legless lizards, did they evolve without legs abd are still growing them threw evolution or did they have them and are losing them thru evolution, we wont know for another ten thousand years or do we. Even the most religious of folk must believe in some evolution.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

OK...who are the two people that voted it _doesn't _occur? Fair enough if you don't believe it, but please put forward your reasoning, I would actually be interested. I like to have my views challenged.

And wright, that's very good reasoning, but the same people who don't believe in evolution are very often the same people who believe God popped out the world in 7 days, about 6,000 years ago, so saying 'small changes add up over billions of years' really doesn't work for them.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 18, 2012)

I myself believe in more of a creationist view (nobody argue, just stating  ) but I absolutely believe in evolution on a viral level. But then I also consider the amount of man-made viruses that are introduced. But yeh


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 18, 2012)

miss_mosher,

Can you expand upon your view at all? What do you mean "more" of a creationist view? Does that mean that your not entirely a creationist? (not arguing, just curious )


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> I myself believe in more of a creationist view (nobody argue, just stating  ) but I absolutely believe in evolution on a viral level. But then I also consider the amount of man-made viruses that are introduced. But yeh


I'm enjoying this thread, so it's definitely not the place to start a conversation about the merits of creationism/macroevolution, but can I suggest reading _The Greates Show on Earth_ by Richard Dawkins? It's actually a really good, well written book that has a lot of information about evolution on all levels, and he avoids his usual provocative tone, so it might be a more pleasant experience than other books on the subject.


----------



## Monitor_Keeper (Feb 18, 2012)

I voted no ( i don't think i need to provide my reasoning's if you know me from previous threads  )


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 18, 2012)

I would say I'm a creationist, however I do believe that evolution in viruses exist. I'm not sure of that of course, but from what I've researched myself i definitely think its possible. And I totally respect everyone's views, so don't go hating on me haha


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 18, 2012)

TeKnO,

Could you please briefly summarize your reasoning for those of us who are new to the forum?


----------



## Monitor_Keeper (Feb 18, 2012)

I will not break the disclaimer but i am interested in who also voted no

and why


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

TeKnO said:


> I voted no ( i don't think i need to provide my reasoning's if you know me from previous threads  )


Aw, now that's just teasing....back soon, previous post trawling I go.... ughh.

EDIT: Yeah, too much effort. If you can be bothered to put forward an outline of your belief then I'll deal with that, but I'd much rather be watching movies than reading all your comments


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 18, 2012)

miss_mosher,

New and resistant strains of viruses emerge quite regularly (alarmingly so), so you are quite correct that viruses do evolve.


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 18, 2012)

Jamesss said:


> OK...who are the two people that voted it _doesn't _occur? Fair enough if you don't believe it, but please put forward your reasoning, I would actually be interested. I like to have my views challenged.
> 
> And wright, that's very good reasoning, but the same people who don't believe in evolution are very often the same people who believe God popped out the world in 7 days, about 6,000 years ago, so saying 'small changes add up over billions of years' really doesn't work for them.



Scientists have proven that the world has been here for 340 million years when it was created on that tuesday in spring so the thought that it was created 6000years ago is rediculous the world is still flat i suppose to. There is a tree in northern england and the same dna is found on opposite ends of a five acre wood. the plant has continually dropped its branches into ground and continued growing in different directions and now covers five acres, one tree. It has been core dated to be 7500 years old and is the worlds largest tree and also the oldest and in religious veiws it means the world must have been created around this tree as it was here first. Evolution is easy to see, Dinosaurs were here then they were wiped out, then more dinosaurs were here 50 million years later then they were wiped out, now humans and stuff are here and the way were going soon we will be wiped out and something else will evolve. I hope its dinosaurs again because i really want a raptor.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 18, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> miss_mosher,
> 
> New and resistant strains of viruses emerge quite regularly (alarmingly so), so you are quite correct that viruses do evolve.



But in saying that, I also wonder just how many new viruses have been tampered with by humans? I always have too many questions in my head


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> But in saying that, I also wonder just how many new viruses have been tampered with by humans? I always have too many questions in my head



Change due to humans is still evolution. It is still the virus adapting to work as best as it can.



Wrightpython said:


> Scientists have proven that the world has been here for 340 million years when it was created on that tuesday in spring so the thought that it was created 6000years ago is rediculous the world is still flat i suppose to. There is a tree in northern england and the same dna is found on opposite ends of a five acre wood. the plant has continually dropped its branches into ground and continued growing in different directions and now covers five acres, one tree. It has been core dated to be 7500 years old and is the worlds largest tree and also the oldest and in religious veiws it means the world must have been created around this tree as it was here first. Evolution is easy to see, Dinosaurs were here then they were wiped out, then more dinosaurs were here 50 million years later then they were wiped out, now humans and stuff are here and the way were going soon we will be wiped out and something else will evolve. I hope its dinosaurs again because i really want a raptor.



Again, very good reasoning, and sound evidence (not proof, mind you, and here's where the contention comes in.), but people can and do still say "The evidence is wrong."


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 18, 2012)

I don't like discussing these sort of subjects online as there's always confusion and of course the odd troll pops up. I never try to challenge ones belief and I definitely wouldn't do it online, it's hard to read people when they're not physically in front of you and I would absolutely hate to offend anyone. I believe everyone has their right to their opinion and I'm sure many other people here like myself, have spent YEARS trying to find the answers to this subject. In the end, everyone will always have something to different to believe in and that's what makes society great (at times)


----------



## MontePython (Feb 18, 2012)

Evidence... Aquarium trade, it is all macro, you wouldnt see any of the morphs in the wild...

Best example.....fancy guppies. 

I think that is all i have to say with evidence to back it up!

as an example...

Endlers guppy 1940

pingu guppy 1979

mongrel guppy we now know as everyday 1012...


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 18, 2012)

Monte, I'd assume it's _micro _rather than _macro_ which is what the original questin is about. I don't think anyone can actually disagree with the theory or _micro_​evolution, the evidence is just way too overwhelming and observable.


----------



## -Peter (Feb 18, 2012)

Its a no brainer. You either accept both macro and micro or you believe in magic. There is no arguement against only denial.


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 19, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> *Disclaimer:* This thread has _nothing_ to do with religion, which is a topic which may offend some (or many) people, and is consequently banned from being discussed on this forum. Many religious persons are quite comfortable with the idea that species have evolved from other species over geological periods of time (_macroevolution_), and hence, at least at a practical level, acceptance of the reality of macroevolution does not necessarily entail the rejection of theism (broadly, the belief in a personal god) and/or deism (broadly, the belief in an impersonal god).


The disclaimer is absolute rubbish. OP is starting a theological post by claiming that it is not a theological post. Unfortunately this is how modern day creationism works, It claims it is scientific wraps a pseudo-scientific wrapper around a myth that involves supernatural interference and complains when it isn't taken seriously, or creates a half based hypothesis ( like irreducibly complexity) then howls in pain when the hypothesis is subjected to scientific methodology.




Surroundx said:


> And likewise, the only alternative to evolution is not necessarily creation by god, whether direct or indirect (strongly-actualized or weakly-actualized as philosophers would say). Perhaps life was seeded on Earth (the Gaia principle), perhaps from beings on other planets (aliens?).


Standard straw man argument that demonstrates a fundamental and possibly intentional misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Simply put evolution is change. 
Biological evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Notice how the origin is not part of the theorem. 
Nor does evolution explain the rings of Saturn, the origins of the universe ( both favourites of the disco `tute) . 
Nor does it "talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." 
If you want it delve into the origins of life I suggest you research abiogenesis not evolution.




Surroundx said:


> *Post:* Many people do not believe that one species can evolve into another species, but do accept that change within a relatively fixed "type" _can_ occur (microevolution). The poll question under consideration is whether or not one species can transform so significantly that it may be deemed to be a wholly different species from the ancestral stock from which it is derived (macroevolution).


A more honest phasing of this poll would be "Do you believe in creationism of not?" or "are you willing to ignore all evidence to prop up your superstition?" because that is all you are asking 
or to put it another way:


FC: "ALL EVOLUTION IS WRONG. EACH ANIMAL WAS MADE IN ITS IMMUTABLE FORM"
IM: "But animals have been observed to change" 
FC: "ALL EVOLUTION IS KINDA WRONG. EACH ANIMAL WAS MADE IN ITS IMMUTABLE FORM EXCEPT FOR SMALL CHANGES"
IM: "So what you are saying is that small changes can be made over a short period of thing"
FC (in loud boooming voice): "YES"
IM: "but surely is small changes can occur over a short period of time then large changes can occur over a large period of time?"
FC: "um.. THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD"
IM: "But there is scientific evidence that supports a 4 billon year earth! Radiocarbon dating for instance"
FC (with fingers in ears): "LA LA LA"
IM: "mitochondrial dna analysis?" 
FC: "LA LA LA"
IM: And don't forget the fossal record"
FC: "SHES A WITCH! BURN HER"
IM: "how do you know I'm a witch?"
FC: "YOU TURNED ME INTO A NEWT"





Surroundx said:


> Please feel free to add any of your thoughts on the subject, but please do not bring religion into the discussion as I do not want this thread to be deleted or closed, but to stay open. Thankyou.


OK - I will but Penn & Teller - BULLSHIT! : Creationism (Part 1/2) - YouTube say it better


----------



## PMyers (Feb 19, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> FC: "YOU TURNED ME INTO A NEWT"



I got better...


----------



## slim6y (Feb 19, 2012)

Unfortunately Fuscus - you're wrong!!!! 

Actually - I love your post, but one part of it suggested the Earth is 4 billion years old and carbon dating has suggested this to be true.

As far as I am aware, carbon dating is only as good as the amount of carbon available in a sample after _x amount of time.

Because the half life of C-14 (carbon 14) is under 6,000 years, it would be rather difficult to assume that you could go back 4 billion years considering the Earth is continually being bombarded by new carbon from other sources. 

For an animal that died, say, 5,000 years ago, it stopped taking in carbon. So the radio isotope of C-14 will decay at a constant(ish) rate of around half of it turning to N-14 within 5730 years. 

Easy to measure. 

But not knowing exactly how much carbon the Earth was being bombarded with 4 billion years ago, and then a continual stream still coming in to Earth, would make radio carbon dating of the Earth very difficult. 

On the other hand, recent research suggests this:
Radiometric dating (not radio carbon dating) has suggested the Earth is over 4 billion years old. 

It is the same principle as radiocarbon dating, only it doesn't use carbon because of its much shorter half life. 

Unfortunately, this doesn't always give us a good representation - especially if the radio isotope was not originally formed in the Earth's crust. It may give a better indication of how old our sun is rather than the Earth.

As for micro, macro or just evolution... This is why I don't teach biology, it's a weak science! However, I love genetics and selection, because clearly I got selected and went fourth and spawned... Only once mind you, I decided I didn't like the outcome nearly as much as the act - hence, I now no longer will attempt to continue to spawn.

Evolution - slim6ys (that is the plural of slim6y, I can assure you) will be wiped out very shortly (maybe in the next few hundred years). But I like how far my genes got in their short space and time here!

PS - I am not entirely sure of exactly how many times I have spawned, I only have evidence of once...._


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 19, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Unfortunately Fuscus - you're wrong!!!!
> 
> Actually - I love your post, but one part of it suggested the Earth is 4 billion years old and carbon dating has suggested this to be true.
> 
> ...


_
I stand corrected_


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 19, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> The disclaimer is absolute rubbish. OP is starting a theological post by claiming that it is not a theological post. Unfortunately this is how modern day creationism works, It claims it is scientific wraps a pseudo-scientific wrapper around a myth that involves supernatural interference and complains when it isn't taken seriously, or creates a half based hypothesis ( like irreducibly complexity) then howls in pain when the hypothesis is subjected to scientific methodology.



How is this a theological post? Perhaps you are under the mistaken belief that I am a theist or a deist. In fact I am an atheist who believes that god is logically impossible. I was simply stating that the question of evolution and the question of god are not synonymous, and that there are other alternative to naturalistic evolution and Young Earth Creationism, which include the Gaia Principle, progressive creationism, theistic evolution etc. I attempted to separate macroevolution from theology so that there would be no references to god in this thread, and hence no chance of this thread offending people and/or being deleted/closed.



Fuscus said:


> Standard straw man argument that demonstrates a fundamental and possibly intentional misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Simply put evolution is change.
> Biological evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Notice how the origin is not part of the theorem.
> Nor does evolution explain the rings of Saturn, the origins of the universe ( both favourites of the disco `tute) .
> Nor does it "talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings."
> If you want it delve into the origins of life I suggest you research abiogenesis not evolution.



I fully understand evolution and the distinction between evolution and abiogensis (i.e. the origin of life), even though many people don't. A good definition of evolution would be as follows:

_"Any net change in the frequency of an allele in a population"_

This includes the fixation of an allele within a population (possible via genetic drift), a significant change in the frequency of different alleles of a gene (though not to fixation) because of natural selection (and possibly genetic drift in small populations), and finally a heritable mutation occurring in the germ-line cells of an individual.

But that is not the poll question under consideration. I am not asking whether people believe in _microevolution_, as I have already stated. You have ignored that. What I _am_ asking is whether people accept the reality of macroevolution or not (or are unsure). Whether the "process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" can also account for new species coming into existence. Of course, I did not discuss how we define a species. That is a controversial subject, and no single definition seems to have sufficient generality to encompass all possible applications of the term (to various taxa, clades, phylogenetic groups etc.).


----------



## Retic (Feb 19, 2012)

When I was young I was amazed people believed all of this was created by something/someone nobody has ever seen, now in 2012 I am even more amazed it is still believed.


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Feb 19, 2012)

boa said:


> When I was young I was amazed people believed all of this was created by something/someone nobody has ever seen, now in 2012 I am even more amazed it is still believed.



I love the cherry pickers :lol: hours of entertainment.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 19, 2012)

I think this whole thread is getting WAY out of context. Anyway the point of it was, many people believe macroevolution exists. That's the poll. I don't think everyone needs to argue/try and prove they're right. Gahh


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 19, 2012)

The poll is to determine how many people believe in macroevolution. But as I said at the bottom of the OP people could leave their comments pertaining to the subject of evolution. Of course, there has been some creationist bashing and religion has also been mentioned, but for the most part I don't think anything _offensive_ has been posted.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 19, 2012)

Mhmm yes definitely some creationist bashing. Some of it is a tad offensive though, like calling God 'magic.' maybe some people just need to be more considerate with their words. It's what I hate about these discussions being online though, things get misunderstood. Anyway most people believe in macroevolution which is cool. You can see how many people do and don't. Cool topic.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 19, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Mhmm yes definitely some creationist bashing. *Some of it is a tad offensive though, like calling God 'magic.' *maybe some people just need to be more considerate with their words. It's what I hate about these discussions being online though, things get misunderstood. Anyway most people believe in macroevolution which is cool. You can see how many people do and don't. Cool topic.



I was totally going to stay out of this thread mainly because i'm ashamed of my post count but... How is God [the idea of a deity and the deitie's actions] not magic and how is calling it magic offensive?


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 19, 2012)

Because some people just find it offensive. Just like some women find it offensive to be wolf whistled at etc etc. I'm not a Christian anymore but all I was saying is that there are probably some people on here that would get offended by that. That's all I'm saying. I'm not opening up myself here to be personally attacked or anything. I only joined this forum to learn from people. So don't get annoyed, all I was saying is that some would read that and get offended.

Anyway I'm out, hope everyone is having a great Sunday


----------



## GeckoJosh (Feb 19, 2012)

"But where I come from magic and science are one of the same"

Quote from Thor, from the movie Thor....


----------



## Retic (Feb 19, 2012)

The way I see it is in this day and age if people want to believe a 'god' just created everything from nothing then they have to be prepared to get a thick skin and realise many will put it right up there with voodoo. IMO.


----------



## SteveNT (Feb 19, 2012)

Obviously. How many cubic kilometers of evidence is required?



Surroundx said:


> *Disclaimer:* This thread has _nothing_ to do with religion, which is a topic which may offend some (or many) people, and is consequently banned from being discussed on this forum. Many religious persons are quite comfortable with the idea that species have evolved from other species over geological periods of time (_macroevolution_), and hence, at least at a practical level, acceptance of the reality of macroevolution does not necessarily entail the rejection of theism (broadly, the belief in a personal god) and/or deism (broadly, the belief in an impersonal god). And likewise, the only alternative to evolution is not necessarily creation by god, whether direct or indirect (strongly-actualized or weakly-actualized as philosophers would say). Perhaps life was seeded on Earth (the Gaia principle), perhaps from beings on other planets (aliens?).
> 
> *Post:* Many people do not believe that one species can evolve into another species, but do accept that change within a relatively fixed "type" _can_ occur (microevolution). The poll question under consideration is whether or not one species can transform so significantly that it may be deemed to be a wholly different species from the ancestral stock from which it is derived (macroevolution).
> 
> Please feel free to add any of your thoughts on the subject, but please do not bring religion into the discussion as I do not want this thread to be deleted or closed, but to stay open. Thankyou.


----------



## Retic (Feb 19, 2012)

It's like not believing in giraffes.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 19, 2012)

boa said:


> It's like not believing in giraffes.



But maybe like beleiving in platypodes (platypus pluralised) pre-1920's...


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 19, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> But maybe like beleiving in platypodes (platypus pluralised) pre-1920's...



Plural of platypus is platypuses or platypi


----------



## Retic (Feb 19, 2012)

Yes isn't it great that we have moved on considerably in so many ways since then 



waruikazi said:


> But maybe like beleiving in platypodes (platypus pluralised) pre-1920's...


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 19, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> Plural of platypus is platypuses or platypi



Ah no, you are using the Latin rule, platypus is from the Greek and there fore is pluralised with the suffix 'odes.'

I'll be expecting a written apology....


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 19, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> Ah no, you are using the Latin rule, platypus is from the Greek and there fore is pluralised with the suffix 'odes.'
> 
> I'll be expecting a written apology....



Haha. I just looked it up to make sure I was correct in case I was wrong. Seems I was. I....apologize....

"Calling on his knowledge of Greek, Shaw bestowed on the animal the name _Platypus anatinus_, from the Greek _Platypous_, meaning flat-footed, and the Latin _anatinus_, meaning duck-like"

(Ann Moyal, _Platypus: The extraordinary story of how a curious creature baffled the world_, pp. 6)


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 19, 2012)

There's one phrase missing from that explenation... lol


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 19, 2012)

I admit that I was wrong Mr. waruikazi. The plural of platypus is not platypuses or platypi as I mistakenly believed. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience which this may have cause you.

P.S. You spelt explanation wrong in your last post


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 19, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> I admit that I was wrong Mr. waruikazi. The plural of platypus is not platypuses or platypi as I mistakenly believed. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience which this may have cause you.
> 
> P.S. You spelt explanation wrong in your last post. I'll be expecting a written apology signed in blood...



That was a typo, not a spelling error. No apology... sorri! Hahahaha


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 19, 2012)

You spelt sorry wrong in the above post as well...

What's that ancient and almost unknown saying, not even found in the most esoteric of books? "Two typo's makes a spelling error...."


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 19, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> You spelt sorry wrong in the above post as well...
> 
> What's that ancient and almost unknown saying, not even found in the most esoteric of books? "Two typo's makes a spelling error...."



How many times did you proof read that to make sure you had no spelling mistakes? lol


----------



## Darlyn (Feb 19, 2012)

Yes


----------



## PMyers (Feb 19, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> Haha. I just looked it up to make sure I was correct in case I was wrong. Seems I was. I....apologize....
> 
> "Calling on his knowledge of Greek, Shaw bestowed on the animal the name _Platypus anatinus_, from the Greek _Platypous_, meaning flat-footed, and the Latin _anatinus_, meaning duck-like"
> 
> (Ann Moyal, _Platypus: The extraordinary story of how a curious creature baffled the world_, pp. 6)



Holy Academia! A cited reference! Looks like there's hope for this forum after all...

There's about 20+ hours of recorded lecture on Darwins Legacy that delves in to his theory and the effect it has had on the world.

stanford university darwin's legacy - YouTube

Interesting viewing, if you have the time...


----------



## Australis (Feb 20, 2012)

Im reading _The Voyage of the Beagle_ at the moment... it is wonderful reading about Darwins voyage to Australia. 

Evolution (macro and micro) is the only theory explaining biodiversity. To not believe in it is akin to giving giant serpents consideration for explaining the formation of rivers when solid scientific explanations exist... basically its just really stupid.


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 20, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> Even the most religious of folk must believe in some evolution.





Lol thats news to me....Seems to be news to this study aswell...Unless things have drastically changed since 2009

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution



mmafan555 said:


> Lol thats news to me....Seems to be news to this study aswell...Unless things have drastically changed since 2009
> 
> On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution




And it's not just America....You find similar results more or less across the board for most countries...


----------



## SteveNT (Feb 20, 2012)

Darwin of course never came to Darwin. The harbour was named after him by John Lort Stokes, at the time captain of the Beagle on a mapping exercise on the North Oz coast. Stokes was with Darwin on the earlier voyages. The naturalist on board threw such a tantrum at Stokes naming a harbour after a former naturalist that Stokes named the next big harbour Bynoe (after the tantrum chucker!)

Darwin didn't mention Australia much in his books, just too bloody weird- hard enough getting evolution across without explaining monotremes!


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 21, 2012)

Biological evolution is not simple change and it involves a lot more than then changes in the frequency of an allele. In biology evolution is the production of new species from previously existing species. The degree of change involved in this is immense and the average time span required in animals under natural conditions has been estimated to be around one million years. 

Dogs have been domesticated the longest of all animals. It was felt the degree of visual differences between their ancestral progenitor, the wolf, and their current varieties, warranted classification as a separate species. However, genetic analysis has reversed that thinking and they are now a subspecies of wolf. 

Viruses are on the border of living and non-living. They require a living sell to reproduce them. Structurally they are composed of a DNA or RNA core surrounded by a protein coat. Even a minor change in the core can result in a major change in the protein coat. Such changes are the equivalent of a single mutation in a cell. The changes resulting from a mutation in a virus are not an example of evolution.

There are no observed examples of speciation because it would take too many lifetimes to happen. This is why evolution is considered a theory. The mechanism that drives that theory, natural selection, is observable and demonstrable. Natural selection requires variation to work on. What Darwin could not explain is why variation in a population continued to exists after many generations of natural selection operating. He didn't know about recessive genes, random segregation of chromosomes in meiosis, crossing over, mutations and a few other mechanisms that produce variation within a population.

*Slim6y*,
C-14 is formed from the effect of comic rays on N-14 in the upper atmosphere. The carbon then combines readily with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which mixes into the lower atmosphere. Here it is taken up and incorporated into living matter by plants in the process of photosynthesis and passed onto animals via the food chain. The isotope decays at an exponential rate – usually expressed as the half life, which is the time taken for half of it to decay. Because the carbon decays back to nitrogen, which is already present in the body, you need to know the starting % of C-14 when first taken up. This has been determined by determined using the amount present in cores from particularly old trees and correlated fossilised tree trunks (matching growth rings as these vary with each year's climate).

There are about a dozen different radioactive substances that can be used for radiometric purposes. For example, potassium-argon can be utilised to determine dates in excess of 3 billion years. Whereas C-14 is good for up to 60,000 before it becomes too inaccurate. Which substance is used depends on two things – the age being estimated and what substances are found in the material to be measured. 

I totally disagree that Biology is a "weak" subject. To be good at it requires a level of competence in the other major science disciplines as well as mathematics.

Blue


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 21, 2012)

If everything was created why would something or someone be sick enough to create Mosquitoes, Tapeworm, Fleas and Ticks. Why would it/they create viruses and disease's spread by these four that kill and mutilate millions of children and adults each year. Why are we classed as the dominant species when we are easily killed of by the tiniest of single cell organisms. If the earth and universe was created the thing/person that created it must be cruel and sardistic to want so much pain and suffering from all forms of life.


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Feb 21, 2012)

In this instance, you have made incorrect use of a contraction in your pluralisation. There would not be an apostrophe in "typos". Also, the use of an ellipsis after "error" is entirely superfluous. Plus, the grammar is just atrocious! 



Surroundx said:


> You spelt sorry wrong in the above post as well...
> 
> What's that ancient and almost unknown saying, not even found in the most esoteric of books? "Two typo's makes a spelling error...."




"Therefore" is one word Gordo. 

P.S. Don't try to tell us that your thumb slipped and accidentally hit the space bar!



waruikazi said:


> Ah no, you are using the Latin rule, platypus is from the Greek and there fore is pluralised with the suffix 'odes.'
> 
> I'll be expecting a written apology....


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 21, 2012)

Oh hohoho! Is it reaaaaalllly? :lol:

Apostrophe s is used for three things! Contractions (it is-it's, does not-doesn't), which it hasn't been in this case. Showing possession (Slimey's dog is Piri, Surroundx's grammar is terrible. That is a poor example, i don't think Surroundx needs and s for possession.) Finally for pluralising acronyms and contractions! Seeing as _typo_ is a contraction for _typographical, _it is accurate to use an apostrophe s ('s) for its pluralisation!



Snake_Whisperer said:


> In this instance, you have made incorrect use of a contraction in your pluralisation. There would not be an apostrophe in "typos". Also, the use of an ellipsis after "error" is entirely superfluous. Plus, the grammar is just atrocious!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 21, 2012)

*Wrightpython*, 
You make life seem like an endless misery for all. I would hope that is a long way from the reality. Most certainly some individuals get a raw deal compared to others. I see the explanation as a non-interfering creator. There are those who would say that individuals put through undue suffering here will be compensated in the spiritual hereafter.

*miss_mosher*,
I see no issue with believing in a creator and believing in evolution at the same time. What it gets actually gets down is whether you see the book of Genesis as a verbatim account of how it happened or whether you view it as being in parable form - to teach an underlying principle using a made-up story. The so-called "creationists" are that believe the bible must be taken word for word as true. Yet if you look at recounts of Christ's teachings, time and again he used parables to get the message across.

So, how do you marry creator and evolution. The creator allowed this amazing molecule called DNA to develop and exist. It had two amazing properties. it could reproduce itself. And it contained a code that allowed it to build living to carry it. With minimal interference the creator allowed this molecule free reign. When it got to the point of being consciously pre-determining, the creator provided a spiritual awareness. The story of Adam and Eve.

Evolution is anti the creationist story, it is not anti a creator or God. 

Blue


----------



## slim6y (Feb 21, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> *Slim6y*,
> C-14 is formed from the effect of comic rays on N-14 in the upper atmosphere. The carbon then combines readily with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which mixes into the lower atmosphere. Here it is taken up and incorporated into living matter by plants in the process of photosynthesis and passed onto animals via the food chain. The isotope decays at an exponential rate – usually expressed as the half life, which is the time taken for half of it to decay. Because the carbon decays back to nitrogen, which is already present in the body, you need to know the starting % of C-14 when first taken up. This has been determined by determined using the amount present in cores from particularly old trees and correlated fossilised tree trunks (matching growth rings as these vary with each year's climate).
> 
> There are about a dozen different radioactive substances that can be used for radiometric purposes. For example, potassium-argon can be utilised to determine dates in excess of 3 billion years. Whereas C-14 is good for up to 60,000 before it becomes too inaccurate. Which substance is used depends on two things – the age being estimated and what substances are found in the material to be measured.
> ...



*BLUE TO N G UE*

A huh... hmmm.... yes.... ahhhhh... hmmmm.... Oh.... yes.... Ahhh I see.... oh.... Ummmmm.... Yes... Golly that's awesome. Thank you.

So - basically what I said except with a lot less words - except for the sarcasm of biology being a weak science.

It seems so upsetting that sarcasm is lost on the interweb.... Because misinterpretation must be the mother of all mothers...

*1*


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Feb 21, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> Oh hohoho! Is it reaaaaalllly? :lol:
> 
> Apostrophe s is used for three things! Contractions (it is-it's, does not-doesn't), which it hasn't been in this case. Showing possession (Slimey's dog is Piri, Surroundx's grammar is terrible. That is a poor example, i don't think Surroundx needs and s for possession.) Finally for pluralising acronyms and contractions! Seeing as _typo_ is a contraction for _typographical, _it is accurate to use an apostrophe s ('s) for its pluralisation!



*Bwuh bwom* (That's supposed to be my approximation of the "fail" noise you get on the radio...) 

Hate to rain on the parade, but "typo" is not a contraction. It is a noun derived from the occidental habit of being lazy, useless, and incapable of spewing out more than two syllables at a time. Therefore, the use of the apostrophe is wrong. A fine effort though mate! In the immortal words of "the boy"... pwned (he pronounces it "poned", but who knows...kids!)!


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 21, 2012)

Dammit i said contraction where i should have said _abreviation!_ Schooling FAIL! Lucky i'm only a year one teacher!


----------



## slim6y (Feb 21, 2012)

*Bluey-tongue-tongue-1*

What are comic rays?

Are they funny rays that come from pouter space (pun intended)?

Or are they more the super hero type comic rays that fly faster than a speeding bullet and can leap tall buildings in a single bound...?


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Feb 21, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> Dammit i said contraction where i should have said _abreviation!_ Schooling FAIL! Lucky i'm only a year one teacher!



Oh Jeebus Gordo, I'm so sorry but... it's _abbreviation_! :lol:

EDIT: Just occurred to me, I've been blatering on completely off topic. I suppose I've addressed the evolution of language, if that counts.


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 21, 2012)

the problem with humans is that instead of looking at the facts, we create them - and a few hundred years later we rely on speculations from the likes of charles darwin and his theory,- artificial selection verses natural selection.

We only believe in what we can see as factual evidence. 
and yet when we have something that is far from believable we put it down as evolution.
It still gets me how a human being can come into existance in as little as 40 weeks from nothing, yet we debate on how tiny differences can happen over thousands / millions of years. really look at the evidence, its in a new mothers arms.


----------



## ingie (Feb 21, 2012)

What defines a species? That is not a simple question to answer and is debated all the time in the science world. A widely accepted theory is that a species consists of living things that can breed together and produce fertile offspring. Microevolution is easy to prove as you can see it with your own eyes and measure it with genetic analyses. The occurrence of macroevolution depends on how you address the definition of a species. 

Micro and macroevolution do not necessarily go hand in hand. How long would it take for a species to become distinct from it's predecessor? How would we measure that the species is actually distint and not just a continuation of it's former self? I am not saying that macroevolution isn't possible, just asking how you would define it. 

Darwin documented solid evidence of microevolution but was not able to witness the rising of distinct new species from existing species, just extreme changes in allele frequencies within a species. Someone also suggested that humans becoming stronger and taller was proof of macroevolution, which is incorrect because we are still all one species able to freely breed amongst different races. What would have to occur for us to become a distinct new species from our ancestors or to diverge from one another to be multiple different species existing at the same time? Does it count as a new species if we simply look completely different to the cave man and have a more advanced level of communication and creativity? If that is the case then I am a different species than some of my family members haha. If white man had never stumbled upon Australian aborigines would they have continued to diverge and become a distinct species? How long would that take? Very interesting topic of discussion but there isn't 'solid evidence' like a lot of people think. There are many pieces of information that make certain options seem highly probable. That is different to concrete evidence though. For example if your basis for defining distinct species is that they must breed to produce fertile offspring, then that is going to be hard to test if it take 1 million years for speciation to occur! Do the populations need to be geographically isolated for this to occur or would it be possible for a single species to diverge into two in the one location?


----------



## Klaery (Feb 21, 2012)

mmafan555 said:


> And it's not just America....You find similar results more or less across the board for most countries...



it is different outside America. I forget the exact figures but one I remember was Sweden being over 80% atheist. When I was in middle America I was amazed and appalled.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 21, 2012)

*Ingie*,
As you indicated the basic definition of a species is a population that breeds and produces viable and fertile offspring under natural conditions. The species concept was introduced to allow us to cope with describing the natural world. There were all these different types of organisms evident and they always produced their own kind as babies. So each different type of organism was given a name and referred to as one species. Later down the track they discovered that some species had distinctive and different sub-groups and the notion of sub-species came into being. Then they discovered groups of sub-species in which adjacent groups could breed freely but distant ones could not. So the concept of a species complex was introduced.

The essential problem is that the notion of a species was seen as a static end point that all organisms had reached. The reality, of course, is that it is not static and there is no end point. All living things are going through a continuous process of change and what we see is simply a snapshot in time.

Initial descriptions of species were based on physical characteristics and field notes of specimens collected and sent to museums. Where time and resources permitted, breeding experiments were performed with some to check their species status. Then came Genetics and DNA profiling along with the discovery of mitochondrial DNA and its ability to reveal maternal lineage. Someone who has examined the DNA of closely related species (identified as species by other means) would know what to look for in assessing whether there was sufficient difference in the DNA to warrant separate species status.

For one population to give rise to more than one species, sub-popultions need to be genetically isolated. if gene flow exists between the two populations they will not diverge significantly.

Blue


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 21, 2012)

im defenitly a creasionist, however instead fo calling it macroevlution i would call it adaption on selective breeding.... if 500years ago giraffs next where only 50cm long and over centuries has grown to 1.5metres long. i dont think it should be classified as another species even tho it may now look completely different. Just adapted slowly to reach higher spots so to live.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 21, 2012)

slim6y said:


> BLUE TO N G UE
> 
> A huh... hmmm.... yes.... ahhhhh... hmmmm.... Oh.... yes.... Ahhh I see.... oh.... Ummmmm.... Yes... Golly that's awesome. Thank you.
> 
> ...


I was hoping you would have picked these up without me having to point them out to you. In your correcting of Fuscus on his error you made several errors yourself.


slim6y said:


> ..... considering the Earth is continually being bombarded by new carbon from other sources....
> 
> But not knowing exactly how much carbon the Earth was being bombarded with 4 billion years ago, and then a continual stream still coming in to Earth, would make radio carbon dating of the Earth very difficult.
> ....


The earth is not bombarded by carbon and never was.


slim6y said:


> ....For an animal that died, say, 5,000 years ago, it stopped taking in carbon. So the radio isotope of C-14 will decay at a constant(ish) rate of around half of it turning to N-14 within 5730 years. ....


 The rate of decay is exponential to the quantity. It is continually decreasing, not constant.


slim6y said:


> ... On the other hand, recent research suggests this: Radiometric dating (not radio carbon dating) has suggested the Earth is over 4 billion years old. ...


 They are not that recent.


slim6y said:


> ...Unfortunately, this doesn't always give us a good representation - especially if the radio isotope was not originally formed in the Earth's crust. It may give a better indication of how old our sun is rather than the Earth....


 The material the earth is made of did not come from the sun. Even if it had, it is not until the material solidifies, trapping both the radioactive atoms and the decay product, that radiometrics can be used. So it is only going to give you information about earth.

Blue


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 21, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> im defenitly a creasionist, however instead fo calling it macroevlution i would call it adaption on selective breeding.... if 500years ago giraffs next where only 50cm long and over centuries has grown to 1.5metres long. i dont think it should be classified as another species even tho it may now look completely different. Just adapted slowly to reach higher spots so to live.



I am not alone!


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 21, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> I am not alone!


dito


----------



## Klaery (Feb 21, 2012)

What I would love to know but cannot ask on here (why is it that some topics are seemingly above questioning) is if anybody that actually sees creationism as a viable option has come to such a conclusion without having a religious influence? I would imagine numbers in this group are very low.


----------



## Australis (Feb 21, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> the problem with humans is that instead of looking at the facts, we create them - and a few hundred years later we rely on speculations from the likes of charles darwin and his theory,- artificial selection verses natural selection.



This assertion of relying on Darwins "speculation" is wrong. We have since built on his original theory with mountains of supporting evidence. DNA evidence alone is over whelming and DNA was unknown in Darwins time.




snakerelocation said:


> We only believe in what we can see as factual evidence. and yet when we have something that is far from believable we put it down as evolution.



I think its ideal to only believe in factual evidence, whats the alternative believing in false evidence or concepts that have zero evidence (like creationism)?

What exactly is it that is far from believable, are you referring to speciation ?



snakerelocation said:


> It still gets me how a human being can come into existance in as little as 40 weeks from nothing, yet we debate on how tiny differences can happen over thousands / millions of years. really look at the evidence, its in a new mothers arms.



No a human does not come into existence from nothing.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 21, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I was hoping you would have picked these up without me having to point them out to you. In your correcting of Fuscus on his error you made several errors yourself.
> The earth is not bombarded by carbon and never was.
> The rate of decay is exponential to the quantity. It is continually decreasing, not constant.
> They are not that recent.
> ...



I'll take my time here - but I am having 'wireless' issues so I will get back to you when I am all done....


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Feb 21, 2012)

danielk said:


> What I would love to know but cannot ask on here (why is it that some topics are seemingly above questioning) is if anybody that actually sees creationism as a viable option has come to such a conclusion without having a religious influence? I would imagine numbers in this group are very low.



Nope, because the fundemental belief behind creationism is religious.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 21, 2012)

*Evidence for Evolution*

Long before the true age of rock strata were known, the relative age of the earth's rocks was determined from the principle of superposition – younger rocks are formed on top of older rocks. Based on the fossils in sedimentary rocks, the geological time scale split rocks up into epochs, periods, eras and eons. The fossils show a distinct pattern of increasing complexity and a movement from water to land. Over 90% of what is fossilised no longer exists today. There are lots of gaps in the fossil record when it comes to looking at specific organisms. However, there are some clear sequences, none better that the ancestry of the horse. From a two foot high mammal to the full sized horse of today, each stage is clearly chronicled in the fossil record. 
The existence of vestigial organs is not explained by direct creationism. Humans have an appendix which would be a caecum if we were herbivores. Snakes and legless lizards still have the limb girdle bones, both pectoral and pelvic. They also have the remnants of hind limbs forming flaps 
Common DNA between closely related organism e.g. human and chimpanzee
Common structures e.g. the route taken by the vas deferens in all mammals.
Homologous structures e.g. the wing of a bat, flipper of a whale and arm of a human are all basic pentadactyl limbs


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 21, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> *Evidence for Evolution*
> 
> Long before the true age of rock strata were known, the relative age of the earth's rocks was determined from the principle of superposition – younger rocks are formed on top of older rocks. Based on the fossils in sedimentary rocks, the geological time scale split rocks up into epochs, periods, eras and eons. The fossils show a distinct pattern of increasing complexity and a movement from water to land. Over 90% of what is fossilised no longer exists today. There are lots of gaps in the fossil record when it comes to looking at specific organisms. However, there are some clear sequences, none better that the ancestry of the horse. From a two foot high mammal to the full sized horse of today, each stage is clearly chronicled in the fossil record.
> The existence of vestigial organs is not explained by direct creationism. Humans have an appendix which would be a caecum if we were herbivores. Snakes and legless lizards still have the limb girdle bones, both pectoral and pelvic. They also have the remnants of hind limbs forming flaps
> ...




Are you telling me that you can pick random animals that are similar out of the millions out there and it means they all evolved from the one or the other


----------



## D3pro (Feb 21, 2012)

Does it matter who is right and who is wrong? Your all going to die the same way bahahahahahahaha


----------



## CrystalMoon (Feb 21, 2012)

I was going to post my opinion here earlier today but decided not to as I am in awe of all the Brainiacs lol and figured I would just cum across as unedumacated..... Then me being me always I need to stick my 2 sense worth in lol.... I do believe in macro evolution(as much or as little as I know about it) to me it seems logical(mind you I am not one of the most logical of people lol) Ohhh please be gentle with me oh Brainiacs of the forum(I "likes" you all)


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 21, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> Are you telling me that you can pick random animals that are similar out of the millions out there and it means they all evolved from the one or the other


 
There is nothing random about what was chosen. These are animals with a common evolutionary linage, such as mammals. Whether it is a mammal that walks upright or swings through he trees or is aquatic and swims or flies, the same basic bone structure is present in the limbs of each. Yet compare a whale or dolphin fin or a seal's flipper to a bony fish or shark fin - same use but entirely separate structure. If you were creating an aquatic animal, why give it the same internal limb structure as something that climbs tree or runs on all fours and totally different to all the other bony skeleton aquatic creatures. The common internal structures indicate a common lineage at some stage.

Blue


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 21, 2012)

Or there just isnt millions of bone structures to fit millions of species so chances are some will match. then just pick the ones that do and say "WaLa Evolution"


----------



## Klaery (Feb 21, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> Or there just isnt millions of bone structures to fit millions of species so chances are some will match. then just pick the ones that do and say "WaLa Evolution"



Oh dear. What you say is far off base so I won't even address it..

You do understand though that attempting to pick apart one theory means nothing for another theory. To be productive you need to provide evidence of said other theory.


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 21, 2012)

Australis said:


> This assertion of relying on Darwins "speculation" is wrong. We have since built on his original theory with mountains of supporting evidence. DNA evidence alone is over whelming and DNA was unknown in Darwins time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




and yes, the black is the new white, and fords are better than holdens, and also elapids are better than pythons.......
go on, contradict just for the sake of it....... you seem to miss the important points, and typically focus on sumthing you can argue with. Grow up


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 21, 2012)

i like to think hybrids are going to be the next GREAT THING in evolution


----------



## Australis (Feb 21, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> and yes, the black is the new white, and fords are better than holdens, and also elapids are better than pythons.......
> go on, contradict just for the sake of it....... you seem to miss the important points, and typically focus on sumthing you can argue with. Grow up



Feel free to clarify any important point i missed. Im sorry if pointing out the short comings of your hollow argument was hurtful


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 21, 2012)

Australis said:


> Feel free to clarify any important point i missed. Im sorry if pointing out the short comings of your hollow argument was hurtful



the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born. 
Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.


----------



## Klaery (Feb 21, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born.
> Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.



The dna evidence seems pretty accurate and conclusive to me and most anyone else that looks at it.

Apart from that I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. Are you saying that evolution is so unbelievable that it cant be true? Apart from saying I don't agree that to be the case I will leave that there. But a question for you is don't the other options seem even less unbelievable? 

As a side _Homo sapiens _are far from perfect.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 21, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> Or there just isnt millions of bone structures to fit millions of species so chances are some will match. then just pick the ones that do and say "WaLa Evolution"


We are talking 3 bones structures – that found in all Cartilaginous Fish (sharks and rays), that found in all Bony Fish and that found in Mammals. Aquatic mammals breath by lungs, not gills; they are endotherms, not ectotherms; they have a four chambered heart not two chambered; they have a sealed circulatory system, not an open system; they produce milk and suckle their young; they are covered with skin that has some hair, not slimy scales; the list does go on. Why do these aquatic animals have so much more in common with land based mammals than with other aquatic vertebrates?

A theory is that which provides the best explanation of all the available facts. I am simply explaining why I believe in the theory of evolution. 

I am not actively trying to discredit the theory of creationism, but when you challenged the supporting evidence for evolution it left me with little choice but to highlight some illogical aspects of nature under that theory.

Blue.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 21, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born.
> Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.



What about the retarded ones?


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 21, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> What about the retarded ones?



thank you waruikazi, i rest my case, as for evolution- everything has to have an alpha and omega.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 21, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> thank you waruikazi, i rest my case, as for evolution- everything has to have an alpha and omega.



Hahaha, best come back evah!


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 21, 2012)

danielk said:


> The dna evidence seems pretty accurate and conclusive to me and most anyone else that looks at it.
> 
> Apart from that I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. Are you saying that evolution is so unbelievable that it cant be true? Apart from saying I don't agree that to be the case I will leave that there. But a question for you is don't the other options seem even less unbelievable?
> 
> As a side _Homo sapiens _are far from perfect.



You wrote Homo lmfho


----------



## JungleManSam (Feb 21, 2012)

Hot cross buns slightly warmed with a dollop of butter goes down a nice morning tea snack.


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 21, 2012)

ingie said:


> What defines a species? That is not a simple question to answer and is debated all the time in the science world. A widely accepted theory is that a species consists of living things that can breed together and produce fertile offspring. Microevolution is easy to prove as you can see it with your own eyes and measure it with genetic analyses. The occurrence of macroevolution depends on how you address the definition of a species.



It's not a simple question to answer because it's arbitrary. If all individuals of all "species" which had ever lived (and do live) on Earth were lined up next to each other then what we would see is a continuum of such slight gradations that making distinctions would be arbitrary.



ingie said:


> Micro and macroevolution do not necessarily go hand in hand. How long would it take for a species to become distinct from it's predecessor? How would we measure that the species is actually distint and not just a continuation of it's former self? I am not saying that macroevolution isn't possible, just asking how you would define it.



I can't speak for any scientist, let alone all of them. But from what I have read, at least a number of them consider macroevolution to simply be the temporal extrapolation of microevolution, though I suspect the percentage is quite high. And I agree.



Bluetongue1 said:


> Biological evolution is not simple change and it involves a lot more than then changes in the frequency of an allele.



Evolution, at base, is simply any net change in the frequency of alleles. You are confusing the mechanisms which _cause_ the net change, with evolution.



Bluetongue1 said:


> In biology evolution is the production of new species from previously existing species.



Biological evolution is much more than the production of new species. If it isn't, then what is the production of subspecies and races? Speciation is only a small part of Darwinian evolution, Blue.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 21, 2012)

JungleManSam said:


> Hot cross buns slightly warmed with a dollop of butter goes down a nice morning tea snack.



Has to chic chip hot cross buns though *drools*


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 21, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born.
> Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.


...WOW! are you legitimately that dumb, or are you just trolling? I reeeeeally hope this is a troll, but I'll act like it isn't.
How can you try to draw a comparison between pregnancy/formation of a person...and evolution? How does that even seem logical in your head?
Evolution is the random mutations in each generation stacking on top of each other to form a large change over a long period of time...pregnancy is the creation of ONE generation...herpa derpa derp.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 21, 2012)

Just out of interest, how many people here have some sort of science/biological degree? Not that it changed how valid all of your opinions are, so don't go hating again


----------



## CrystalMoon (Feb 21, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Just out of interest, how many people here have some sort of science/biological degree? Not that it changed how valid all of your opinions are, so don't go hating again


I will let you ALL in on a little well kept(snickers)secret............... I DONT roflmfao 
But a lot of you sound like you might


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 21, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Just out of interest, how many people here have some sort of science/biological degree? Not that it changed how valid all of your opinions are, so don't go hating again


I'm just gonna take a quick guess and say that NONE of the people denying evolution have a degree in biology


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 21, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> im defenitly a creasionist, however instead fo calling it macroevlution i would call it adaption on selective breeding.... if 500years ago giraffs next where only 50cm long and over centuries has grown to 1.5metres long. i dont think it should be classified as another species even tho it may now look completely different. Just adapted slowly to reach higher spots so to live.


I cannot but notice that you have not evolved the ability to proof read


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 21, 2012)

Cannot help*

Haha jokes, I just had to do that, it's the reason why I never correct people


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Feb 21, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Cannot help*
> 
> Haha jokes, I just had to do that, it's the reason why I never correct people



No... he was right.

"I cannot help but..." is grammatically incorrect, however, it has become a widely acceptable colloquialism in English speaking countries. "I cannot but" is a much older version, but no less incorrect.

Edit: I'll explain why he's correct. "I cannot help but" is a nonstandard sentence that requires a gerund (the -ing end) to make it as grammatically correct as possible. "I cannot help noticing" is correct and proper.


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 21, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> I cannot but notice that you have not evolved the ability to proof read



Individuals do not evolve, species do. We _learn_


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 22, 2012)

Crystal..Discus said:


> No... he was right.
> 
> "I cannot help but..." is grammatically incorrect in this context, however, it has become a widely acceptable colloquialism in English speaking countries.
> 
> Edit: I'll explain why he's correct. "I cannot help but" is a nonstandard sentence that requires a gerund (the -ing end) to make it as grammatically correct as possible. "I cannot help noticing" is correct and proper.



Haha I'm not an English teacher, therefore I'll stick to socially acceptable colloquialisms.

Man this WHOLE thread is just people trying to correct themselves! What's the poll standing at? I can't see it on my phone


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Feb 22, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Haha I'm not an English teacher, therefore I'll stick to socially acceptable colloquialisms.



Exactly. 

Don't correct someone unless you have a basic understanding, at the very least.

I'm waiting for this thread to derail completely and for someone to start ranting. Always happens.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 22, 2012)

Crystal..Discus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Don't correct someone unless you have a basic understanding, at the very least.



But I do have an understanding... Of socially acceptable colloquialisms


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 22, 2012)

miss_mosher,

53 Yes
9 No
1 Unsure


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 22, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> miss_mosher,
> 
> 53 Yes
> 9 No
> 1 Unsure



Cheers! 

Interesting gap there...


----------



## Darlyn (Feb 22, 2012)

9 "no's" hmmm laugh or cry moment................


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 22, 2012)

Crystal..Discus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Don't correct someone unless you have a basic understanding, at the very least.
> 
> I'm waiting for this thread to derail completely and for someone to start ranting. Always happens.



Haha it's already derailed several times to a point of complete boredom. Always happens with controversial topics


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 22, 2012)

14% of the population beleive in santa clause and the tooth fairy and even the easter bunny so to have 14% beleive the whole universe was created in a week only 6000 years ago just goes to show we have not evolved as far as we think


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 22, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Cannot help*Haha jokes, I just had to do that, it's the reason why I never correct people


Sorry - but I did proof read it - twice. I need to, having fighting dyslexia all my life.
And you statement " I never correct people" is factually wrong! 


redlittlejim said:


> im defenitly a creasionist, however instead fo calling it macroevlution i would call it adaption on selective breeding.... if 500years ago giraffs next where only 50cm long and over centuries has grown to 1.5metres long. i dont think it should be classified as another species even tho it may now look completely different. Just adapted slowly to reach higher spots so to live.


What makes this statement even more perplexing is the high number of quality, easy to use tools available to correct spelling and grammar before posting. Either OP is ignorant of their existence, too lazy to use them or is a troll attempting to cast "creasionists" in a bad light, which is not necessary.


Surroundx said:


> Individuals do not evolve, species do. We learn


100% correct. I allowed myself to move down to anti-science level


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 22, 2012)

Sustain the off- topic personal conversation and I believe you will realise the subject of your conjecture.

It concerns me to see a comment like " Are you really that dumb?" There is nothing positive to gain from breaking site rules and demeaning another. Keep to the information put forward and it won't get unpleasant.

I am a believer in evolution. However, I do not laugh at or lose respect for individuals simple because they are creationists. I understand the basis of this belief and respect an individual's rights to differ from me in that. It is the same for any system of personal beliefs. It is only when a given system impinges on the rights of others that I have a problem.



Surroundx said:


> Biological evolution is much more than the production of new species. If it isn't, then what is the production of subspecies and races? Speciation is only a small part of Darwinian evolution, Blue.



Things like subspecies, race (the use of which is going out of fashion), adaptive radiation, the founder effect and similar processes are part of the evolutionary process. The defining attribute of biological evolution is the production of new species from previously existing species. The title to Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species".

We are all well aware that evolutionary change is a continuum. It is complicated by the existing variation within any identified population. We should also be aware that the concept of a species is something mankind has applied to the natural world to explain his observations and to give it order. This by no means diminishes their applicability, specific usefulness or general worth. It simply means that there are contentious areas that at times can be very difficult to resolve. I often think of the colours of the rainbow. Other than those colour blind, we all know the difference between green and blue or orange and yellow or red and orange. Have a look at a spectrum and see if you spot exactly one of each colour pair changes to the other....

Blue


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 22, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> It concerns me to see a comment like " Are you really that dumb?" There is nothing positive to gain from breaking site rules and demeaning another. Keep to the information put forward and it won't get unpleasant.
> 
> I am a believer in evolution. However, I do not laugh at or lose respect for individuals simple because they are creationists. I understand the basis of this belief and respect an individual's rights to differ from me in that. It is the same for any system of personal beliefs. It is only when a given system impinges on the rights of others that I have a problem.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but that had nothing to do with him believing in creationism, more the fact that his analogy was completely and utterly ignorant. Perhaps I should've used less harsh language, but I still stand by the basis of what I said.


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 22, 2012)

Fuscus said:


> Sorry - but I did proof read it - twice. I need to, having fighting dyslexia all my life.
> And you statement " I never correct people" is factually wrong!
> What makes this statement even more perplexing is the high number of quality, easy to use tools available to correct spelling and grammar before posting. Either OP is ignorant of their existence, too lazy to use them or is a troll attempting to cast "creasionists" in a bad light, which is not necessary. 100% correct. I allowed myself to move down to anti-science level




(**having fought with *dyslexia)

And you (**your) *statement

and i will admit it is the lazy part that stops me with my grammar and punctuation. As our species has come to adapt (evolve) to peoples bad spelling and grammar, i figured everyone could still get the gist of what im saying. i was not trying to put a creationist in a bad light. I dont see how i managed to do that with that post? please explain


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 22, 2012)

My apologies *Jamesss*. I did mean for the later part of my post to apply specifically to you. That is why I did use names. There have only been a few snide comments in that respect and perhaps I should be thankful for small mercies...

*Fuscus*, I only wish I could find a grammar check that could distinguish the words the spellchecker gives the thumbs up to but are not what I meant to type. Like waiter and water, cosmic and comic, term and tern, and so on. Preferably one that does not continually come up with: "Fragment (consider revising)". Unfortunately, the difficulties I have always experienced with reading are also manifest in my two finger typing. Sadly, I don't see any technological assistance for me on the horizon.

Blue


----------



## saximus (Feb 22, 2012)

Blue what you need is an "i" device. iPhone and iPad (and I daresay Android devices as well) have a very smart autocorrect system that works out the word that it thinks you meant. Granted stuff like your "waiter/water" example probably wouldn't be picked up but instances of things like "tern/term" seem to get corrected surprisingly accurately


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 22, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Things like subspecies, race (the use of which is going out of fashion), adaptive radiation, the founder effect and similar processes are part of the evolutionary process. The defining attribute of biological evolution is the production of new species from previously existing species. The title to Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species".
> 
> We are all well aware that evolutionary change is a continuum. It is complicated by the existing variation within any identified population. We should also be aware that the concept of a species is something mankind has applied to the natural world to explain his observations and to give it order.



The term "species" is arbitrary as you acknowledge, Blue. Evolutionary change certainly is a continuum, so making distinctions is subjective and arbitrary. But that means that "the production of new species from previously existing species" cannot be _the_ defining attribute of biological evolution since the term "species" is a man-made construct. The fact that Darwin's work was called _On the Origin of Species_ does not give credence to your view that the defining attribute of evolution is the production of new species.

Certainly, given long geological periods of evolutionary change then the net change in one or more interbreeding populations (dependent on whether we are talking about speciation or phyletic extinction) may constitute what modern taxonomists would call new "species". But there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution (the uses of which are going out of fashion) except that the latter is the temporal extrapolation/accumulation of the former. Of course the production of vast genetic differences is vital, but it most certainly isn't the defining feature of evolution. Any net difference is an example of evolution, and so that is the defining characteristic of evolution, Blue.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 22, 2012)

Thanks *Saximus*.
So long as the auto-correct is not likely to tell me that I want a feed of fish, when I actually "want to get stuck into some herping". 

Blue


----------



## Snakewoman (Feb 22, 2012)

Auto correct is wonderful, here's the proof:

Damn You Auto Correct! - Funny iPhone Fails and Autocorrect Horror Stories

:lol:


----------



## damian83 (Feb 22, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Just out of interest, how many people here have some sort of science/biological degree? Not that it changed how valid all of your opinions are, so don't go hating again



I started it just didnt finish uni.



saximus said:


> Blue what you need is an "i" device. iPhone and iPad (and I daresay Android devices as well) have a very smart autocorrect system that works out the word that it thinks you meant. Granted stuff like your "waiter/water" example probably wouldn't be picked up but instances of things like "tern/term" seem to get corrected surprisingly accurately


 woohoo were derailing again. Auto spell wanted me to say detailing


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 22, 2012)

*Surroundx*,
I am sorry but I never said the term "species" is arbitrary. It most certainly is not. It can be called artificial because it is something invented by mankind. However being an artificial construct does not make it arbitrary or less applicable to the natural world. It is a descriptor applied to natural phenomenon and is clearly defined in that respect. The fact that there are some instances that render its application difficult does not invalidate the term. For the term to be applicable in all cases is what required the introduction of the notion of a "species complex". 

The original biological definition of species has not always been amenable to the practical application required in museums and similar institutions, where identification of specific species takes place. However, use of genetic data is now helping to overcome that shortfall. If there is inter-breeding between individuals of populations, this shows up in the genetic profiles. Hence decisions can be made on whether populations are interbreeding or not in nature. There is nothing arbitrary about this. It is a clear and concise requirement of the definition of a species that the individuals do not breed with other populations under natural conditions. 

I think the difference in our viewpoints may come about due to the common language meaning of evolution as something which undergoes change. I have only been referring to the biological definition, which relates exclusively to how new species arise or how existing species arose. It most certainly is a process of change – slow, accumulated change. What makes it different from the common term is what it applies to – the development of new species. If you remove that single aspect, then you are no longer dealing with biological evolution. 

I must say that it sounds like we agree on the use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution. I have never used these terms. I believe that all they do is compound and confuse that which should be relatively straight forward. 

I suspect we are more on the same page than our academic discussion would indicate.

Blue


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 23, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I am sorry but I never said the term "species" is arbitrary. It most certainly is not. It can be called artificial because it is something invented by mankind. However being an artificial construct does not make it arbitrary or less applicable to the natural world. It is a descriptor applied to natural phenomenon and is clearly defined in that respect. The fact that there are some instances that render its application difficult does not invalidate the term. For the term to be applicable in all cases is what required the introduction of the notion of a "species complex".


Sorry, Blue. I completely agree that "species" is artificial, but that does not mean that the term has no applicability. Obviously my utilization of the term "arbitrary" has caused some confusion between us. And I think I know where this has come from. I believe that we are looking at evolution from two different angles, though not completely so (hopefully that will make sense in a minute). I believe that you are looking at this more from the point of view of a modern-day observer, looking at the differences, both phenotypic and cryptic (as molecular studies are now elucidating), in contemporary species. You are looking at this from a taxonomic point of view, whereas I am looking at this from a different angle:

When I say that the term "species" is arbitrary, what I am referring to is that over geological time the changes within a species, which accumulate (eventually producing large-scale differences if the species persists for long enough) may produce a new species. But this process occurs so slowly that it is arbitrary to make distinction as to when one species has become another. Let me take a simple case of phyletic extinction (that is, one species becomes extinct because it evolves into another, for those who don't know), whereby species "A" evolves into species "B". Since all evolutionary change is gradual, there is no better place to make the "divide" between species "A" and species "B" than any other place. Any point at which we make the divide is rather arbitrary. That is what I mean, Blue.

I agree that in both taxonomic and conservation contexts (though you never mentioned the latter), the term is vital. To start with the latter, on several occasions that I'm aware of, what was once considered to have been a single geographically wide-ranging species has turned out to be a species-complex of several genetically distinct species. This can have immediate conservation implications if these newly described species only have relatively small geographic distributions. And again, in the context of taxonomy, the idea of species certainly isn't superfluous. But I think that you will find that there is an overlap between when various taxonomists classify a population as a subspecies of a species, or as a species in its own right. The fact that the term "species" has utility in a taxonomic context does not help your case in arguing that the production of new species is the defining feature of biological evolution, if you were so inclined to that view.



Bluetongue1 said:


> The original biological definition of species has not always been amenable to the practical application required in museums and similar institutions, where identification of specific species takes place. However, use of genetic data is now helping to overcome that shortfall. If there is inter-breeding between individuals of populations, this shows up in the genetic profiles. Hence decisions can be made on whether populations are interbreeding or not in nature. There is nothing arbitrary about this. It is a clear and concise requirement of the definition of a species that the individuals do not breed with other populations under natural conditions.


Unfortunately it is not quite as simple as that, Blue. There are many hybrid-zones between different species belonging to the same genus. The biological species concept (BSC), like all others proposed, does not have sufficient generality to be applicable under _all_ circumstances.



Bluetongue1 said:


> I think the difference in our viewpoints may come about due to the common language meaning of evolution as something which undergoes change. I have only been referring to the biological definition, which relates exclusively to how new species arise or how existing species arose. It most certainly is a process of change – slow, accumulated change. What makes it different from the common term is what it applies to – the development of new species. If you remove that single aspect, then you are no longer dealing with biological evolution.


I am meaning evolution in a purely biological sense too, Blue. I find the term to be wholly invalid when applied to other areas such as the "evolution" of the universe. What you seem to be saying is that the production of new species is what separates biological evolution from other types of "evolution". But my own definition of evolution fills exactly the same need! Only living organisms (or deceased ones) have alleles. So your grounds for arguing that the production of new species is the defining element of biological evolution are untenable. There are plenty of other differences between biological and any other process which has been given the (misleading) name "evolution".



Bluetongue1 said:


> I must say that it sounds like we agree on the use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution. I have never used these terms. I believe that all they do is compound and confuse that which should be relatively straight forward.



The two terms certainly do confuse many people. By using two different terms people get it into their heads that micro- and macroevolution are fundamentally different, which they most certainly aren't.




Bluetongue1 said:


> I suspect we are more on the same page than our academic discussion would indicate.


I agree, Blue. The only difference between our views seems to be what the defining feature of evolution is, which really is quite a small difference on the scale of differences. But hopefully what I have written above will give you a better idea of where I am coming from compared with my previous posts. Perhaps I still do not fully understand where you yourself are coming from, but no doubt you will set me straight if I have it wrong. And so the discussion can move forward.


----------



## D3pro (Feb 23, 2012)

I believe in the matrix... thought I might put that into the argument.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 23, 2012)

D3pro said:


> I believe in the matrix... thought I might put that into the argument.



In order to get there in the first place, would we not have had to evolve? 

Just making your argument cyclic....


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> In order to get there in the first place, would we not have had to evolve?


Something would have had to evolve to build the matrix but it does not have to be us. For all we know it its the farmers that have evolved ( or the makers of the farmers ) and the crop is a just collection of deluded In vitro meat.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 23, 2012)

I guess if we're following the movie the Matrix (and using that as the basis for the science) was it not us that built the machines?

But you're 100% right - it didn't have to be us that evolved - mice could have done the same job!

What I don't understand (entirely) is why didn't the matrix use 'cows' - would the matrix then be easier to be believable? The machines still could have done it behind our backs and then wiped out humans and kept cows alive.

My guess is that cows wouldn't have started an uprising but would have been happy to be artificially milked and fed grass daily on a far more simple platform of the matrix.

Hence - the circular argument remains - someone had to evolve in order to create the matrix.... 

PS - not sure what the movie would look like if that matrix had decided to use cows instead.... But I can imagine the opening scene with a cow jumping over the moon would certainly be part of it (not sure if the dish would run away with the spoon though - that's inter-species erotica that shouldn't really be talked about in evolution.... A doon would be formed? Or would it be a spish? And how would we use this spish or doon anyway?)


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I guess if we're following the movie the Matrix (and using that as the basis for the science) was it not us that built the machines?
> 
> But you're 100% right - it didn't have to be us that evolved - mice could have done the same job!
> 
> ...



Oh Slimey, your mind is so feeble when considering options other than those that come to your mind first! Considering that the dish and the spoon share the same habitat, anthropomorphicalogical niche and corresponding growth rates (saucer and teaspoon, soup spoon and bowl, dinner plate and spoon right through to ladel and pot) until firther research is done i think we need to consider the possibility of the dish and the spoon being examples of sexual dimorphism.


----------



## D3pro (Feb 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> In order to get there in the first place, would we not have had to evolve?
> 
> Just making your argument cyclic....



No, because in this multiverse reality time is only an illusion, it's the autobots, who were always there, that made this matrix. Your not really a person, your just a complex quantum code floating in their advanced computer.

Problem solved. Your evolution theory does not comply


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> What I don't understand (entirely) is why didn't the matrix use 'cows' - would the matrix then be easier to be believable?


Agent Daisy doesn't have the same ring to it  You are, of course, right and it is something I have thought of too. There are a couple of plausible explanations A/ Revenge. Instead of wiping out humans they inflict pain on them via a virtual nine to five job. You have to admit that the concept is pretty evil.B/ The matrix was not developed by machines but by humans with the idea of intentionally living a virtual life and the machines did not or could not adapt it to a bovine paradise. If, for example, your only options were

a/confined to a wheelchair or bed and your primary skill was dribbling out of your mouth or

b/in a virtual world battling herds of tyrannosaurus with a bevy of surgically enhanced Raquel Welch look alikes inadequately dressed in animal skins 

which would you choose ( I've attached a picture of RW to help you decide )?







This is actually an old sci-fi concept where people retire to virtual worlds and was covered in Star Trek: TOS


slim6y said:


> Hence - the circular argument remains - someone had to evolve in order to create the matrix....


The circular argument holds true for all creation hypothesis and myths. If the FSM ( or your personal deity) exists then how did he come about? Did he just appear fully formed and omnipresent in an cosmic explosion of bolognese sauce (and lets face it, that highly unlikely) or was he created by something else, possibly a creator creator. Then how did the creator creator come about. Did he ... and so on

Of course they could have evolved.


slim6y said:


> that's inter-species erotica that shouldn't really be talked about in evolution....


Actually viable hybridisation is a part of evolution, normally it is very difficult ( otherwise we would have lots of examples from New Zealand  ) but it does occur and if the selection process favours the result then...


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 23, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> I agree, Blue. The only difference between our views seems to be what the defining feature of evolution is, which really is quite a small difference on the scale of differences. But hopefully what I have written above will give you a better idea of where I am coming from compared with my previous posts. Perhaps I still do not fully understand where you yourself are coming from, but no doubt you will set me straight if I have it wrong. And so the discussion can move forward.


 I have done a bit of checking out of the modern usage of the term. Evolution as the passing on of accumulated change from generation to generation is the most frequently utilised. I am definitely old school with my definition. Probably not surprising when I consider the advances made in the interim. I reckon we can leave the discussion there, heavily in your favour. Lol. And I shall update accordingly.

Blue


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 25, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> Scientists have proven that the world has been here for 340 million years when it was created on that tuesday in spring so the thought that it was created 6000years ago is rediculous the world is still flat i suppose to. There is a tree in northern england and the same dna is found on opposite ends of a five acre wood. the plant has continually dropped its branches into ground and continued growing in different directions and now covers five acres, one tree. It has been core dated to be 7500 years old and is the worlds largest tree and also the oldest and in religious veiws it means the world must have been created around this tree as it was here first. Evolution is easy to see, Dinosaurs were here then they were wiped out, then more dinosaurs were here 50 million years later then they were wiped out, now humans and stuff are here and the way were going soon we will be wiped out and something else will evolve. I hope its dinosaurs again because i really want a raptor.


I havent read through all 9 pages yet but will start adding to stuff as i see it. I have always been scientifically minded from school to uni, and yes I did believe in evolution and it made sense because that is what the academic system drums into us as soon as we get to school. I have since opened myself to other ideas and have done a fair bit of research into the possibility that evolution is based on a lot of fallible assumptions. The first and possibly most important of which is the assumption that carbon dating is an accurate and reliable way of telling age. If you don't believe me do your own research on the problems and faults of carbon dating. Then you have problems like irreducible complexity , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" and the unfathomable statistical unlikelyhood of the probability of any cell forming by chance of the amino acids it consists of. Then after all these things you still have to put them together in some meaning to create life forms....They never tell you these things at school because they choose not to. I have come across some really interesting articles on these things. I do believe in microevolution and species adaptation and diversity in general, but not macroevolution. Yes i am a creationist, but I did not get hear blindly.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> the problems and faults of carbon dating.


Yeah, carbon dating is but ONE of the methods used to deduce the age of the earth. They have had sufficiently consistent results using other radioactiver isotopes that have longer half lifes, which all point to the earth being over 4billion years old.



> hen you have problems like irreducible complexity , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" and the unfathomable statistical unlikelyhood of the probability of any cell forming by chance of the amino acids it consists of. Then after all these things you still have to put them together in some meaning to create life forms



Given the number of planets, it is actually incredibly likely that it would happen on at least one...which it did.




> Yes i am a creationist, but I did not get hear blindly.



How 'bout deafly?


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 25, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> If everything was created why would something or someone be sick enough to create Mosquitoes, Tapeworm, Fleas and Ticks. Why would it/they create viruses and disease's spread by these four that kill and mutilate millions of children and adults each year. Why are we classed as the dominant species when we are easily killed of by the tiniest of single cell organisms. If the earth and universe was created the thing/person that created it must be cruel and sardistic to want so much pain and suffering from all forms of life.



Dominant species? Lol I thought we were "God's Children...made in the exact image of God our savior" 

And lets remember...This current time period is the BEST and most prosperous time period for human beings in history(thanks ONLY to science and technological advances) if you think the world is depressing now....thing about what it was like 2000 years ago when the death and disease rates were astronomically higher than they are now...where a HUGE amount of women died in simple child birth...When only like 1 out of ever 5 children survived to age 5....The world we are living in today ( 1st world countries only!) is a fluke....Were not supposed to live like this and in this much luxury...it's a fluke because of science...but make no mistake about it Human beings are supposed to live like we did in the past...with the threat of death and disease everywhere....This of course completely ties into religion...It's nothing more than a psychological flaw for our species, homo sapiens...A flaw that other creatures have no concept of because of course they are unaware of their own eventual morality.

This pretty much sums up my exact thoughts on man made religion..

Adam Carolla on Atheism - YouTube


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> I havent read through all 9 pages yet but will start adding to stuff as i see it. I have always been scientifically minded from school to uni, and yes I did believe in evolution and it made sense because that is what the academic system drums into us as soon as we get to school. I have since opened myself to other ideas and have done a fair bit of research into the possibility that evolution is based on a lot of fallible assumptions. The first and possibly most important of which is the assumption that carbon dating is an accurate and reliable way of telling age. If you don't believe me do your own research on the problems and faults of carbon dating. Then you have problems like irreducible complexity , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" and the unfathomable statistical unlikelyhood of the probability of any cell forming by chance of the amino acids it consists of. Then after all these things you still have to put them together in some meaning to create life forms....They never tell you these things at school because they choose not to. I have come across some really interesting articles on these things. I do believe in microevolution and species adaptation and diversity in general, but not macroevolution. Yes i am a creationist, but I did not get hear blindly.



Nice to see you have done your research and come up with your own ideas rather than the old its in the bible so it must be right theories. I dont mind discussing or even arguing as long as im doing it with someone with knowledge such as yourself. As i said before even a creationist must believe in some form of evolution cheers james


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 25, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> Nice to see you have done your research and come up with your own ideas rather than the old its in the bible so it must be right theories. I dont mind discussing or even arguing as long as im doing it with someone with knowledge such as yourself. As i said before even a creationist must believe in some form of evolution cheers james



Trust me, there is no research in the bollocks Mr. Nuts is saying. All he is doing is listening to the young Earth creationists from the Bible Belt and ignoring the science. If he did any research he would know that they aren't flaws at all and even if they were they do not prove creation or disprove evolution.


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 25, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> *Wrightpython*,
> You make life seem like an endless misery for all. I would hope that is a long way from the reality. Most certainly some individuals get a raw deal compared to others. I see the explanation as a non-interfering creator. There are those who would say that individuals put through undue suffering here will be compensated in the spiritual hereafter.



It is.....Life has been an endless misery for 95 percent of people who have ever lived on this earth...It may not be so bad nowadays (in the 1st world) but thats a fluke because of SCIENCE and technological advance...Anyone who has studied history knows that for the most part life has been a horrible misery for a huge percentage of the population. Human death rates and disease rates have been astronomically high for almost all of our existence....with women dieing in child birth all the time...premature mortality....diseases taking out hundreds of thousands in months....natural disasters ravaging a much more vulnerable population etc...Only in the last 50 years or so (once again due to science) have human beings really not been in an existence filled with misery and thats just for the 1st world nations.


I don't accept that explanation...Non interfering god? Their are MORE parasitic species on earth than non parasitic species....in fact they outnumber non parasitic species almost 2-1....I don't think any rational person would accept "a non interfering god" as the reason for this...Like for instance why did he create so many "horrible" species in the first place? To torment his supposed children that he supposedly loves, created in his image and gave free will to (and their is significant evidence that most parasites alter the behavior of the host in at-least some ways...meaning "free will" may not be so free after all)

There are 2 reasons why things don't get done. Either you CANT do it or you WONT do it...So either "God" can't get rid of parasitic disease, viruses, and other pathogens that kill a torment millions or he won't do it...If he can't do it then he seems like a pretty worthless weak god and I frankly don't see any point in worshiping him...let alone giving up my whole life to him when I could just be a humanist and focus on myself and other humans beings.....If he won't do it then he is obviously a cruel psychopathic lunatic who enjoys tormenting his "children" almost like an abusive stepfather lol.


And then their is the obvious answer to any rational person who isn't freaked out by death....He doesn't exist....and religion is nothing more than a psychological flaw for human beings...the only species on this planet that knows it will eventually die and cease to exist entirely.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 25, 2012)

Everyone knows carbon dating is flawed - I even pointed out that carbon dating couldn't tell the age of the Earth - but it is easy to use other methods of radio dating to tell the age of the Earth.

Carbon dating on the other hand can be a fairly accurate representation - even if you take into account fluctuations in C-14, you'd still have a reasonable assumption of age.

Unfortunately I'm not too sure how carbon dating really affects the way you're thinking about creationism - for a number of reasons. 

1) I actually don't care enough to warrant researching creationism, macro or micro-evolution. I love science, but I leave the stuff like that to people who enjoy a good argument on something they know about. And I clearly don't know enough!

2) I'm quite anti the idea of a superior being being infinite... But yet poorly creative. Seems a little off in my mind - so again, I never bothered to research it. However, I know enough about C-14 to suggest it could be flawed, but not enough to allow me to believe that some intelligent design took place.

3) I've never believed in religion because all religions (Buddhism included) are about control. Pure and simple...


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 25, 2012)

boa said:


> When I was young I was amazed people believed all of this was created by something/someone nobody has ever seen, now in 2012 I am even more amazed it is still believed.


haha when I grew up i found it so hard to believe that people could be brainwashed into blindly believing a theory that the powers that be wants you to believe rather than questioning it when their own laws of physics say it's absurd and impossible


----------



## Australis (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Then you have problems like *irreducible complexity* , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" ........



irreducible complexity (IC) is just re-branded intelligent design (ID) both of which have been completely debunked. With i believe at least one (which ultimately means both) being ruled in a US court of law as not Science.

Asserting that dating methods are unreliable and following it up with "irreducible complexity" its obvious you have been exposed to creationist pseudoscience. which of course isn't Science at all. 

Do yourself a favor, if you haven't already done so, diversify your research and look at the arguments *against* IC and ID.

I consider myself reasonably well versed in the main arguments used my creation advocates. Ive more than likely read the same websites watched the same videos promoting creation. 

I tend to only believe in things with evidence, so im not now, and never was a creationist. But a few things i think worth considering is firstly that part of the pseudo science nature of the arguments presented on creationist websites is the "papers" written by people with PhDs and a bunch of letters to match this can be very persuasive and seems to add an air of credibility to the arguments presented. 
Soon enough i noticed a trend, and digging a little deeper, sure enough it would appear these people did in fact have PhDs.. but what i noticed was none appeared to have a PhD in biology.. but typically in unrelated fields like economics and so on. Occasionally i would be so intrigued by the overwhelming intellectual dishonesty of these "papers" i would find myself checking their references (imo also part of an attempt to add a feel of academic legitimacy) and i would find the cited work to also come from someone with out a Biology background. 
This is the blind leading the blind.

Ah.. there is so much i could say, but ill end on this... if Biology (You cant even begin to understand Biology without evolution) and Geology (as far as dating is concerned) is as flimsy and full of holes and problems as you assert in your post, it would stand to reason if your claims are true, groups of non-believers (Atheists etc) would exist also debating against these alleged weaknesses.. Hell even Scientists!! But im yet to see any.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 25, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> The poll is to determine how many people believe in macroevolution. But as I said at the bottom of the OP people could leave their comments pertaining to the subject of evolution. Of course, there has been some creationist bashing and religion has also been mentioned, but for the most part I don't think anything _offensive_ has been posted.



people are too easily offended these days, it won't bother me what people say. Thick skin, soft hearts is what we need. Everyone has their own beliefs, it's just up to us to keep an open mind about it.


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> haha when I grew up i found it so hard to believe that people could be brainwashed into blindly believing a theory that the powers that be wants you to believe rather than questioning it when their own laws of physics say it's absurd and impossible



Yea the "powers that be" *clearly* want you to be brainwashed into believing evolution over religion......Ya looking at history really gives evidence to that statement


----------



## DarwinBrianT (Feb 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Everyone knows carbon dating is flawed






slim6y said:


> Carbon dating on the other hand can be a fairly accurate representation



lol


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 25, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> I was totally going to stay out of this thread mainly because i'm ashamed of my post count but... How is God [the idea of a deity and the deitie's actions] not magic and how is calling it magic offensive?


non God fearing people do not understand the difference of God's works and magic. It's supernatural so they classify it all the same. I find it funny when people say how can He do this and how can He do that and how can He make the universe in 6 days...all along forgetting that we work on the idea that He is God , He is not bound by time nor our laws of physics, these are just rules and guidelines used for the universe WE live in. A bit like if one of us made a computer game...we make up the programming involved plus the rules of the game yet we ourselves are not restricted by what is possible in the game......


----------



## slim6y (Feb 25, 2012)

DarwinBrianT said:


> lol



It's both flawed and fairly accurate.... wished I had proof read that before posting.... But the same outcome... You can be flawed and accurate you realise?

The flawed nature of C-14 also leads to a better science and some great forward thinking discoveries. 

The flaws are accountable (in most cases) and therefore decrease some of the uncertainty in the results. And even if they were out by 10 or 20% that still suggests that C-14 dating is better than 'creationism'.


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> I have always been scientifically minded from school to uni, and yes I did believe in evolution...
> d have done a fair bit of research..
> Then you have problems like irreducible complexity



You could not have done much research if you fell for the irreducible complexity fantasy
The Mullerian Two-Step, or Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly


----------



## dihsmaj (Feb 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> 3) I've never believed in religion because all religions (Buddhism included) are about control. Pure and simple...


You'll get what you deserve when you die mate, me, I'm gonna be up in Valhalla fighting with Odin and the gods.


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 25, 2012)

If there was no money or control involved would there be religion. i am an atheist in the sense i dont believe in religion be it christianity, buddism, jewdism, muslim or whatever but i do believe something created the earth. We as humans may only be seeds planted here from another planet, we may have been sent in spacecraft etc which is why we believe our maker to have come from up there and look upwards to god when praying. Adam and eve could represent the first humanoids to come to earth not 2 people but two sexs sent at different times, the asteroid may have been a bomb of some description sent to rid world of dangers before plantation could take place. The ark could have been a collection device for a universal zoo and one day the yankees may win the universal title not just world series. We are talking about things that happened far to long ago to be sure and as long as people are peaceful and respect others it doesnt worry me what you believe in if preying to cows or rats or elephants or some mysterious being that no one has ever seen then hey what ever floats ya boat.


----------



## D3pro (Feb 25, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> If there was no money or control involved would there be religion. i am an atheist in the sense i dont believe in religion be it christianity, buddism, jewdism, muslim or whatever but i do believe something created the earth. We as humans may only be seeds planted here from another planet, we may have been sent in spacecraft etc which is why we believe our maker to have come from up there and look upwards to god when praying. Adam and eve could represent the first humanoids to come to earth not 2 people but two sexs sent at different times, the asteroid may have been a bomb of some description sent to rid world of dangers before plantation could take place. The ark could have been a collection device for a universal zoo and one day the yankees may win the universal title not just world series. We are talking about things that happened far to long ago to be sure and as long as people are peaceful and respect others it doesnt worry me what you believe in if preying to cows or rats or elephants or some mysterious being that no one has ever seen then hey what ever floats ya boat.



I'll have what he's having


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 25, 2012)

D3pro said:


> I'll have what he's having



yer i dont think the yankees will ever win again either. ( i hope thats what you ment)


----------



## DarwinBrianT (Feb 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> It's both flawed and fairly accurate.... wished I had proof read that before posting.... But the same outcome... You can be flawed and accurate you realise?


Yeah I know mate and I'm on your side. Just thought it sounded funny.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 25, 2012)

Australis said:


> irreducible complexity (IC) is just re-branded intelligent design (ID) both of which have been completely debunked. With i believe at least one (which ultimately means both) being ruled in a US court of law as not Science.



Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart. One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell. At the time he assumed that cells were a simple structure of which the step from elements and soil matter to a functioning cell is not such a hard one, when in fact (with todays technology) we now know that these so called simple cells are the most complex systems mankind has ever confronted. We know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system. 
[h=2]W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239[/h] A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned. 
The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in _Nature_ magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through* a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.*240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created." 
One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "*irreducible complexity*" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

The probability to form a cell such as a red blood cell is 1 in 10 to the power of 650. For those not mathematically inclined, physics regards any probability beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as Absurd and must be disregarded as impossible yet 1 in 10 to the power of 650 is SOOOOOOOO much bigger I wont even begin to try to explain it. It would be more than there are drops in the oceans of the world.



Australis said:


> Ah.. there is so much i could say, but ill end on this... if Biology (You cant even begin to understand Biology without evolution) and Geology (as far as dating is concerned) is as flimsy and full of holes and problems as you assert in your post, it would stand to reason if your claims are true, groups of non-believers (Atheists etc) would exist also debating against these alleged weaknesses.. Hell even Scientists!! But im yet to see any.


Ah but there are atheists and scientists alike. The arguments and debates about evolution and which parts are right and which links are relevent etc etc are endless, none can agree.


----------



## junglepython2 (Feb 25, 2012)

How can people still swallow the irreducible complexity crap from creationists when some of their own flagship examples have clearly been shot down and shown not to be irreducibly complex at all.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 25, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> How can people still swallow the irreducible complexity crap from creationists when some of their own flagship examples have clearly been shot down and shown not to be irreducibly complex at all.


Like???


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 25, 2012)

You are blind! 

You are talking about abiogenesis (where life came from), not evolution. Darwin didn't deal with that theory.



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart. One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell. At the time he assumed that cells were a simple structure of which the step from elements and soil matter to a functioning cell is not such a hard one, when in fact (with todays technology) we now know that these so called simple cells are the most complex systems mankind has ever confronted. We know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.
> [h=2]W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239[/h] A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.
> The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in _Nature_ magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through* a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.*240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."
> One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "*irreducible complexity*" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.
> ...


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart.


Even if Darwin thought his theory would fall apart, doesn't mean it actually would. People can be wrong. I'm not saying would or wouldn't fall apart, but you need to consider the possibility that it wouldn't.



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell. At the time he assumed that cells were a simple structure of which the step from elements and soil matter to a functioning cell is not such a hard one, when in fact (with todays technology) we now know that these so called simple cells are the most complex systems mankind has ever confronted. We know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.


Cell biology is not a topic which particularly interests me, but you should actually look at virus cells, which are simpler. The complexity of cells has evolved just like organisms.



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239. A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.
> The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in _Nature_ magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through* a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.*240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."


Nothing comes into being via "chance". That is simply a human label when we do not understand the mechanism/s behind something. The "chance" of me rolling a six on a dice is 1 in 6, but if I knew all the variables I could precisely calculate the true probability.



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "*irreducible complexity*" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.


Irreducible complexity has been debunked already. Unfortunately you need to know a fair bit about bio-chemistry and the like to understand it. Which is unfortunate because it has caused the myth of irreducibly complex structures to perpetuate itself and become a notorious meme.



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> The probability to form a cell such as a red blood cell is 1 in 10 to the power of 650. For those not mathematically inclined, physics regards any probability beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as Absurd and must be disregarded as impossible yet 1 in 10 to the power of 650 is SOOOOOOOO much bigger I wont even begin to try to explain it. It would be more than there are drops in the oceans of the world.


Only the very first type of cell would have genuinely been "formed". All other cells are mutated forms of ancestral cells, so to say the chance of x type of cell coming into being is "xyz" amounts to a strawman. 




Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Ah but there are atheists and scientists alike. The arguments and debates about evolution and which parts are right and which links are relevent etc etc are endless, none can agree.


Of course there is debate within the scientific community, specifically the life sciences. But there's far more debate concerning god and religion between theists, deists and agnostics. Does that fact _alone_ call into question the existence of god? No.


----------



## saximus (Feb 25, 2012)

Wow this thread got interesting again. Good to see some of my favourite gents getting stuck into it too. 
There are so many things to argue here. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, the biggest thing that proponents of irreducible complexity seem to overlook is that complex components of a complex system don't just evolve separately and then come together one day by magic. The point of evolution is that a simple component can become complex through natural selection and as long as there is an advantage (or at least no obvious disadvantage) at each stage/mutation these complex components can build up and become incredibly complex systems.
The other obvious oversight is that for something to create such complexity, the creator must itself be complex. So where did it come from?

The whole probability argument is flawed too in that for us to be here discussing this, we have to be on one of (the only one maybe?) the places that this did actually happen. By definition is would be impossible for us to exist on a planet in which it was impossible for life to occur


----------



## junglepython2 (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Like???



The eye used to be used, parts of the clotting cascade, the bacterial flagellum and of course the mouse trap. Also just because we can't think of a useful function for a precursor doesn't mean one didn't exsist and evolution can also work to simply a system to make it appear to be irreducibly complex such as the stone bridge example.


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 25, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in _Nature_ magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through* a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.*240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."


"Creationists love Sir Fred Hoyle's vivid metaphor for his own misunderstanding of natural selection. It is as if a hurricane, blowing through a junkyard, had the good fortune to assemble a Boeing 747. Hoyle's point is about statistical improbability. Our answer, yours and mine and Stephen Jay Gould's, is that natural selection is cumulative. There is a ratchet, such that small gains are saved. The hurricane doesn't spontaneously assemble the airliner in one go. Small improvements are added bit by bit. To change the metaphor, however daunting the sheer cliffs that the adaptive mountain first presents, graded ramps can be found the other side and the peak eventually scaled. Adaptive evolution must be gradual and cumulative, not because the evidence supports it (though it does) but because nothing except gradual accumulation could, in principle, do the job of solving the 747 riddle. Even divine creation wouldn't help. Quite the contrary, since any entity complicated and intelligent enough to perform the creative role would itself be the ultimate 747. And for exactly the same reason the evolution of complex, many-parted adaptations must be progressive. Later descendants will have accumulated a larger number of components towards the adaptive combination than earlier ancestors."


(Richard Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain, pp. 248-249)


----------



## saximus (Feb 26, 2012)

This video shows the difference between random chance and natural selection. It's one of my favourites:
Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker - 2/5 - YouTube


----------



## Australis (Feb 26, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points.



Clearly you dont care :lol:
Well a court of law concluding irreducible complexity is not a Scientific position, is about as damning as it gets for IC and ID and really the highest level of recognition it has ever received. This is down to the cold hard fact neither is a Scientific theory, if it was Science it could be published in a credible Science journal. 

Do i even know what it is ? It was even the topic of one of my biology lectures. irreducible complexity is nothing more than a laughing point in Biology. You might as well tell a climate scientist lightening is just too amazing to be natural.. must be Thor!! 

As for your wall of copy & paste from the www.darwinismrefuted.com :lol: If thats the kind of research you do, you wont learn anything. 
The only analogy i can think of is going to a Ford dealer ship to get information on a Holden. Or asking Tony Abbott for non bias assessment of the Prime Minister.. etc



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Ah but there are atheists and scientists alike. The arguments and debates about evolution and which parts are right and which links are relevent etc etc are endless, none can agree.



Perhaps i wasn't concise.. I don't for a second deny that debate and arguments take place on Evolution or Science in general. 

Science wouldn't be what it is today. If it wasnt for debate and scrutiny. But like i said find me person pushing I.C thats not doing so from a position of religion.

Would you mind stating your position on the worlds age ? If you believe its 6,000-10,000 thousands years old..well this conversation is over.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 26, 2012)

Do all creationists believe the world is under 10,000 years old?

Or do some creationists pick and choose what part of their ideals they'll use. 

Was it the great floods that separated our lands? And Noah (did he have a wife?) and all the paired animals then went on to spawn happily to the very day. However Noah dropped off Tasmanian Tigers in the wrong place. 

I'm just going to read the site you posted Australis - the www.darwinisrefuted.com and - as I am an impartial observer, because I could care less about evolution or any biology for that matter (other than sexual reproduction), I will see how fair and non-pseudoscience it is.

Because even the opening line is claiming Darwin's theory is pseudoscience... So I better look closely.

BRB

Damn - the website doesn't work - is it a fake??? I'll google another....

Unfortunately I just ended up watching a video.... But it seems to be very well written and well spoken and well drawn... 

Can you refute this 9 minute video?

[video=youtube;nh1R-gyY7es]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nh1R-gyY7es[/video]

PS - I love this guy... Can be funny! Can be serious (I said that in a deep voice).


----------



## Fuscus (Feb 26, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Who cares what a court of law says...


I do. ID proponents had their chance to embed their hypothesis into the American classroom but only one proponent was brave enough to support it under oath. Of course his statements was demolished.
I suggest you watch 
[video=youtube;4O-vsq48ZoU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-vsq48ZoU[/video]. 
Its fairly long, scientific, educational and has some big words but if you need any help just ask. Also notice the burning of murals and the piles of lies upon lies from the IC crowd and look out for the evolution of the book "Of Pandas and People".


Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..


Irreducible complexity(IC) is the ridiculous proposal by Michael J. Behe of the Discovery Institute. Behes own definition is



> By _irreducibly complex_ I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution



This definition assumes that 
a/ A biological structure can only evolve by adding parts
b/ A biological structure can only have one use

To support IC Behes favourite example was the flagellum of _E.coli_. In his view it consists of 40 proteins and the removal of any one would render the entire useless. Unfortunately for this proposal only 23 are common to to bacterium flagellum. This implies that 17 of the proteins are not required. It turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared. 

Behes second simpler example is the mouse trap. Again it is not well thought out disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap - YouTube




Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart.
> ...
> One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell.


I don't know if you are aware of the fact that the theory of evolution is over 150 years old. I also don't know if you are aware that there has been a few scientific discoveries since then. Actually there has been hundreds of thousands scientific discoveries since then. I also don't know if are aware that from day one evolution has been attacked and attacked and attacked. So far no one has disproved evolution, rather they have re-enforced it. Molecular Biology had a chance to disprove evolution but has instead reinforced it. Mendelian Genetics had a chance to disprove evolution but has instead reinforced it. HECK - chemical pest control had a chance to disprove evolution but has instead reinforced it. 




Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house.
> ...
> 
> The probability to form a cell such as a red blood cell is 1 in 10 to the power of 650. For those not mathematically inclined, physics regards any probability beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as Absurd and must be disregarded as impossible yet 1 in 10 to the power of 650 is SOOOOOOOO much bigger I wont even begin to try to explain it. It would be more than there are drops in the oceans of the world.


Ahh - the Argument From Incredibly, a creationist favourite fall back. Basically it states "It is inconceivable that _X_ could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.". It is also know as the argument from ignorance. In this example an incredibly huge number is pulled out from an unnamed orifice, regarded as gospel(sic) and presented as proof. Can the OP tell me how they arrived at this number? I very much doubt it.

However there is hope for creationists Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax


----------



## mmafan555 (Feb 26, 2012)

[video=youtube;VxEkwUMyDUc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEkwUMyDUc[/video]

[video=youtube;7R6aFsxalM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6aFsxalM8[/video]


----------



## slim6y (Feb 26, 2012)

Ok... I want to do a little on probability - I could be wasting my time here - as creationists will be creationists, so I am preaching already to the converted. But, if just one creationist reads this, I can link them to where I got my sources:

Source 1: Amount of carbon on earth (in total, by mass) is 0.003% of Earth's total mass - Reasons To Believe : Planet Formation: Problems with Water, Carbon, and Air (just to prove I am not anti creationists, I took this figure direct from Dr Hugh Ross, who, seems to be a happy creationist. Here's a Dr Hugh Ross profile for you creationists so you know I am not lying. Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross

Source 2: Total mass of Earth 5.9736 x 10^24 kg (Earth Fact Sheet ) (I have no reason to disbelieve NASA).

Therefore the total mass of Carbon on Earth is 0.003% * 5.9736 x 10^24 kg = 179,208,000,000,000,000,000 kg of carbon (that is 1.79 x 10^20 kg).

That's quite a lot! (Earth is really heavy... Wonder what Jupiter would be like?)

Before you go blowing me up and saying I have way too much time on my hands - how are you spending your Sunday? It's raining here (not flooding like the Sunshine Coast), my GF is back in Australia till April, my dog is asleep and I am trying to work out how much carbon there is in the world to see what the probability of 1 atom of C-14 spontaneously decaying to N-14.

My science might not be perfect, because I've only had a couple of hours to find this out. If I had a lifetime I'd probably still come up with something similar.

Ok.... Back to the facts!

Of all carbon on earth, only 1 part per trillion is a C-14 atom! Ok... So that is 0.000,000,000,1% C-14 in the world....

So what is the mass of C-14 on Earth?

179,208,000 (one hundred and seventy nine million, two hundred and eight thousand) kg of C-14 on Earth (1.79 x 10^8 kg).

So how many individual C-14 atoms are there?

The atomic mass of C-14 is close enough to 14g per mole (1 mole of a substance = 6.022 x 10^23 atoms).

(phew, this is fun so far...)

So there is... 
179,208,000 kg of C-14 on Earth (give or take a few) 

We need this in grams (so multiply kg by 1,000)

179,208,000,000 g of C-14 on Earth (or thereabouts)

There is 14g per mole (approx - again, I rounded down not up because these numbers are going to get ridiculous soon and I don't need RSI (or what ever the name of it is this year) for this week of work).

so how many moles in 179,208,000,000 g of C-14?

There are 12,800,571,428 (12 billion 800 million 571 thousand 428 moles of C-14)

1 mole of C-14 contains 6.022 x 10^23 atoms....

7.709 x 10^33 atoms!!!

Yep... That's my calculation... (wow, that's a LOT of C-14 at any one stage).

(I'm now annoyed that after all my calculations I couldn't get x 10^50) but I will still go on....

(here goes)

In 5730 years half of that bulk lot of C-14 would have radioactively decayed into its daughter nucleus - N-14.

So 1 in 7.709 x 10^33 C-14 atoms will spontaneously decay... At some stage... Maybe it could be one of the half that will do it in the next 5730 years, or it could be in the next half after that... Or the next half after that!

Now think of it - C-14 isn't limited to Earth - so if we look at universal C-14 that number all of a sudden becomes MUCH MUCH larger! Well over 10^50 - where physics apparently suggests the probability of that nucleus decaying to N-14 is non existent - but it will happen!!! So it does happen! So where a physicist has said the probability is too low... Maybe I'd like to see that in an everyday reaction such as radioactive decay!

Just as a side - for those that can't comprehend how large these numbers are... If I had 7.8 x 10^33 jelly beans - how far would that stretch?

Let's make jelly beans square to start with - and we'll just look at area (not volume). So a jelly bean (for arguments sake) is 1cm x 2cm. 

So if I laid them say.... 25m wide (so we could make a jelly bean highway) there would be 2,500cm wide (using the narrow end of the jelly bean) we'd need 2,500 jelly beans for one row.

So just 10 rows of jelly beans (spanning a total of 20cm) would need 25,000 jelly beans.

so 10 = 25,000 JBs

100 = 250,000 JBs (just multiplying by 10) (now we've only gone 2 metres in our 25m wide jelly bean highway and we've already used 250,000 jelly beans. Haven't got far yet).

If we had 1 million JBs we'd have travelled just 8 metres!!!

10 million JBs would take us 80 metres down this 25m wide jelly bean highway.

100 million JBs would take us 800 metres (you could have an Olympic running race on our 25m wide jelly bean highway).

1 billion JBs would take us 8km (not that far really)

100 billion JBs would now take us 800 km (from Cairns to Rockhampton approx).

1 trillion (just a thousand billion) would take us 8,000km (you could drive from Cairns to Perth to Sydney on this highway of jelly beans - you only need a trillion of them)

(get to the point damn it).

7.8 x 10^33 JBs would take you 61,668,032,914,285,714,285,714,285 km (I don't know how to translate that number but I think that would be 61,700 yotta metres).

This is a 25m wide highway of jelly beans! 

Basically that would mean your highway (25m wide of jelly beans) would stretch from here, around the sun, around Pluto and back again.... And probably a little further too....

Needless to say I've now wasted enough time to go and cook me some lunch!


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 26, 2012)

Whooah Slim6y... What is the probability of a creationist understanding that?

7.8 x 10^33:1 or worse i would think.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 26, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Ok... I want to do a little on probability - I could be wasting my time here - as creationists will be creationists, so I am preaching already to the converted. But, if just one creationist reads this, I can link them to where I got my sources:
> Now think of it - C-14 isn't limited to Earth - so if we look at universal C-14 that number all of a sudden becomes MUCH MUCH larger! Well over 10^50 - where physics apparently suggests the probability of that nucleus decaying to N-14 is non existent - but it will happen!!! So it does happen! So where a physicist has said the probability is too low... Maybe I'd like to see that in an everyday reaction such as radioactive decay!


Hey slimey, yes you do have far too much time on your hands. Your year 10 maths is quite fine however your logic is all wrong??? C-14 is an unstable isotope and WILL break down to N-14 in time , no one is disputing this. The more C14 you have the more will break down.....How you are equating the number of C-14 atoms in the universe to a probability eludes me???? That is like equating " I have $100" to "I have a 1 in a 100 chance of winning" Same value of integer yet completely unrelated and irrelevant????? But I do like the analogies of the sheer size of these numbers. Here's another 
10^650 =
If you were to view these as coins that came flying past you on a conveyor belt at 100 per second, it would take you a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 31710 years to count it


There are far too many people against me on this with far too many comments to counter in the short spaces of time that I have so I will have to respectfully bow and step back as much as I enjoy these debates. I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change. I love you all, but I have to get back to my other more meaningful endeavours, goodbye.



waruikazi said:


> Whooah Slim6y... What is the probability of a creationist understanding that?
> 
> 7.8 x 10^33:1 or worse i would think.


and yes we are all very simple folk here in creation land, come and have some lemonade I squeezed it fresh chucks....hey mahhh get off the damn roof.......haha You obviously didnt understand it otherwise you would have picked up on the flaws of his argument


----------



## D3pro (Feb 26, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Do all creationists believe the world is under 10,000 years old?



Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.

Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 26, 2012)

D3pro said:


> Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
> 7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.
> 
> Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.



Actually, every creationist I've spoken to has taken the seven days literally to mean 7 Earth days. Can't accuse them of being logical though, can ya?


----------



## D3pro (Feb 26, 2012)

Jamesss said:


> Actually, every creationist I've spoken to has taken the seven days literally to mean 7 Earth days. Can't accuse them of being logical though, can ya?



I can accuse them of not paying much attention to the one book they base their life on.
The same people believe in hell, celebrate a high amount of pagan traditions and devote them selves to symbols... Just because the pastor said so?

Sigh.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 26, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Hey slimey, yes you do have far too much time on your hands. Your year 10 maths is quite fine however your logic is all wrong??? C-14 is an unstable isotope and WILL break down to N-14 in time , no one is disputing this. The more C14 you have the more will break down.....How you are equating the number of C-14 atoms in the universe to a probability eludes me???? That is like equating " I have $100" to "I have a 1 in a 100 chance of winning" Same value of integer yet completely unrelated and irrelevant????? But I do like the analogies of the sheer size of these numbers. Here's another
> 10^650 =
> If you were to view these as coins that came flying past you on a conveyor belt at 100 per second, it would take you a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 31710 years to count it
> 
> ...


Much as I disagree with almost everything you've said here...I agree on this. I think he may have forgotten to add the point of all those numbers.


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 26, 2012)

I notice all creationist are being put in one shelf... just like D3pro said everyone has there own beliefs. im a creationist believe in god but dont believe in hell, or even christmas and i read back a couple pages something about the world being flat... the bible actually points out that it is spherical in shape and they have dated that back before colombuses world trip  amazing stuff.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 26, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> I notice all creationist are being put in one shelf... just like D3pro said everyone has there own beliefs. im a creationist believe in god but dont believe in hell, or even christmas and i read back a couple pages something about the world being flat... the bible actually points out that it is spherical in shape and they have dated that back before colombuses world trip  amazing stuff.


Isaiah 11:12 
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Job 38:13 
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? 

Yep...sounds like they really think it's a sphere.


----------



## D3pro (Feb 26, 2012)

Jamesss said:


> Isaiah 11:12
> 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
> 
> Job 38:13
> ...



Those are symbolic phrases... "From all corners of the globe" is still being used... geeeees


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 26, 2012)

D3pro said:


> Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
> 7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.
> 
> Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.



I'm glad this has been pointed out. The bible has been mistranslated so many times which has lead to so many arguments and Christians believing in their one bible leading them to pagan values etc, jut like whats been pointed out  we can thank the introduction of the Old English language for all that confusion and hate  anything before the king James is more accurate to the original writings. Simple mistranslated words such as 'era,' and 'eternity,' and 'hell,' has lead modern Christians to be, well, what people hate about modern Christians I guess  anyway, continue haha


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 26, 2012)

Jamesss said:


> Isaiah 11:12
> 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
> 
> Job 38:13
> ...




“There is One [God] who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa. 40:22) 
the hebrew word for circle in the original text meant spherical


----------



## Australis (Feb 26, 2012)

Come on Just_Plain_Nuts put it on the table how old do you "believe" the earth is ?



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change.



Im open to change.. as long as it is supported by evidence real evidence.

I will admit i tend not to accept information from a book written by illiterate goat herders over centuries of accumulated Scientific discovery. Every time i go to a doctor and accept modern western medicine i make this distinction between trust in Science and trust in BS.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 26, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> “There is One [God] who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa. 40:22)
> the hebrew word for circle in the original text meant spherical


The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very true. The interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides.

^^Grabbed that from the great internet because it is relevant. Can't say I'm too good with my Hebrew.


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 26, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> I'm glad this has been pointed out. The bible has been mistranslated so many times which has lead to so many arguments and Christians believing in their one bible leading them to pagan values etc, jut like whats been pointed out  we can thank the introduction of the Old English language for all that confusion and hate  anything before the king James is more accurate to the original writings. Simple mistranslated words such as 'era,' and 'eternity,' and 'hell,' has lead modern Christians to be, well, what people hate about modern Christians I guess  anyway, continue haha


That's why I don't quote Biblical contradictions and/or inconsistencies. The risk that the English language translation is too dissimilar to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is itself too great. Just because the English version is contradictory does not mean the original is too. Translators make mistakes, plus not every ancient Hebrew word has an analogue in modern English. And I'm not about to start learning Hebrew.


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 26, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> That's why I don't quote Biblical contradictions and/or inconsistencies. The risk that the English language translation is too dissimilar to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is itself too great. Just because the English version is contradictory does not mean the original is too. Translators make mistakes, plus not every ancient Hebrew word has an analogue in modern English. And I'm not about to start learning Hebrew.



Yes I agree. I can't say I'm too interested in learning Hebrew too. Might just leave that one to the experts


----------



## D3pro (Feb 26, 2012)

.... Never mind, I live in the matrix.


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 26, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> There are far too many people against me on this with far too many comments to counter in the short spaces of time that I have so I will have to respectfully bow and step back as much as I enjoy these debates. I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change. I love you all, but I have to get back to my other more meaningful endeavours, goodbye.



Please do keep contributing to this thread mate. Your input is valued 



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> and yes we are all very simple folk here in creation land, come and have some lemonade I squeezed it fresh chucks....hey mahhh get off the damn roof.......haha



Rofl.


----------



## Jamesss (Feb 26, 2012)

D3pro said:


> Those are symbolic phrases... "From all corners of the globe" is still being used... geeeees


I just disagree with them claiming they can interpret which parts are meant to be literal and what's meant to be a metaphor. After all, God works in mysterious ways, doesn't he?


----------



## killimike (Feb 26, 2012)

If we are saying those dang creationists should not write papers and evaluate evidence outside their speciality, maybe we can lay off the statements about translation theory and ancient languages? 

There have been some absolutely ludicrous statements made on these subjects in this thread, which detracts from the issue of evolution and some good points that are made on that point.


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 26, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Ok... I want to do a little on probability - I could be wasting my time here - as creationists will be creationists, so I am preaching already to the converted. But, if just one creationist reads this, I can link them to where I got my sources:
> 
> Source 1: Amount of carbon on earth (in total, by mass) is 0.003% of Earth's total mass - Reasons To Believe : Planet Formation: Problems with Water, Carbon, and Air (just to prove I am not anti creationists, I took this figure direct from Dr Hugh Ross, who, seems to be a happy creationist. Here's a Dr Hugh Ross profile for you creationists so you know I am not lying. Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross
> 
> ...



what was your point again


----------



## Jeffa (Feb 26, 2012)

At the end of the day who gives a ----? live life and die when you are due. Find out answers when you die or decay into nothingness and do not, who cares for now?
Honestly debating this crap on a reptile forum?


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 26, 2012)

killimike said:


> If we are saying those dang creationists should not write papers and evaluate evidence outside their speciality, maybe we can lay off the statements about translation theory and ancient languages?
> 
> There have been some absolutely ludicrous statements made on these subjects in this thread, which detracts from the issue of evolution and some good points that are made on that point.


I agree (and hope I'm not one of the detractors?). Does anybody have any unusual views regarding evolution? Does anybody not believe in sexual selection? Or perhaps doesn't accept sexual selection as being part of natural selection, as Darwin didn't? Anybody not believe in kin selection? Anybody believe in group selection? Anything else you want to mention?


----------



## slim6y (Feb 26, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> what was your point again



HAHA!!

Actually - it's just about large numbers - because it was thrown out there - that a probability of 1 x 10^50 is so unlikely we can discount it - so therefore the chance of a red blood cell being made is 1 x 10^650 (or something ludicrous like that).

But what that argument fully fails to account for (of course) is that if you're going to look at at the simplest form of life - the cell, and its intrinsic difficulties of forming.... The same could be said of atoms...

Even now we know that protons and neutrons are made up of other 'stuff' (eg quarks) I'm too tired to go into huge details of course, and we don't know how far it could possibly go (yet) - at one stage the smallest, indivisible thing was the atom - but we keep getting better and better at finding stuff out - and in the past 100 years since Rutherford's experiment, boy, have we found loads!!! So it's all new territory really.

So a seemingly in-complex thing as an atom, is actually significantly complex - probably also made by a designer... Designer atoms were all the rage 7 days ago....


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 26, 2012)

Jeffa said:


> At the end of the day who gives a ----? live life and die when you are due. Find out answers when you die or decay into nothingness and do not, who cares for now?
> Honestly debating this crap on a reptile forum?


It's in the chitchat section, so the fact that this is a reptile forum is irrelevant. Your views have been duly noted, and thanks for contributing them


----------



## Jeffa (Feb 26, 2012)

slim6y said:


> HAHA!!
> 
> Actually - it's just about large numbers - because it was thrown out there - that a probability of 1 x 10^50 is so unlikely we can discount it - so therefore the chance of a red blood cell being made is 1 x 10^650 (or something ludicrous like that).
> 
> ...



Do not forget the pet dog and carbon.


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 26, 2012)

Jeffa said:


> At the end of the day who gives a ----? live life and die when you are due. Find out answers when you die or decay into nothingness and do not, who cares for now?
> Honestly debating this crap on a reptile forum?



you care enough to put a post... chit chat section has done its job. Keyboard warriors unite


----------



## Jeffa (Feb 26, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> you care enough to put a post... chit chat section has done its job. Keyboard warriors unite


Unite baby unite. Can I unite with you red little Jim? Can we become keyboard warriors together?


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 26, 2012)

And BAM! Get that one upya! Evolution disproved in one religious swoop!



D3pro said:


> Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
> 7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.
> 
> Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.



Face palm.... That was his POINT!



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Hey slimey, yes you do have far too much time on your hands. Your year 10 maths is quite fine however your logic is all wrong??? C-14 is an unstable isotope and WILL break down to N-14 in time , no one is disputing this. The more C14 you have the more will break down.....How you are equating the number of C-14 atoms in the universe to a probability eludes me???? That is like equating " I have $100" to "I have a 1 in a 100 chance of winning" Same value of integer yet completely unrelated and irrelevant????? But I do like the analogies of the sheer size of these numbers. Here's another
> 10^650 =
> If you were to view these as coins that came flying past you on a conveyor belt at 100 per second, it would take you a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 31710 years to count it
> 
> ...


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 26, 2012)

slim6y said:


> HAHA!!
> 
> Actually - it's just about large numbers - because it was thrown out there - that a probability of 1 x 10^50 is so unlikely we can discount it - so therefore the chance of a red blood cell being made is 1 x 10^650 (or something ludicrous like that).
> 
> ...




actually what makes me awe is the video clips out there of our solar system, and to the furtherest extent, and to how really insignificant we and our whole biology stuff is.


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 26, 2012)

a


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 26, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> “There is One [God] who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa. 40:22)
> the hebrew word for circle in the original text meant spherical


exactly, the four corners and ends of the earth are just terms...


----------



## Australis (Feb 26, 2012)

JPN, Don't want to state your belief regarding the earths age ?? :lol:

Bible quotation really has no place in a discussion on Evolution.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 26, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> exactly, the four corners and ends of the earth are just terms...



He also said not to eat prawns...


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 26, 2012)

Australis said:


> Come on Just_Plain_Nuts put it on the table how old do you "believe" the earth is ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The age of the earth is hard to tell by the Bible, it would seem that it's around 6000 years old but that is only really estimated, it does not necessarily say this.
This book was written by a wide variety of schooled and unschooled people that were actually guided by the spirit so their abilities are really void, they were just vessels. The Bible is our oldest actual documented history so for this fact alone I think it should be given more thought than most give it. What better source of our beginnings than from that?



Surroundx said:


> That's why I don't quote Biblical contradictions and/or inconsistencies. The risk that the English language translation is too dissimilar to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is itself too great. Just because the English version is contradictory does not mean the original is too. Translators make mistakes, plus not every ancient Hebrew word has an analogue in modern English. And I'm not about to start learning Hebrew.


I would love to be able to read hebrew and aramaic. Apparently they carry so much more depth and lose a lot in translation to english


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 26, 2012)

Australis said:


> JPN, Don't want to state your belief regarding the earths age ?? :lol:
> 
> Bible quotation really has no place in a discussion on Evolution.



of course bible does have a place... if we believe in creation and bible facts. and you believe in evolution and certain scientific book facts. both have a place in this particular thread.


----------



## shea92 (Feb 26, 2012)

Creationism - the ignorant view that an infinitely large universe was made only for us...


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 26, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> The age of the earth is hard to tell by the Bible, it would seem that it's around 6000 years old but that is only really estimated, it does not necessarily say this.
> This book was written by a wide variety of schooled and unschooled people that were actually guided by the spirit so their abilities are really void, they were just vessels. The Bible is our oldest actual documented history so for this fact alone I think it should be given more thought than most give it. What better source of our beginnings than from that?
> 
> I would love to be able to read hebrew and aramaic. Apparently they carry so much more depth and lose a lot in translation to english


The bible is not an actual documented history it is merely a tool the church uses to confuse and control its ants. There is no hard documented facts and it was not written when it happened, they left out other parts that was not to the churches liking. Does anyone on here no what moses was really like, he slaughtered millions of men women and children in the name of god but thats not in the bible Actual documented history thats like saying the book about fairy tales is a documented history. Like god most of us grow up beleiving in Santa, Eater bunny tooth fairy and monsters that live in our closet but then some of us grew up and stopped believing in magic and fairy tales. If David Copperfield lived 2000 years ago then he would of been considered a god after all ive seen him fly across the stage thats a miracle in itself and dont get me started on how he tricked Michelle Pfiefer to be his wife. The only difference is he never said i am the lords son otherwise you creationists would be bowing to him. I dont like to offend but some of the crap god botherers put out just blows my top. If they did find out god didnt exist do you think the catholic church with all its riches would tell anyone, Its like BP telling people how to get free energy its not gunna happen


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 26, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> The bible is not an actual documented history it is merely a tool the church uses to confuse and control its ants. There is no hard documented facts and it was not written when it happened, they left out other parts that was not to the churches liking. Does anyone on here no what moses was really like, he slaughtered millions of men women and children in the name of god but thats not in the bible.


I'm no Biblical historian, but I believe that no evidence of the actual Moses, nor of the Exodus, has ever been found. The Egyptian were excellent documenters, and no mention of Moses being adopted by the Pharoah's wife has ever been discovered.


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 26, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> The bible is not an actual documented history it is merely a tool the church uses to confuse and control its ants. There is no hard documented facts and it was not written when it happened, they left out other parts that was not to the churches liking. Does anyone on here no what moses was really like, he slaughtered millions of men women and children in the name of god but thats not in the bible Actual documented history thats like saying the book about fairy tales is a documented history. Like god most of us grow up beleiving in Santa, Eater bunny tooth fairy and monsters that live in our closet but then some of us grew up and stopped believing in magic and fairy tales. If David Copperfield lived 2000 years ago then he would of been considered a god after all ive seen him fly across the stage thats a miracle in itself and dont get me started on how he tricked Michelle Pfiefer to be his wife. The only difference is he never said i am the lords son otherwise you creationists would be bowing to him. I dont like to offend but some of the crap god botherers put out just blows my top. If they did find out god didnt exist do you think the catholic church with all its riches would tell anyone, Its like BP telling people how to get free energy its not gunna happen



haha and what about those who arnt catholic... just throw everyone who believes in god on the same band wagon. catholics are not the only ones who believ the bible. And where you there to see moses slaughter all those people???


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Feb 27, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> I'm no Biblical historian, but I believe that no evidence of the actual Moses, nor of the Exodus, has ever been found. The Egyptian were excellent documenters, and no mention of Moses being adopted by the Pharoah's wife has ever been discovered.




there is no actual evidence of anything in the bible actually being true.. in my mind i see it as a story book used to teach moralities, right vs wrong, good vs evil ect.. so, there is nothing in the bible that can't be learnt from a disney kids movie..

i don't understand the concept of religion as a whole, i mean a bunch of people getting around preaching peace and harmony when in actual fact religion (all not just christianity) has proven to be the single most destructive force in human history.. it does nothing but hold us back, you only have to look at the dark ages to see the terrible effect religion had on scientific advancements..

just think where would we be now if we hadn't lost those few hundred years, we'd have flying cars and hover boards that's where, missing out on that is enough to dislike religion..


----------



## slim6y (Feb 27, 2012)




----------



## killimike (Feb 27, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> The bible is not an actual documented history it is merely a tool the church uses to confuse and control its ants. There is no hard documented facts and it was not written when it happened, *they left out other parts that was not to the churches liking*. Does anyone on here no what moses was really like, he slaughtered millions of men women and children in the name of god *but thats not in the bible* ...



Again, this is turning into people totally and abjectly ignorant of the subject bashing the bible. The two bolded statements above are rubbish, and cannot be substantiated.

I understand people wanna bring in the bible because that's a source for the motivating principles behind creationism. But why not one-up those creationists by handling the primary sources accurately?


----------



## D3pro (Feb 27, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> And BAM! Get that one upya! Evolution disproved in one religious swoop!



Oh no evolution is real(ish), I'm just big on religious texts and history. (also greek, roman and Egyptian mythology)
Although, I would like to remind those who are creationists that this is a reptile forum, of which the high majority are pro-evolutionists.

Another note, saying Christianity is the cause of many deaths and wars is a low statement. Christendom is not a very good spokesman for Christianity (yes they are separate)
where in the dark ages, only the few selects were able to read the latin (by then a dead language) and instruct religious and moral teachings.
This opened up a large door of corruption where many were mislead into wars and witch hunts. Non of which were based on the very book they taught. To this day Christendom remains one of the most mislead religions on earth. So the blame should go to the very corrupt nature of humans and politics.... and the pope, not the actual book lol. 

I do love the discussions though, both sides are very enthusiastic 

Anyone want to bring the multiverse theory up?


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 27, 2012)

I think the most amazing part of cell structure that doesnt get talked about but is critical is laminin, ive added a pic of it that is taken under microscope.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 27, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> I think the most amazing part of cell structure that doesnt get talked about but is critical is laminin, ive added a pic of it that is taken under microscope.



OMG.... You're right!

It's Ronald McDonald handing a kid a balloon toy!! Whoa!!! It's evidence alright..... At first I thought McDonalds was just addictive because of fat... But it seems it's ingrained in our cells!!!



Just in on Facebook:


----------



## Australis (Feb 27, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> I think the most amazing part of cell structure that doesnt get talked about but is critical is laminin, ive added a pic of it that is taken under microscope.



Im guessing you see the structure of laminin as comparable to an ancient torture device ?

If thats the case (and sadly i think it most likely is given the level of debate you have been bringing to the table) i see your laminin and raise you a Treponema. Clearly proof of the flying spaghetti monster.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 27, 2012)

The laminin debate is defunct anyway:

1) Laminin was supposedly around long before we (humans, Romans) invented crucifixion.

2) There was supposedly a 'god' long before his supposed son was crucified therefore long before the symbol of pain and suffering was impregnated into the minds of the easily controlled.

3) Then the symbol in a cell, that still looks like Ronald McDonald handing out a balloon toy, was either only recently added (2,000 years ago), or in the last 35 years since the advent of McDonalds.


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 27, 2012)

Does anybody have any unusual views regarding evolution? Does anybody not believe in sexual selection? Or perhaps doesn't accept sexual selection as being part of natural selection, as Darwin didn't? Anybody not believe in kin selection? Anybody believe in group selection? Anything else anybody want's to argue about that's related to evolution?


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 27, 2012)

Australis said:


> Im guessing you see the structure of laminin as comparable to an ancient torture device ?
> 
> If thats the case (and sadly i think it most likely is given the level of debate you have been bringing to the table) i see your laminin and raise you a Treponema. Clearly proof of the flying spaghetti monster.




thats the problem with you guys, you make a joke out of everything, instead of seeing it for what it is and what it does you make light out of it, "ancient torture device" *** no idea what your talking about.

Debate..... *** what has all this got to do with laminin? laminin is for bonding, nothing to do with any God or any Ronald-
mate you need to get of the religious tract, and focus on what has been actually said..... typical


----------



## Australis (Feb 27, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> Debate..... *** what has all this got to do with laminin? laminin is for bonding, nothing to do with any God or any Ronald-
> mate you need to get of the religious tract, and focus on what has been actually said..... typical



I know what laminin is...and i have no doubt of the intent you posted it with. I know evangelical spin doctors use this "example".

If you want to be taken seriously, say something serious ?


----------



## slim6y (Feb 27, 2012)

So prey tell (scuse the pun) - but how are you adding laminin to the debate of evolution as being critical to the discussion?

Seriously - I am not a cell biologist nor do I know much more than grade 10 biology (or maths for that matter apparently.... My jelly bean highway was set at a year 10 level, which surprises me, because when I taught it to year 11s, they struggled with the concept of a mole - must be my teaching tho iI guess).

So - enlighten me as to how laminin is critical to the evolution debate if you will please.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Feb 27, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> Does anybody have any unusual views regarding evolution? Does anybody not believe in sexual selection? Or perhaps doesn't accept sexual selection as being part of natural selection, as Darwin didn't? Anybody not believe in kin selection? Anybody believe in group selection? Anything else anybody want's to argue about that's related to evolution?


come on Brendan people would much rather be bashing God and the Bible with absolutely no knowledge of either...If you are going to try to debunk something , at least know what it is first. The slaughter of millions was clearly documented in the Bible but it was moreso Joshua than Moses, and yes it was a command from God because they were an evil race and needed to be wiped out for the chosen people to live in peace....this is a real dumbed down explanation and sounds real nasty but it is too complicated to go into here.


----------



## D3pro (Feb 27, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Just in on Facebook:








Trololol


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 27, 2012)

killimike said:


> Again, this is turning into people totally and abjectly ignorant of the subject bashing the bible. The two bolded statements above are rubbish, and cannot be substantiated.
> 
> I understand people wanna bring in the bible because that's a source for the motivating principles behind creationism. But why not one-up those creationists by handling the primary sources accurately?



If they didnt leave out parts that were not to their liking what about the book of mary madeline after all she was jesus wife so she would have known him the best, or are you saying a 30 year old Jewish man wasnt married 2000 years ago give me a break, and it is not stated in the bible that moses went from village to village slaughtering every living human and animal until finally the midians fled. This is documented fact the bible only states 3000 men, but midian history books but the figures in the tens of thousands and include men women children and there animals.Now thats an actual documented fact not a fable cooked up over many years to ease the toll. And all the while he is shouting GOD told me to do it.


----------



## littlemay (Feb 27, 2012)

I’m just about to finish up a five year honours degree in ancient Greek, Near Eastern and biblical history; i can read and have read biblical passages in Greek, Hebrew and, on occasion, Latin. While I am in no way an expert, I have a pretty good idea about these things and would just like to relay what has been taught to me on the topic. I’m not going to bother referencing anything at the moment because I’m buggered and it’s getting late, so please forgive me this academic no no.

1. To claim that the bible is our ‘oldest documented source of history' is beyond ludicrous. Ancient societies did actually exist before the rise of Christianity, and yes, these societies did produce their own documented histories! Take Thucydides ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ for example, written in the fifth century BC - well before the NT was even conceived. The Hebrew bible is a whole other can of worms which I’m not going to bother with here, however what people tend to forget is that ‘documented history’ does not necessarily always take the form or be on a subject that we imagine it would. Literate societies did exist before and outside of the jewish middle east, and I think such evidence is grossly under appreciated (mind you, I’m the first to admit I’m not particularly well versed in this area).

2. The bible does have historical merit. To claim that the Hebrew bible and NT are complete works of fiction is just as bad as claiming that everything the books detail is 100% fact. Events in the bible have indeed been found to have a historical basis, and no, I am not talking about that ‘they found a roman chariot wheel in the red sea so therefore the exodus is true’ crock. Take for example the famous episode of 2 Maccabees, where Heliodorus, the finance minister of Antiochus IV (known by most as a persecuter of the Jews), is driven away by a fantastic golden rider as he is attempting to rob the temple of Jerusalem. While there is clear religious colouring here, the newly discovered Heliodorus stele appears to confirm that at this period in time Heliodorus was actually sent by the Seleukid King to Jerusalem in order to requisition funds from the sanctuary. Just because an account is heavily biased, does not necessarily mean it is completely historically inaccurate, or invaluable.

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with macroevolution; however it really irritates me when people throw around such incredible statements so easily. But anyway, i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents, don't want to derail this very interesting discussion any more than it already has been.

P.S., Anyone thinking of learning hebrew, latin or greek should absolutely do it, the subtlety and magnitude of translational differences will blow your mind…


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 27, 2012)

Australis said:


> I know what laminin is...and i have no doubt of the intent you posted it with. I know evangelical spin doctors use this "example".
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, say something serious ?





lmao, yep, that was serious, all you guys have done is bag creation, get back to the real point, and get off the God thing, I still dont see how what i said did anything to credit creation, just pointed out a fact on something i have studdied and are credited in- biol and chem. (RMIT melb).


----------



## junglepython2 (Feb 27, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> Does anyone on here no what moses was really like, he slaughtered millions of men women and children in the name of god but thats not in the bible Actual documented history thats like saying the book about fairy tales is a documented history.



As far as I'm aware there isn't any hard evidence that Moses even exsisted, so how do you know he killed millions of people?


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 27, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> come on Brendan people would much rather be bashing God and the Bible with absolutely no knowledge of either...If you are going to try to debunk something , at least know what it is first. The slaughter of millions was clearly documented in the Bible but it was moreso Joshua than Moses, and yes it was a command from God because they were an evil race and needed to be wiped out for the chosen people to live in peace....this is a real dumbed down explanation and sounds real nasty but it is too complicated to go into here.




Mate to be honest your wasteing your time, the problem we have is that there are so many here that believe scientific so called facts, it is so easy to get results in biology studies, very easy to manipulate cell structure, and that is the reasons why we are so behind in medical studies, one single micro cell makeup is more complexed than nasa space station, and even that they carnt get right.
Im over this. just full of bs


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 27, 2012)

And BAM! Evolution disproved in one foul religious swoop! How you like them apples?



snakerelocation said:


> Mate to be honest your wasteing your time, the problem we have is that there are so many here that believe scientific so called facts, it is so easy to get results in biology studies, very easy to manipulate cell structure, and that is the reasons why we are so behind in medical studies, one single micro cell makeup is more complexed than nasa space station, and even that they carnt get right.
> Im over this. just full of bs


----------



## D3pro (Feb 27, 2012)

littlemay said:


> I know this has absolutely nothing to do with macroevolution; however it really irritates me when people throw around such incredible statements so easily . But anyway, i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents, don't want to derail this very interesting discussion any more than it already has been.
> 
> P.S., Anyone thinking of learning hebrew, latin or greek should absolutely do it, the subtlety and magnitude of translational differences will blow your mind…



I agree... and I am getting in ancient greek, it's mind blowing all right lol


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 27, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> As far as I'm aware there isn't any hard evidence that Moses even exsisted, so how do you know he killed millions of people?



The bible says Moses existed and its actual documented fact remember and the time and place where he killed so called 3000 men was also documented elsewhere so when you put two and two together.


----------



## Australis (Feb 27, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> lmao, yep, that was serious, all you guys have done is bag creation, get back to the real point, and get off the God thing, I still dont see how what i said did anything to credit creation, just pointed out a fact on something i have studdied and are credited in- biol and chem. (RMIT melb).



Of all the biological structures you could of posted you just happen to post a picture of one that is well known to be used by creationist spin doctors for its straw clutching resemblance to a cross aka a crucifix aka an ancient torture device (do you now understand what an ancient torture device is, or do you need it written in crayon ??).

You posted it with no real context explaining how it fit into the discussion, so no, i didn't take it seriously. I took it for what it was the absolute lowest form of pseudo science. 

Do yourself a favor, either educate yourself on the topic of discussion and post something meaningful or find a thread better suited to you, so you can run a long and remain blissfully ignorant.

Although the extreme ignorance you show with each post you contribute to this thread is somewhat humorous to me (i will probably laugh about it more as im sitting in a Biology lecture tomorrow :lol, especially when it seems you really do seem think you have put something intelligent into the mix, it is getting a little tired.


----------



## Wrightpython (Feb 27, 2012)

Australis said:


> Of all the biological structures you could of posted you just happen to post a picture of one that is well known to be used by creationist spin doctors for its straw clutching resemblance to a cross aka a crucifix aka an ancient torture device (do you now understand what an ancient torture device is, or do you need it written in crayon ??).
> 
> You posted it with no real context explaining how it fit into the discussion, so no, i didn't take it seriously. I took it for what it was the absolute lowest form of pseudo science.
> 
> ...



Nice one like your style


----------



## slim6y (Feb 28, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> Mate to be honest your wasteing your time, the problem we have is that there are so many here that believe scientific so called facts, it is so easy to get results in biology studies, very easy to manipulate cell structure, and that is the reasons why we are so behind in medical studies, one single micro cell makeup is more complexed than nasa space station, and even that they carnt get right.
> Im over this. just full of bs



You do have something to bring to the table - don't take all this attitude from other members so personally. To them (and to me) they are fairly anti-religion for various (and personal) reasons I am sure. But the people who maybe religious or believe in creationism aren't usually the target of hatred (in fact quite the opposite). In the cases I see presented here most are merely questioning the facts.

Questioning the facts isn't to be taken personally (while some statements may appear personal in nature they're merely wanting facts).

I also know for a fact that myself, Australis, Waruikazi and a few others would change our belief system with scientific evidence from structured testing - for that is what we've based our beliefs on now. Not from brain washing as once suggested. Quite the opposite, from our OWN informed opinion.

So if you could please help out here and talk about why we're so far behind in medical studies, the reason you brought up laminin and any other evidence you have. It's absolutely fine to scientifically test a theory and be wrong. But it is not fine to not test and then convince everyone you're right (under current ways of thinking).


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 28, 2012)

slim6y said:


> You do have something to bring to the table - don't take all this attitude from other members so personally. To them (and to me) they are fairly anti-religion for various (and personal) reasons I am sure. But the people who maybe religious or believe in creationism aren't usually the target of hatred (in fact quite the opposite). In the cases I see presented here most are merely questioning the facts.
> 
> Questioning the facts isn't to be taken personally (while some statements may appear personal in nature they're merely wanting facts).
> 
> ...




you are right, but after doing 4 years of biol, you start to see the difference in facts, and questionable facts, i never once mentioned i was for creation against evolution, thats just the way you took it, i just find it hard to take that you can only believe in proven facts and nothing else, take metamorphis for example, we know it happens, but we carnt make it happen, and certainly not at the speed that it does happen, how can that be proved as evolution, evolution is a slow process, and sometimes even manipulated,(naturally or un naturally) yes it does happen, of course it has to, have a look at the cell structure in a person, we know how cells work and reproduce, we also know the rate at which a cell dies off too, can a single cell reproduce a human - hasnt happened yet, it it just co-incidence that all the creatures on this earth were all started off this way, with having the correct cell structure to work on, yes things do evolve, but as with all biology it can only be looked at through the eyes of evolution, not creation.


----------



## Red-Ink (Feb 28, 2012)

So Umm... like... ummm who created the creator?


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 28, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> So Umm... like... ummm who created the creator?


i guess the same wizzard that made every type of cell appear that we have on this earth today oh thats right that was an accident, or was it co incidence, or maybe the creator was what we know now as the "big bang"....
just merly stating facts, thats what you wanted.


----------



## killimike (Feb 28, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> If they didnt leave out parts that were not to their liking what about the book of mary madeline after all she was jesus wife so she would have known him the best, or are you saying a 30 year old Jewish man wasnt married 2000 years ago give me a break, and it is not stated in the bible that moses went from village to village slaughtering every living human and animal until finally the midians fled. This is documented fact the bible only states 3000 men, but midian history books but the figures in the tens of thousands and include men women children and there animals.Now thats an actual documented fact not a fable cooked up over many years to ease the toll. And all the while he is shouting GOD told me to do it.



Well, this is a touch more coherent than I expected.... but still rather lacking in evidence. 

'The book of mary madeline'? I will confidently assert that no such thing exists, in any way shape or form. I know the genre of writings you probably actually *mean*, but you must never have read them or about them anywhere but The Da Vinci Code to think it has any hope of being authentic.

Since he who asserts bears the burden of proof, what is 'the midian history book'? And why do you believe those ignorant child sacrificing goat herders more than the other mob? Also, the Tanakh includes tales of many more people killed in the conquest of Canaan than just 3000, so you might wanna specify what you are referring to.

My point still stands, I think this is a great topic, but it's always better when people get the basic facts right, especially when accusing the other side of not doing so.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 28, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> you are right, but after doing 4 years of biol, you start to see the difference in facts, and questionable facts, i never once mentioned i was for creation against evolution, thats just the way you took it, i just find it hard to take that you can only believe in proven facts and nothing else, take metamorphis for example, we know it happens, but we carnt make it happen, and certainly not at the speed that it does happen, how can that be proved as evolution, evolution is a slow process, and sometimes even manipulated,(naturally or un naturally) yes it does happen, of course it has to, have a look at the cell structure in a person, we know how cells work and reproduce, we also know the rate at which a cell dies off too, can a single cell reproduce a human - hasnt happened yet, it it just co-incidence that all the creatures on this earth were all started off this way, with having the correct cell structure to work on, yes things do evolve, but as with all biology it can only be looked at through the eyes of evolution, not creation.



1: Are you for or against creationism as it stands in this thread? Please enlighten me to this one.

2. What do you mean by metamorphis - are we talking caterpillar to butterfly? Then what do you mean by we know it happens we can't make it happen? We know a star goes super nova but we can't make that happen either - With me, subtlety doesn't always work. You may need to be more specific and maybe even a little more in my face!

Is metamorphis (a butterfly) something that could prove or disprove evolution theory?

3: And finally - the coincidence of the cell - not sure (again) what you're really getting at here. Is it a coincidence all atoms contain neutrons, protons and they're made up of more intricate particles again?

Really sorry to sound like the person not knowing anything here... But if I give you a 'please explain' I'm not giving it to be a smart A - I'm asking it to learn...


----------



## Red-Ink (Feb 28, 2012)

This started off as an interesting thread about evolution but as all evolution discussion goes, religion always creep into it somehow. Now people are citing the Judeo-christian diety.... there are other dieties you know each one with their own creation story. Each one with their own theological heroes, but I guess their a footnote in mankind's esotherical quest to explain themselves as they have the least followers or at least their followers are not the dominant ones who are in power.


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 28, 2012)

So I see a bunch of evolutionist want proof and wood be willing to change there minds if given evidence. So just exactly the same way you found evolution to be 'true' you may need to study where creationist get there evidence from... Whether it's the bible or other means. Unless your so closed minded that unless it was published by a guy with degrees In biology and science it doesn't count. And for creationist vice versa. There are plenty of scientist and bioligists who believe in a higher being or creator and also creationist who believe in evolution.


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Feb 28, 2012)

slim6y said:


> 1: Are you for or against creationism as it stands in this thread? Please enlighten me to this one.
> 
> 2. What do you mean by metamorphis - are we talking caterpillar to butterfly? Then what do you mean by we know it happens we can't make it happen? We know a star goes super nova but we can't make that happen either - With me, subtlety doesn't always work. You may need to be more specific and maybe even a little more in my face!
> 
> ...



thank god you wrote all that, saved me from doing it myself..



redlittlejim said:


> So I see a bunch of evolutionist want proof and wood be willing to change there minds if given evidence. So just exactly the same way you found evolution to be 'true' you may need to study where creationist get there evidence from... Whether it's the bible or other means. Unless your so closed minded that unless it was published by a guy with degrees In biology and science it doesn't count. And for creationist vice versa. There are plenty of scientist and bioligists who believe in a higher being or creator and also creationist who believe in evolution.



i have tried to study where creationist get their evidence from, but it's so incredibly difficult to find any credible sources or proof at all, 99% of what i've found when looking is stuff that has either been proved to be false or just mindless propaganda..

then you look at it from the side of people who believe in evolution and there is piles upon piles of documented and proven research, it really is so much that it's impossible to argue against..


----------



## slim6y (Feb 28, 2012)

Did the creator create just cells or cells and atoms as well? 

I use the word atoms fairly loosely here, because we can see cells, but not atoms - despite me actually taking a photograph and printing it out of a rubidium atom at the University of Otago.

Using some fantastic laser set up (laser cooling) - unfortunately I was so awe struck that I wasn't listening to how it all worked - so laser cooling - you could isolate a single rubidium atom for manipulation!

Amazing aye?

Well - from what I saw on my print out was a fuzzy white splodge on a noisy background. But the fact we were talking in micro kelvin was just one of the most amazing moments of my life... (before you say I have no life.... have you ever taken a photo of a rubidium atom?).

So - while we didn't create it - we're getting darn close (I wanted to say darn tooting) to manipulating single atoms and then in the room next door (at Otago Uni), around 200,000 atoms at any one time!

Amazing???

I think so!

So - can a creationist, or someone in the know please tell me - did the creator create atoms as well as cells? Or were the atoms already there and were put into a jig saw puzzle of sorts to the amazing complexity we talk of today?

Thought I better link to the page:

27 September 2010 Media Release, University of Otago, New Zealand (there's a photo of the rubidium atom there too - not my one (I call it mine) but one that they isolated recently)


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 28, 2012)

Donkey_Kong said:


> i have tried to study where creationist get their evidence from, but it's so incredibly difficult to find any credible sources or proof at all, 99% of what i've found when looking is stuff that has either been proved to be false or just mindless propaganda..
> 
> then you look at it from the side of people who believe in evolution and there is piles upon piles of documented and proven research, it really is so much that it's impossible to argue against..



so i guess the question you may want to answer... is there proof the bible is in fact as old as it is? and yes its proven fact it is... so how are all the prophesies coming true? and the accounts so accurate? like i said, you would need to sit down and have an indepth conversation and discussion before you go labelling it false or mindless properganda. Maybe you dont understand it, or doesnt make sence to you... much like if i picked up a book on biology and just started reading and googled a few terms i wouldnt grasp or understand the full meaning.


----------



## D3pro (Feb 28, 2012)

slim6y said:


> So - can a creationist, or someone in the know please tell me - did the creator create atoms as well as cells? Or were the atoms already there and were put into a jig saw puzzle of sorts to the amazing complexity we talk of today?



Deities are always seen as being separate from the material world. Where the rules of time and space do no apply. Before the big bang was their atoms? If not then "God" would of come before matter. Maybe God is a non biological being made of pure energy? My guess is as good as yours. Maybe God will one day appear and slap as all in the face.

"Mankind's best scientists came together and challenged god into making life. God proceeded and grabbed some "dust" and created a living being. So too, did the scientist. Using their machines, collected some "dust" and created a viable living being identical to the one created by God. At this, God stopped and said "oh no no no, you have to make your own dust". LOL

All creation VS evolution aside.

What was before the big bang? I read many theories where the universe started when a bubble of time and space appeared...? Which would make sense if the universe is expanding, but the more daunting question is what is beyond the walls of the universe? Or is it one of those paradoxes that if you keep going straight in one direction, you will eventually reach your original starting point. A possibility, since time space can bend. And if you mind isn't hurting yet, what of the dark matter which takes up a high amount of the universe... are their different rules in those zones?


----------



## littlemay (Feb 28, 2012)

D3pro said:


> What was before the big bang?



The one that always hurt my mind the most is the pulsating universe theory, endless big bangs and big crunches...


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Feb 28, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> so i guess the question you may want to answer... is there proof the bible is in fact as old as it is? and yes its proven fact it is... so how are all the prophesies coming true? and the accounts so accurate? like i said, you would need to sit down and have an indepth conversation and discussion before you go labelling it false or mindless properganda. Maybe you dont understand it, or doesnt make sence to you... much like if i picked up a book on biology and just started reading and googled a few terms i wouldnt grasp or understand the full meaning.




fair enough, i'll except that the bible is as old as claimed that's simple after all it's just a book.. however, there are no prophesies coming true, think how many times we've all heard about the end of the world lately only to still be here the next day..

you say i need to sit down and have an in depth discussion before labelling it mindless propaganda, i actually have many times, i was actually educated at a catholic school, i've spent hours upon hours reading the bible in the past as well as some quite thorough research.. i have to say not a patch of it even come close to truth or fact, it isn't because i don't understand it, i do quite well, does it make sense though, no not even slightly, how can it make sense when it's full of false accounts..

as i said in an earlier post there is not a single factual account of anything in the bible actually occurring, not one.. now from a book so filled with stories you would have to believe that at least one may be even a little factual but there still isn't one, why, because it isn't real it's fiction..

there's just so many scientific accounts that disprove these things, look at the Arc do you know the poor genetic state many animals would be in if that had actually occurred, you only have to look at cheatahs which were at one point down to just a few thousand at one point if i recall correctly to see that an animal starting with so few numbers (in the Arcs case its just 2) absolutely destroys any genetic diversity..

when creationist can present a plausible, logical evidence based argument then maybe i will change my beliefs but until then i'm sticking with the smarter side..


----------



## littlemay (Feb 28, 2012)

Donkey_Kong said:


> as i said in an earlier post there is not a single factual account of anything in the bible actually occurring, not one.. now from a book so filled with stories you would have to believe that at least one may be even a little factual but there still isn't one, why, because it isn't real it's fiction..



You don't really know anything about this topic, do you?


----------



## D3pro (Feb 28, 2012)

littlemay said:


> You don't really know anything about this topic, do you?



Lolol... beat me to it. In fact, many kings and characters have been proven, keeping in mind that the bible isn't "a" book, but a collection of books. Jesus, for example, was real. Historians will readily accept the books of John, Luke, Matthew etc. As separate statements. But if you want further proof, there are other written letters or books mentioning Jesus in his era. (Often describing him as a wise man with magical powers  )


----------



## redlittlejim (Feb 28, 2012)

Donkey_Kong said:


> i actually have many times, i was actually educated at a catholic school, i've spent hours upon hours reading the bible in the past as well as some quite thorough research.. i have to say not a patch of it even come close to truth or fact, it isn't because i don't understand it, i do quite well, does it make sense though, no not even slightly, how can it make sense when it's full of false accounts..
> 
> as i said in an earlier post there is not a single factual account of anything in the bible actually occurring, not one.. now from a book so filled with stories you would have to believe that at least one may be even a little factual but there still isn't one, why, because it isn't real it's fiction..



wow, trying to put it politely but you obviously have not had an indepth study of the bible. there are several statements about the earth that are scientific and geological that have been proven THANKS to modern science.. E.g. the earth is round (years before coloumbus).. also the water cycle (earth suspended by nothing etc) when many thought it was an elephant with a turtle etc... the bible was right about all that despite popular belief back when it was written.

also the bible has been dated and YEARS before certain nations where destroyed it was written that it would occur. 

besides, just because it was a catholic school doesnt mean they have the right answers... could a vet (doctor) say he know how to do open heart surgery? just because he is a doctor or just because they are a religion doesnt mean they are the right person or place for the answers. i personally do not agree with lots of things with catholics... christmas, hell, heaven, trinity etc.

if you really are keen to know a little i happy to mail you 1little book that might help you  im even willing to exchange for a book on evolution, i am totally happy to change my faith if i read something that desproves my beliefs


----------



## slim6y (Feb 28, 2012)

I wonder if DK was talking about events not people? Such as Adam and Eve, the talking serpent and the Garden of Eden.... 

Aesops Fables could also be factual... I bet a tortoise and a hare really did race one day... 

The point of course is - the stories were made by design... Inspired by imagination and beliefs. I assume that's what we're getting at.

Most people would find it very difficult to believe some or even any of the 'stories' the good book might lead to. 

However, I guess there could have been great floods - but there certainly couldn't have been Noah's Ark - well, certainly not a literal event anyway....


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Feb 28, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I wonder if DK was talking about events not people? Such as Adam and Eve, the talking serpent and the Garden of Eden....
> 
> Aesops Fables could also be factual... I bet a tortoise and a hare really did race one day...
> 
> ...



well, guess another thanks is in order first for saving me from writing all those questions much better than i could have, which i'm pretty sure still haven't been answered and now for actually understanding what i meant, i probably should've been more clear in what i meant..


----------



## slim6y (Feb 28, 2012)

littlemay said:


> The one that always hurt my mind the most is the pulsating universe theory, endless big bangs and big crunches...



We're doing all we can with current technology to work this sort of stuff out. We're (scientists) not clutching at straws and giving in to the easy answer... One day the answer may very well be that some energy mass created us and the universe - and one day we'll see if we can solve that very mystery - but we'll do it with science and not just some wild guesses. 

They're there for our solving... And that's what we'll do... And if we do find out that the meaning of life really is 42, then so be it.

"The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

PS - Sorry to quote Douglas Adams - but... If it hadn't already been said, it needed to be!


----------



## saratoga (Feb 28, 2012)

this puts things in perspective


----------



## Surroundx (Feb 28, 2012)

Donkey_Kong said:


> there's just so many scientific accounts that disprove these things, look at the Arc do you know the poor genetic state many animals would be in if that had actually occurred, you only have to look at cheatahs which were at one point down to just a few thousand at one point if i recall correctly to see that an animal starting with so few numbers (in the Arcs case its just 2) absolutely destroys any genetic diversity.


*Pertaining to the Bible:*

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you." (NIV)

(Genesis 6: 19)

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,..." (NIV)

(Genesis 7: 2)

Apart from the fact that 7 animals is 3 pairs ("a male and its mate"), which leaves a lone individual of every clean animal, it seems that there are two different versions of God telling Noah how many animals he is to carry on the ark.

*Pertaining to evolution:*

It depends how much genetic diversity the founding pair had in the first place, as to whether they could reproduce and spread to produce a viable population. There are many species now with less than 1,000 individuals left (total, including both wild and captive population), some of which are almost certainly doomed in the long run because of a lack of genetic diversity. But we really don't know what the precise viability-threshold is, whereby a population falling below the threshold physically cannot remain viable. However, as with the kakapo (_Strigops habroptila_), some species have apparently "shed" harmful parts of their DNA whereby a normally excessive number of homozygous genes does not seem to affect them as it would a normal species who had not evolved such beneficial changes.

Of course, I'm not advocating the Noah's Ark story. Just trying to smuggle some evolution back into the thread 



D3pro said:


> But if you want further proof, there are other written letters or books mentioning Jesus in his era. (Often describing him as a wise man with magical powers  ).


No mention of Jesus occurs in any writing dating to when he is believed to have lived. Even the most recent works after his death which mention him are believed to have been written several years to several decades later. The only non-Biblical mainstream work even written not long after Jesus' crucifixion, which mentions him, is Joseph Flavius (c.37-100).

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene (previously referred to in this thread as "the book of mary madeline") apparently gives a much more human account of Jesus, though I have never read it myself. Here's a link to a web page on it.


----------



## littlemay (Feb 28, 2012)

saratoga said:


> this puts things in perspective



[video=youtube;HEheh1BH34Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=HEheh1BH34Q[/video]


----------



## slim6y (Feb 28, 2012)

So how many people do you think have been alive in all time to obtain our current population? (this is to the other extreme of the 2 or now 7 animals)

Some believe as little as 13 billion (you know - at least twice the population we have now) to 125 billion... Quite some variation. But how can we tell?

If the great flood came along - wasn't it to wipe out all evil? Which means Noah therefore reproduced rather quickly with his one, or 6 other mates... Either way - he had a good excuse for some romantic lovin'.

Or - were some people spared? Did Noah have room on his ark for a few people who he had become acquainted with and thought were jolly nice people that didn't deserve to be drowned?

We do know in order to have the diversity we have today we'd have had to have a fair whack of time... Perhaps a lot more than 6,000 years (incidentally, if the 7 days wasn't literal, is the 6,000 years equally as not literal too?).

So - if a creationists idea of 7 days was much much much longer than an earthly 7 days... Then a creationists idea of 6,000 years would have to be equally long - giving us a date of roughly.....??? Should we just say 4.5 billion years (whether I am right or wrong is insignificant - 6,000 just can't be right for there to have been between 13 billion and 125 billion people on earth!)


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 28, 2012)

slim6y said:


> So how many people do you think have been alive in all time to obtain our current population? (this is to the other extreme of the 2 or now 7 animals)
> 
> Some believe as little as 13 billion (you know - at least twice the population we have now) to 125 billion... Quite some variation. But how can we tell?
> 
> ...



And? your point? im not sure where macroevolution fits in there. not realy relevant, nor is your baging creation, yet again....


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 29, 2012)

*


Surroundx said:



Disclaimer: This thread has nothing to do with religion....

Click to expand...

*


Surroundx said:


> *Post:** ....*
> *Please feel free to add any of your thoughts on the subject, but please do not bring religion into the discussion as I do not want this thread to be deleted or closed, but to stay open. Thankyou.*


SITE RULE 1 states: Be tolerant of all other users. Remember, we have members of... different nationalities, religions and cultures....
SITE RULE 6 states: Posts must remain on the topic of the thread.

I may be wrong but it seems to me things have gone awry. Perhaps people have forgotten that there is a moderator button for reporting posts that are unacceptable under the site rules. Then again, if everybody is happy, who am I to spoil the fun...


----------



## slim6y (Feb 29, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> And? your point? im not sure where macroevolution fits in there. not realy relevant, nor is your baging creation, yet again....



My point - quite clearly, is that the earth must be more than 6,000 years old (which, if I am wrong, sorry, is part of a creationists theory).

It would have been impossible with life expectations etc etc to allow for 13 - 125 billion people to have ever existed. Therefore it's not bagging, it's just scientific evidence in favour of evolution. 

I'm not sure why you think I am bagging it - I'm merely stating evidential facts.


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 29, 2012)

slim6y said:


> My point - quite clearly, is that the earth must be more than 6,000 years old (which, if I am wrong, sorry, is part of a creationists theory).
> 
> It would have been impossible with life expectations etc etc to allow for 13 - 125 billion people to have ever existed. Therefore it's not bagging, it's just scientific evidence in favour of evolution.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think I am bagging it - I'm merely stating evidential facts.



but mate creation has nothing to do with evolution, or macroevolution, 

Creation: the act of producing or causing to exist

Macroevolution:major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. 

Just think we should get back on the right topic. creationest will never agree fully with evolution and vice versa, so its always a loosing battle, and gets no where.


----------



## Colin (Feb 29, 2012)

> Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.



I've seen members go through evolutionary transition from newbies to the level of APS expert in less than 6 months!!! so +1 for macroevolution


----------



## jinjajoe (Feb 29, 2012)

I reckon the the all seeing creator must have been a very evolved individual indeed........

I havn't read every page if words to this effect have already been said !!!!!!!!


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 1, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> .... Just think we should get back on the right topic. creationest will never agree fully with evolution and vice versa, so its always a loosing battle, and gets no where.


 
I totally agree. A bit like the old philosophers joke....
Two philosophers were walking down the street to where their cars were parked. A little ways up ahead, two women in adjacent yards were heavily involved in an argument. Both philosophers were observing the proceedings as they walked past. One philosopher then turned to the other and said: "Of course, you realise they will never agree, don't you?" The other philosopher, reflecting on the brevity of their exposure to the argument, enquired: "And why do you say that?" To which his fellow philosopher replied: "It's obvious! They are arguing from different premises."

Blue


----------



## Australis (Mar 1, 2012)

Anyone with decent example of fast speciation?

Main local case im familiar with is the intermittent land bridge from mainland Australia to Tasmania caused allopatric speciation in a crab.. this represents a speciation event over a miniscule amount of time.. something in the order of 20,000 years. In the context of geological time 20,000yrs is really the blink of an eye.

I vaguely recall another example of speciation observed over a period of decades in a bird sparked by changes in its "song".. but i cant recall the details.. 

(P.s, Fruit flies etc are boring )


----------



## dragonlover1 (Mar 1, 2012)

Jamesss said:


> OK...who are the two people that voted it _doesn't _occur? Fair enough if you don't believe it, but please put forward your reasoning, I would actually be interested. I like to have my views challenged.
> 
> And wright, that's very good reasoning, but the same people who don't believe in evolution are very often the same people who believe God popped out the world in 7 days, about 6,000 years ago, so saying 'small changes add up over billions of years' really doesn't work for them.


there are some people who,no matter how much proof you put in front of them will refuse to believe


----------



## snakeluvver (Mar 1, 2012)

Well, I haven't read through the thread but I thought Id add my thoughts.
I believe in macroevolution, and I think its impossible to not believe in at least some sort of evolution as there is so much proof out there. Just look at BHP's with their "spurs", and the uncanny similarities between humans and apes. Thats because we are (or at least evolved from) apes.


----------



## dragonlover1 (Mar 1, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> Dammit i said contraction where i should have said _abreviation!_ Schooling FAIL! Lucky i'm only a year one teacher!



no wonder our kids are failing,even teachers can't spell



Snake_Whisperer said:


> Oh Jeebus Gordo, I'm so sorry but... it's _abbreviation_! :lol:
> 
> EDIT: Just occurred to me, I've been blatering on completely off topic. I suppose I've addressed the evolution of language, if that counts.



"blatering"?


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 1, 2012)

dragonlover1 said:


> no wonder our kids are failing,even teachers can't spell
> 
> 
> 
> "blatering"?



Maybe your kids are failing.


----------



## dragonlover1 (Mar 1, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Haha I'm not an English teacher, therefore I'll stick to socially acceptable colloquialisms.
> 
> Man this WHOLE thread is just people trying to correct themselves! What's the poll standing at? I can't see it on my phone



it seems like back in 5th grade english with the teacher telling the whole class everything you did wrong


----------



## CrystalMoon (Mar 1, 2012)

dragonlover1 said:


> it seems like back in 5th grade english with the teacher telling the whole class everything you did wrong


Aaawww never mind, I do apologize frequently for my seemingly inadequate intelligence when joining in on a thread to those who "appear" to be farrrr more edumacated lol we all carnt be as purrrrfect as the smarties lol I must admit I love people guiding the thread back to topic(I am known to veer off course lol) because in all honesty I dont really give a rat's bottom about spelling or sentence construction and sometimes the corrections detract from the thread(sometimes it is more entertaining too lol) Eeerrrr yessss Macroevolutionnnnn I believes sistuhs I believes heh heh heh heh


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 1, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Did the creator create just cells or cells and atoms as well?
> 
> I use the word atoms fairly loosely here, because we can see cells, but not atoms - despite me actually taking a photograph and printing it out of a rubidium atom at the University of Otago.
> 
> ...


It's funny when people of limited knowledge try to use information and claim to understand it...haha. Electron tweezers have been able to hold and manipulate single atoms for...over 20 years or so. I actually had the chance to go and see an electron microscope at University of Qld back in like 93....awesome stuff. Anyway IBM where amongst the first to do it making an IBM logo made of individual atoms as the dots of the letters..IBM Celebrates 20 Years Since First Manipulating an Atom | Singularity Hub
It's just a breakthrough that they are now able to manipulate Rubidium because of it's uses in quantum computers...which I won't even get into because it will make all our brains hurt.

And yea God created all the cells and atoms from scratch, He does not operate within our confines of science and logic..



slim6y said:


> So how many people do you think have been alive in all time to obtain our current population? (this is to the other extreme of the 2 or now 7 animals)
> 
> Some believe as little as 13 billion (you know - at least twice the population we have now) to 125 billion... Quite some variation. But how can we tell?
> 
> ...



Sorry if it seems I'm picking on you slimey but you are wrong again here. Do the maths and you will see that even with conservative figures of procreation there is easily enough time to repopulate the world , even with much higher figures than your high figure of 125 billion. You have to remember it's exponential growth. It's like the old story with the peasant who beat the chinese ruler at chess and asked for his prize to be grains of rice equal to the number achieved when you start at one and double it for every chess square. It starts small but soon ends up massive. The ruler was not able to fulfill his obligation with all the rice of his kingdom. Now look at the number of generations since then and do the maths. P.S Noah took his wife and three sons and their wifes on the Ark


----------



## slim6y (Mar 1, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> It's funny when people of limited knowledge try to use information and claim to understand it...haha. Electron tweezers have been able to hold and manipulate single atoms for...over 20 years or so. I actually had the chance to go and see an electron microscope at University of Qld back in like 93....awesome stuff. Anyway IBM where amongst the first to do it making an IBM logo made of individual atoms as the dots of the letters..IBM Celebrates 20 Years Since First Manipulating an Atom | Singularity Hub
> It's just a breakthrough that they are now able to manipulate Rubidium because of it's uses in quantum computers...which I won't even get into because it will make all our brains hurt.
> 
> And yea God created all the cells and atoms from scratch, He does not operate within our confines of science and logic..
> ...



I'm going to point out something that even the simplest of people could understand.... I'm NOT wrong... I RESTATED evidential facts from OTHER sources!

If that information is wrong... Go tell that to the people who spend their entire LIVES on working this stuff out - you're not picking on me... You're picking on THEM!!!

As for the laser tweezers - so what if it's been around for 20 years - it's not biggie if it had been around for 7 days - just like things you believe took 7 days. Quantum computing isn't my thing - it didn't mean I wasn't interested in isolating my very own rubidium atom... I named it slimmy....

As far as procreation of the world goes:

How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth? - Population Reference Bureau

If you don't like the fact I found this without using my brain - then tell the author I've mislead the hoards of APSers that read my dribble in the first place!


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 1, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I'm going to point out something that even the simplest of people could understand.... I'm NOT wrong... I RESTATED evidential facts from OTHER sources!
> 
> If that information is wrong... Go tell that to the people who spend their entire LIVES on working this stuff out - you're not picking on me... You're picking on THEM!!!
> 
> ...


No you didnt restate evidential facts at all...You read something that you didnt understand and tried to use it to argue....not sure exactly...What they said isnt wrong, you have just tried to use it in an irrelevant way. 
With your procreation link, once again i'm not argueing against what they said( although I dont know how they are guessing world populations in a time period that we arent even sure people existed, but anyway) I was not arguing that it's around 125 billion people ever on the earth I was merely pointing out that 6000 years is ample time for that amount of people to be created from the humble beginnings of 2 or 8

Sorry Surroundx for leading this topic astray I can't help myself when people say things without basis...


----------



## Wrightpython (Mar 1, 2012)

If everything must have a beginning and an end and everything is created then who by chance created God. God must have been created by a magnificent being of great knowledge to produce a being capable of producing the earth and the heavens. But then who created Gods creator once again must have been an even wiser and knowledgable being to produce a being capable of producing a being capable of creting the earth and the heavens and so on and so on. Or was it man who created God this man must have been wise and knowledgable in his own right. 
Joke for ya Irish Catholic man goes up to the church and asks if the church will bury his dog the catholic preist says where a church we dont bury dogs why dont ya try the orange folk up there on the hill, as irishman starts walking away he murmurs ive got 500 quid ill give it to the prodestants i spose, the catholic priest wanting the 500 quid runs after him and says why didnt you tell me the dog was catholic


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 1, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> If everything must have a beginning and an end and everything is created then who by chance created God. God must have been created by a magnificent being of great knowledge to produce a being capable of producing the earth and the heavens. But then who created Gods creator once again must have been an even wiser and knowledgable being to produce a being capable of producing a being capable of creting the earth and the heavens and so on and so on. Or was it man who created God this man must have been wise and knowledgable in his own right.
> Joke for ya Irish Catholic man goes up to the church and asks if the church will bury his dog the catholic preist says where a church we dont bury dogs why dont ya try the orange folk up there on the hill, as irishman starts walking away he murmurs ive got 500 quid ill give it to the prodestants i spose, the catholic priest wanting the 500 quid runs after him and says why didnt you tell me the dog was catholic



No one or nothing created God, he always was. As I have said repeatedly He is not confined by our laws of physics nor our time. This is impossible for our brains to fathom, our intelligence certainly has limits. Have you ever tried to truely understand infinity as in the edges of space are expanding infinitely. Then tried to envisage what is beyond this outer edge that it's expanding into....you will find that you can't because terms like infinity are beyond our comprehension...as is God


----------



## slim6y (Mar 1, 2012)

show me the math baby!!!

(I've said that once before)

I'd like you JPN to elucidate the math and PROVE your point that the world could be populated within 6,000 years.

Start off with two....

Show me population rates, death rates, life expectancy.... So on... Show me that the guy I showed you is wrong... and don't ever assume I didn't understand what I read... So don't patronise me with your god 'stuff' because in reality - the stuff I read, that I understood, that I took on board... wasn't just my way of thinking... but something that is quite plausible... Plus, you'll not be able to prove it wrong... nor will you be able to justify your nonsense....

So - the floor is yours - start a new thread to prove your mathematical ability about a year 10 level and show me that the world could be populated in 6,000 years... Oh, and I promise you I'll get 2 math professors to look at your working to verify it's possible... Do it in PM if you don't want to embarrass yourself too.


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 1, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> No one or nothing created God, he always was. As I have said repeatedly He is not confined by our laws of physics nor our time. This is impossible for our brains to fathom, our intelligence certainly has limits. Have you ever tried to truely understand infinity as in the edges of space are expanding infinitely. Then tried to envisage what is beyond this outer edge that it's expanding into....you will find that you can't because terms like infinity are beyond our comprehension...as is God



Did you know that some infinities are bigger than others? Just sayin...


----------



## slim6y (Mar 1, 2012)

You should probably read Achilles and the Quantum Universe - it can help you understand the world is over 6,000 years old... And the current ways of thinking of the word infinity and what we believe our universe is...

Not saying it's gospel, like the bible of course... Just saying it's one way of thinking... And in my view... A good way!

Read it - or are you worried you'll understand it and it'll open your mind?

Also read a book called Bad Science.... That might help you understand whether or not your way of thinking is considered scientific or not....


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 1, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> Did you know that some infinities are bigger than others? Just sayin...



You watch too many SBS docos.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 1, 2012)

slim6y said:


> show me the math baby!!!
> 
> (I've said that once before)
> 
> ...


haha sure but I cant tonight I have too much work to do first


----------



## slim6y (Mar 1, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> haha sure but I cant tonight I have too much work to do first



That sounds like a google quote if I've ever heard one... You're going to google it... At least my carbon - jelly bean highway theory was done on the spot... at year 10 level of course.... (not insulted by that in the slightest to the person who mentioned that).

.oO(bet he'll be up all night wondering how he'll do it... He'll have to work backwards of course - 7 billion people on earth now... 6,000 years, changing life expectancy rates, changing birth rates.... Not a challenge I'd take up in a night either.... But one that Carl Haub did - took him 6 years maybe... But a solid 6 years)


----------



## redlittlejim (Mar 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> That sounds like a google quote if I've ever heard one... You're going to google it... At least my carbon - jelly bean highway theory was done on the spot... at year 10 level of course.... (not insulted by that in the slightest to the person who mentioned that).
> 
> .oO(bet he'll be up all night wondering how he'll do it... He'll have to work backwards of course - 7 billion people on earth now... 6,000 years, changing life expectancy rates, changing birth rates.... Not a challenge I'd take up in a night either.... But one that Carl Haub did - took him 6 years maybe... But a solid 6 years)




He probably will be up all night. but im sure that just means he will put a lot more tiime and thought into it than "doing it up on the spot" and sounding so arrogant  nothing wrong with putting time into things. and nothing wrong with using google and other search engines for information. im sure your scientist use google to do searches.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 2, 2012)

I don't know how people taught before the invention of google!!!!

I hope he does put some time into it - because I like seeing statistical evidence that can't be proved - it's then a 'possibility' 

My worry of course is things like death rates, birth rates, mortality, life expectancy etc etc just won't be taken into consideration.

Plus - another issue of course is in our 50,000 years of civilised culture (or since agriculture approx) we haven't always had the same growth - wars of course took a lot of people out, famine, mini ice ages, and numerous other factors could be taken into account.

Plus - what is the average population increase?

Is it really 1.5% all our existence?

Too many factors to take into consideration for this mini post... But we'll see what comes out of it  I'm waiting with finger tapping impatience!


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 2, 2012)

population chart.


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 2, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> population chart.



You're trying to say there was 9 Billion people alive in 3500 BC! :shock:


----------



## Australis (Mar 2, 2012)

Care to reference that graph ? Otherwise its about as valid as the one below.


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 2, 2012)

my point exactley- why is it the same two or three anti - creationests, that keep pulling the topic away from macroevolution.
I would have hated to have been in your biol classes......
TOPIC: Do you believe in macroevolution?


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 2, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> He probably will be up all night. but im sure that just means he will put a lot more tiime and thought into it than "doing it up on the spot" and sounding so arrogant  nothing wrong with putting time into things. and nothing wrong with using google and other search engines for information. im sure your scientist use google to do searches.


Scientists use Google Scholar


----------



## Australis (Mar 2, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> my point exactley-why is it the same two or three anti - creationests, that keep pulling the topic away from macroevolution.



Do you have a reference for it ? you know from say a legitimate journal... not a fundamentalist website :lol:

Im not anti-creationist, im just a Pearlist. 




snakerelocation said:


> I would have hated to have been in your biol classes......


Of course you would, i imagine you would hate to be in any science based learning environment.



Edit: nevermind here is the website you got the incorrect graph from World Population Since Creation


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 2, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> my point exactley- why is it the same two or three anti - creationests, that keep pulling the topic away from macroevolution.
> I would have hated to have been in your biol classes......
> TOPIC: Do you believe in macroevolution?



I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not but you are the one who put the ridiculous graph up.

On a side note "God in America" is just starting on SBS.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 2, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> my point exactley- why is it the same two or three anti - creationests, that keep pulling the topic away from macroevolution.
> I would have hated to have been in your biol classes......
> TOPIC: Do you believe in macroevolution?



Two main points:

1) I teach physics, I leave this sort of rubbish up to the biologists - I for one don't even give a flying hoot about evolution, I just care that the brain washed cynics of religion don't prevail. Because it's stories like creation that set our learning backwards and that's something I would not allow to go on in my department - we teach science and that's what we stick to. 

2) This is chit chat - quite often at parties (yep, I attend parties) we talk about one topic, lead off to another, then another, then sometimes back to the original topic, then another - that's how we learn... Interesting really... One thing I've learnt is that despite overwhelming evidence in the favour of a world older than 6,000 years people still believe that the world and the universe was created in 7 (of some arbitrary length) days.... Even in a extreme effort this just isn't plausible... Where did we fit Jurassic Park in?


----------



## Australis (Mar 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> .. Where did we fit Jurassic Park in?




Slim.. so ignorant.. 





Sounds impossible right? i mean he/she has a shovel.. but please dont question aka "bash" it.
It makes me laugh.. anyone who is truly shovel fearing.. .already know shovels are beyond logic and "science".. they exist outside the constraints and laws of our universe. ...which is why i cant provide any evidence to support this shovelism explanation..or as some refer to it as spadeism but they are relying on a poorly translated text!!! so disregard all the wrong bits!

So what if the entire academic world disagrees... they are all in on the cover up with the help of the new world order etc!


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Mar 2, 2012)

Australis said:


> Slim.. so ignorant..



I do hate to post off topic but... ROFLMAO!!!!!


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Mar 2, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> population chart.



so what you're saying is that despite having twice the amount of time we've only produced two thirds of the number alive before the flood.. you have to realise how unbelievably improbable that sounds right..


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 2, 2012)

Donkey_Kong said:


> so what you're saying is that despite having twice the amount of time we've only produced two thirds of the number alive before the flood.. you have to realise how unbelievably improbable that sounds right..



actually what im saying is that you can believe any crap you read on the net, most of it is placed by people that think they know it all, and seem to have done everything and studied everything in their short 30+ years on this measley planet. most people do a 2 second search and have all the answers, sadly usually the wrong answers, im sure you know what im getting at,


----------



## redlittlejim (Mar 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Two main points:
> 
> 1) I teach physics, I leave this sort of rubbish up to the biologists - I for one don't even give a flying hoot about evolution, I just care that the brain washed cynics of religion don't prevail. Because it's stories like creation that set our learning backwards and that's something I would not allow to go on in my department - we teach science and that's what we stick to.
> 
> 2) This is chit chat - quite often at parties (yep, I attend parties) we talk about one topic, lead off to another, then another, then sometimes back to the original topic, then another - that's how we learn... Interesting really... One thing I've learnt is that despite overwhelming evidence in the favour of a world older than 6,000 years people still believe that the world and the universe was created in 7 (of some arbitrary length) days.... Even in a extreme effort this just isn't plausible... Where did we fit Jurassic Park in?




i like to think that chit chat is a way people evolve. one topic evolves into another topic and our brains get more knowledge.... evolution proved. but how did we get here to start the conversation? we were created. creation proved. Yay


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Mar 2, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> actually what im saying is that you can believe any crap you read on the net, most of it is placed by people that think they know it all, and seem to have done everything and studied everything in their short 30+ years on this measley planet. most people do a 2 second search and have all the answers, sadly usually the wrong answers, im sure you know what im getting at,



as opposed to believing a book written thousand of years ago and not even from first hand accounts?? or believing in something with no physical evidence??



redlittlejim said:


> i like to think that chit chat is a way people evolve. one topic evolves into another topic and our brains get more knowledge.... evolution proved. but how did we get here to start the conversation? we were created. creation proved. Yay



i genuinely lol'd.. we got here through evolution, we weren't just mysteriously placed here..

serious question how do you guys explain dinosaurs and the associated evidence of their age and things like that..


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 2, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> but how did we get here to start the conversation? we were created. creation proved. Yay


How do you know we were created? What argument do you have that macroevolution cannot be extended backwards until the continuum of evolutionary change involves individuals which are no longer considered "living"?


----------



## slim6y (Mar 2, 2012)

Oh - wait - I thought he meant that the conversation was created - OMG... he meant HUMANS??? ARRRRRRRG!!! I liked it accidentally... Help... Oh, I feel so dirty now....

I thought he said the conversation evolved and the conversation was originally created (with Surroundx being our creator and lord of this thread)... I didn't think he meant that all humans were created... GOD!!

And now I use GOD in a slang way too... and I don't even believe... EEEEEEP!

I'm digging a deeper hole...

Incidentally... Still waiting on results that the world could have been populated in 6,000 years from just 2 people with an estimated 105 billion people to have lived to get us to this current population - using at least some facts that could be gained from various sources.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 2, 2012)

Yay! One hundred people have voted. That's cause for celebration I think


----------



## redlittlejim (Mar 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Oh - wait - I thought he meant that the conversation was created - OMG... he meant HUMANS??? ARRRRRRRG!!! I liked it accidentally... Help... Oh, I feel so dirty now....
> 
> I thought he said the conversation evolved and the conversation was originally created (with Surroundx being our creator and lord of this thread)... I didn't think he meant that all humans were created... GOD!!
> 
> ...




almost thought there was a conversion there when i saw you like my post


----------



## scorps (Mar 3, 2012)

This is a subject I am very interested in, I come from catholic parents and went to catholic schools and high schools, church weekly growing up and was taught in school about creationism.

As I got older and able to develop my own opinions I found myself doubting everything I was taught as a child.

I still want to believe that when my life is over I will see loved ones again but I don't see the logic at all in creationism, I am very open minded and believe everyone can have there own opinions but I just can't put my head around how its believable


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 3, 2012)

scorps said:


> This is a subject I am very interested in, I come from catholic parents and went to catholic schools and high schools, church weekly growing up and was taught in school about creationism.
> 
> As I got older and able to develop my own opinions I found myself doubting everything I was taught as a child.
> 
> I still want to believe that when my life is over I will see loved ones again but I don't see the logic at all in creationism, I am very open minded and believe everyone can have there own opinions but I just can't put my head around how its believable


Thanks for contributing your views mate  Can I ask if you believe in macroevolution? And if not, perhaps give your reason/s?


----------



## scorps (Mar 3, 2012)

Yes I do, I fully believe in evolution although I like to think that something originally created the start. What it was no one has a clue but something had to start some where.

I have met very open minded creationist and very close minded (same as evolutionists) 
Some people like to share there opinion with out listening to others.

I had to work with a lady once that was a hard core creationist and basically tried to force it on to everyone, her beliefs where that strong she believed dinosaurs did not exist, the fossils where fake and carbon dating is a government conspiracy, I can't deal with people like that


----------



## slim6y (Mar 3, 2012)

redlittlejim said:


> almost thought there was a conversion there when i saw you like my post



You want to know what's funny with that - I thought EXACTLY the same thing... For a minute there I also thought you had a sense of humour... Alas... I was so mislead 

The way I saw it - so clearly, your post suggested that the conversation had evolved and was also 'created'. And I thought - yay - see, creation is true - but when we did it! And all of a sudden after I liked it, and a few more comments sprung up... I got that horrible sinking feeling - that feeling when you look for the unlike button only to notice it wasn't there... I nearly considered closing my account and asking for a new user name.... Eventually slim6y would have just been a whisper in an APS wind.... 

Nice to see you still alive Ben! Long time no hear! Been missing ya bro! You still in the same place?

We all now bow to Surroundx our lord and creator of the post.... Ummmm... Which are our holy days again? I plan on calling up work and telling them that my new religion forbids me to work on a Monday.

I've said this before on here as well - it's a creationist theory from one of my favourite movies... A movie I have already mentioned - From a man who supposedly died in New Zealand... Jeff Goldblum:

"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs." 

Not sure what Jeff's actual views on this are, but I am guessing it's not from a creationist point of view....


----------



## redlittlejim (Mar 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> You want to know what's funny with that - I thought EXACTLY the same thing... For a minute there I also thought you had a sense of humour... Alas... I was so mislead



I most defiantly do not have a sense of humor... maybe I will evolve with one!

Hey Ben, very nice of you to join this debate


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 3, 2012)

Donkey_Kong said:


> so what you're saying is that despite having twice the amount of time we've only produced two thirds of the number alive before the flood.. you have to realise how unbelievably improbable that sounds right..



You probably arent aware that in the times before the great flood people lived to close to 1000 years which would obviously skew these results a lot


----------



## scorps (Mar 3, 2012)

Theres no debate, I'm right


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> show me the math baby!!!
> 
> (I've said that once before)
> 
> ...




I have very little time at the moment but this is what i have come up with.
The question is can the claimed(by slimey) total people ever born of 125 billion be achieved in the 4316 years since the great flood and starting with the 8 people that were on the ark.

Using a Malthusian growth model

Xt=Xo(1+g)^t
where
Xt is the total number born
Xo is the original number you started with
g is the growth rate % per year
and t is the total number of years

gives us
Xt= 8(1+0.02)^4316

[h=2]*Xt=1.05058528 × 10[SUP]38[/SUP]*[/h]
more than enough to meet the requirements, even if you reduce the population rate to 0.01 or less
I used the growth rate of 0.02 because it is around what we currently have but it is rapidly dropping and has done so for some time. The birth rate in ancient times would have been considerably higher given their mortality rate and the need for heirs to support them.

Note I am not claiming population figures, nor life expectancy , nor mortality....just the ease at which the figure of 125 billion people born ever could be achieved in such a short time. I would not be arrogant enough to claim to deduce what these figures would have been in a time that we know little about.

Alright let the slander begin

I cannot guarantee my maths to be perfect , it has been a long time since i have done any. I also cannot guarantee that I will have much time to rebuke all your coming judgements either. I have a life outside internet forums and darn if it's not a real busy one.



scorps said:


> I have met very open minded creationist and very close minded (same as evolutionists)
> Some people like to share there opinion with out listening to others.
> 
> I had to work with a lady once that was a hard core creationist and basically tried to force it on to everyone, her beliefs where that strong she believed dinosaurs did not exist, the fossils where fake and carbon dating is a government conspiracy, I can't deal with people like that


I don't agree with people like this either, and yes I do believe in dinosaurs they just didnt exist as long ago as people think


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 3, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> You probably arent aware that in the times before the great flood people lived to close to 1000 years which would obviously skew these results a lot



I thought that was a joke until I read some creationists sites and found out you are serious! That aside do creationists believe that the universe is 6000 years old or only the Earth?


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 3, 2012)

i would say the universe , although it doesnt elaborate much as far as I know. Originally Adam and Eve were immortal until the apple incident which was supposed to be punishable by death , instead He took pity on them and shortened their lives to under 1000 years and made life much harder too. After mankind further dissappointed Him and lived like scumbags (people lived with very poor morals), and the rise of Nephilim caused God to destroy the earth and start again and reduce our life span at around the same time. Must have thought we had too much time on our hands to get up to no good.


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 3, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> i would say the universe , although it doesnt elaborate much as far as I know. Originally Adam and Eve were immortal until the apple incident which was supposed to be punishable by death , instead He took pity on them and shortened their lives to under 1000 years and made life much harder too. After mankind further dissappointed Him and lived like scumbags (people lived with very poor morals), and the rise of Nephilim caused God to destroy the earth and start again and reduce our life span at around the same time. Must have thought we had too much time on our hands to get up to no good.



So how do you explain seeing stars and galaxy's millions of light years away? Do you subscribe to the idea that the speed of light is not constant and has been slowing down or that God created the Universe with an appearance of age?


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 3, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> So how do you explain seeing stars and galaxy's millions of light years away? Do you subscribe to the idea that the speed of light is not constant and has been slowing down or that God created the Universe with an appearance of age?


You are assuming that they were here to begin with....He may have done just that...afterall look at the extent of detail He used for everything else...He was quite proud of himself when He finished His work


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 3, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> You are assuming that they were here to begin with....He may have done just that...afterall look at the extent of detail He used for everything else...He was quite proud of himself when He finished His work



So when we see a star explode that is a billion light years away, we are in fact seeing an illusion or deception from God as that star never really existed as it died well before creation. In fact all of the universe which is more than 6000 light years away (just about all of it) doesn’t exist and is merely an illusion. He certainly works in mysterious ways….


----------



## carterd (Mar 3, 2012)

Evolution is a theory, and always has and always will be.
Charles Darwin denounced his theories of Evolution on his death bed.
I believe in natural selection, as in, survival of the fittest.
Natural Laws are in place and don't change. No evolve. eg (MacroEvolution).
The only true Science is Maths.
I'm not Religious, I just see what obvious and don't believe in unproven theories.


----------



## Klaery (Mar 3, 2012)

carterd said:


> Evolution is a theory, and always has and always will be.
> Charles Darwin denounced his theories of Evolution on his death bed.
> I believe in natural selection, as in, survival of the fittest.
> Natural Laws are in place and don't change. No evolve. eg (MacroEvolution).
> ...



Like creation? And like Darwin saying anything of the sort on his death bed? Yeah you are a real stickler for evidence...

One has been proven extremely improbable and the other completely wrong. I'll let you figure that out. Maybe check some of that evidence..


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 3, 2012)

carterd said:


> Evolution is a theory, and always has and always will be.


I think your getting confused. "Theory" in a scientific sense, as it is used in the context of evolution, does not refer to anything like is being referred to in the common sense. Evolution is a fact.


carterd said:


> Charles Darwin denounced his theories of Evolution on his death bed.


That's a myth. There is no evidence that Darwin converted on his death bed. But even if he did, how does that change anything?


carterd said:


> I believe in natural selection, as in, survival of the fittest.


Natural selection includes a lot more than survival of the fittest, which is a tautology. Darwin only introduced it into Origin in later editions at the suggestion of Wallace who felt that "natural selection" had a tendency to confuse people. Natural selection includes sexual selection, viability selection, fecundity selection, directional selection, stabilizing selection etc.


carterd said:


> Natural Laws are in place and don't change. No evolve. eg (MacroEvolution).


How do the natural laws prevent macroevolution?


carterd said:


> The only true Science is Maths.


Can you define "science" then?


carterd said:


> I'm not Religious, I just see what obvious and don't believe in unproven theories.


"Unproven theories" is a tautology. I'm sure you believe a lot of things which have not been proven. Can you prove that macroevolution does not occur? Yet you believe it anyway.


----------



## -Peter (Mar 3, 2012)

I was on the phone the other day to a mate who told me he had found major flaws in Maxwell's Electromagnetic Wave Theory then the line suddenly went dead.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 3, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> So when we see a star explode that is a billion light years away, we are in fact seeing an illusion or deception from God as that star never really existed as it died well before creation. In fact all of the universe which is more than 6000 light years away (just about all of it) doesn’t exist and is merely an illusion. He certainly works in mysterious ways….


One of the only valid arguments I've heard, I'll give you credit for that one....leave it with me, I will give it some thought and research


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 3, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> One of the only valid arguments I've heard, I'll give you credit for that one....leave it with me, I will give it some thought and research


I would of thought that since you believe the universe to be 6,000 years old, that you would also believe that the Big bang never happened. Hence, the fact that celestial objects exist more than 6,000 ly away is not a problem at all. God simply created lots of different stars all over the place, and in various stages of stellar "evolution"? Just as the surface of the Earth exhibits geological formations in various stages. There are lots of oceanic islands, but also many that are just forming now.


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 3, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> I would of thought that since you believe the universe to be 6,000 years old, that you would also believe that the Big bang never happened. Hence, the fact that celestial objects exist more than 6,000 ly away is not a problem at all. God simply created lots of different stars all over the place, and in various stages of stellar "evolution"? Just as the surface of the Earth exhibits geological formations in various stages. There are lots of oceanic islands, but also many that are just forming now.



If he created anything more then 6000 light years away we would not be able to view them hence the problem.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 3, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> If he created anything more then 6000 light years away we would not be able to view them hence the problem.


Why not? We don't need light to be able to see other objects, as long as the object itself is luminous. If you've ever seen the sun in the morning before it's light reaches us it is a red colour, as it actually is.


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 3, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> Why not? We don't need light to be able to see other objects, as long as the object itself is luminous. If you've ever seen the sun in the morning before it's light reaches us it is a red colour, as it actually is.



For us to see an object more then 6000 light years away we need more then 6000 years for the light to reach us. I'm not sure I follow your second sentence, how can we see the sun before it's light reaches us?


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 3, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> For us to see an object more then 6000 light years away we need more then 6000 years for the light to reach us. I'm not sure I follow your second sentence, how can we see the sun before it's light reaches us?


I'm not too sure either, but I've seen it. I was working down the back of my work one day and the sun was red, and the area I was working hadn't lit up yet, so I concluded that I was seeing the sun before it's light had reached me. Maybe I'm crazy, but I cannot think of any other possible explanation.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm questioning that too Surroundx - there's other reasons why the sunrise/set is red.

However, seeing the sun before the light reaches you - surely is impossible? For if you've seen the sun, the light has reached you.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I'm questioning that too Surroundx - there's other reasons why the sunrise/set is red.
> 
> However, seeing the sun before the light reaches you - surely is impossible? For if you've seen the sun, the light has reached you.


Your probably right. But I've never seen the sun anything other than yellow in the morning (except that one morning). And it was identical in colour to photographs of it in books/magazines etc. I can think of no other possible explanation than that. However, I'm more than willing to consider alternatives. Since if I was right it would be a pretty fundamental revolution (I think), and I'm not a very lucky person.


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 3, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> I'm not too sure either, but I've seen it. I was working down the back of my work one day and the sun was red, and the area I was working hadn't lit up yet, so I concluded that I was seeing the sun before it's light had reached me. Maybe I'm crazy, but I cannot think of any other possible explanation.



The sun is red at sunset and sunrise because it has to pass through more atmosphere and the shorter wavelengths (like blue) are more scattered, I'm sure a physics teacher like slim6y can explain that better. The area hadn't lit up yet because not enough light had reached you yet but still enough to view the sun. It is physically impossible to see something before the light reaches you.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 4, 2012)

The sky is blue....The grass has riz.... Wait on... Why is the sky blue???

Hey - why is the sky blue during the day - but in the morning it's red (if you're up early enough) or in the evening at sunset it's red....

I wonder if there's a creationists point of view of this - so - jp2 is right - scattering.... But... We also need to accept that physics plays no role in the colour of the sky and just that god made it that way.

That's one theory you'd have to teach in Utah - the easy answer in the exam - would get you 100% everytime.

The other answer is:

The type of scattering that makes the sky blue is called Rayleigh Scattering - I'll assume at this point you know a small amount about light and wavelengths (which are in nano metres, light has incredibly small wavelengths!). Blue light has small wavelengths and red light slightly larger wavelengths. 

I'd often use a board to show the longer wavelengths of light diffracting or dispersing, while the shorter ones are scattered through the outer atmosphere's gas molecules (lots of nitrogen and stuff like that).

The size of those molecules is also highly important - they seem to fit the blue light between them - it's just 'luck' that god made atoms the way he did, but had we had a different composition of atmosphere we may have had a different colour of sky. 

So the sun sends out colours of the entire spectrum that we can see (and plenty more that we can't see such as infra red and ultra violet - the theory is if we could see ultra violet the sky would appear more that colour than blue - however, it is also noted that these even smaller wavelengths are not scattered to the same extent as blue and some are even absorbed - luckily). 

So blue, because of its size, fits nicely through the molecules of gas in the atmosphere which causes much grater scattering. While the other end of the spectrum (we see) such as red, has much larger wavelengths and isn't scattered as easily as blue therefore we don't see that at all! Though surprisingly if you look to the horizon as the sun is high in the sky (for those lucky enough to have a blue sky and not a downpour of rain) you'll notice the horizon is more white than blue. Well, it's still blue, but because that light has much further to go to your eyes, some of the scattering is scattered even further and could be scattered away from your eyes - so the sky appears more pale the further to the horizon you look. Not red, because red is still poorly scattered by our gas molecules in the atmosphere.

But... As the sun drifts down towards our horizon, the light that reaches us comes from further away now.

Similar to why the sky is pale at the horizons, more blue light can now be scattered in other directions - as well as the greens. What's left is the better chance for the red light to reach your eyes. 

Now dust particles in the air (such as photochemical smog - from trees - or dust, vapours etc etc) may cause more reflection, sending blue light in the opposite direction away from your eyes. Because red light is unlikely to be scattered compared to blue, the blue is now scattered away and the red has more chance to be scattered by the larger particles (which there are far more of due to the larger distance the light has to reach you).

Cast your memory back to that eerie day that.... well, Lake Eyre had lost some of its dust and the sky turned... red... Not just because of the dust being red, but because the sunlight now became absorbed and scattered for the much larger wavelengths - even at midday!

Here's a picture for you:







There's also some reasonable explanation at that site where the photo comes from too... 

I bet Bluetongue1 could come up with a better explanation than mine... And so could JPN (though, I did suggest that god made the sky blue, which should be close enough to that explanation). 

So - in summary - shorter wavelengths are scattered... The further they have to go the more scattered they become. The more scattered they become the less incident on your eyes so you see less blue. Red at sunset has more distance to go and now more chance for the scattered red light to hit your eyes. As the red light is less likely to be scattered it won't be scattered away like the blues and the greens. The dustier and more polluted (whether it be natural or not) will cause more red light to scatter in our direction too.


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Mar 4, 2012)

Oh my... it is at this stage I must request the Admin includes a "facepalm" smiley because I simply cannot be bothered to post the photo as often as it deserves.



Surroundx said:


> Why not? We don't need light to be able to see other objects, as long as the object itself is luminous. If you've ever seen the sun in the morning before it's light reaches us it is a red colour, as it actually is.




EDIT: Yeh, this is the one:


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 4, 2012)

Snake_Whisperer said:


> Oh my... it is at this stage I must request the Admin includes a "facepalm" smiley because I simply cannot be bothered to post the photo as often as it deserves.


I accepted that I was wrong....


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 4, 2012)

Phylogeny Challenge - YouTube

The early part of the video isn't as related to the topic as the rest of the video is but the rest puts a serious smackdown on JPN's life outlook.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 4, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> Phylogeny Challenge - YouTube
> 
> The early part of the video isn't as related to the topic as the rest of the video is but the rest puts a serious smackdown on JPN's life outlook.



Let's all have sex with monkeys to bring about that missing link......It's only a smackdown if you let it be so. I am no biologist and I haven't devoted my lifetime studying this so I won't claim to have all the answers. My own beliefs lies along the lines that animals do evolve and adapt, to an extent, where exactly those boundaries lie I cannot tell you (refer to earlier statement) But I don't believe that all life comes from the first single celled organisms which formed from lifeless matter. At the end of the day, I don't believe either side can prove their case beyond doubt no matter how much they try. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. If I'm wrong....oh well...I would have lived a life trying to live morally and upright and will pass away. If you're wrong......well let's not go there then shall we.

I have enjoyed this debate very much and do not mean malice toward any of my adversaries, for loss of a better word, not even Slimey. Although some of my comments toward him may have been a bit harsh, I'm sorry if I have offended anyone.


----------



## D3pro (Mar 4, 2012)

I figured out where humans evolved from... (makes more sense actually)

[video=youtube;QlCj8lwgyes]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlCj8lwgyes[/video]


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 4, 2012)

ahm....what has someone done with a pig???? Anyone going to admit to that one??


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 4, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> One of the only valid arguments I've heard, I'll give you credit for that one....leave it with me, I will give it some thought and research



Any counter argument yet JPN? Or are you willing to accept that maybe just maybe Genesis isn't to be read as a flawless and literal record of historical events?


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 4, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> Any counter argument yet JPN? Or are you willing to accept that maybe just maybe Genesis isn't to be read as a flawless and literal record of historical events?


No won't say that, Havent had a chance to come up with something yet...need to concentrate and have time...hard to do with the kids running around...


----------



## DarwinBrianT (Mar 4, 2012)

I'd just like to say I think this thread has be great and I've enjoyed reading it all the way through and have respect to both sides for not turning it into a s#^t fight.


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 4, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> No won't say that, Havent had a chance to come up with something yet...need to concentrate and have time...hard to do with the kids running around...



Its just a little hard to believe that eveything that is wonderfully made / created is an accident. how can something that we carnt even understand fully be an accident, thats right science has proved it, actually all science has proven is that someones theory is plausible or even possible, it doesnt prove that it actually happened. cell reproduction, for it to work to produce the first humans / animals would take take how long? and at the rate cells divide and also die at, not really all that probable.
It is much easier and likely that we were actually made for a purpose, as for the rest of the earth, and far far beyond, oh wait or was that all accidental too.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 4, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> Its just a little hard to believe that eveything that is wonderfully made / created is an accident. how can something that we carnt even understand fully be an accident, thats right science has proved it, actually all science has proven is that someones theory is plausible or even possible, it doesnt prove that it actually happened. cell reproduction, for it to work to produce the first humans / animals would take take how long? and at the rate cells divide and also die at, not really all that probable.
> It is much easier and likely that we were actually made for a purpose, as for the rest of the earth, and far far beyond, oh wait or was that all accidental too.


I'm not sure in what sense you are using the term "accident", so I cannot be more specific than I'm about to be. Firstly, probability certainly is a powerful tool of estimation, and one which we base a large portion of our lives on. However, the mere fact that something is improbable does not rule it out. Only logical incoherence and physical impossibility do.

The most important error you make is by insinuating that science can prove things. In fact only mathematicians are "allowed" to prove anything. Part of the power of science is the readiness of science and scientists to throw out old theories and replace them when the empirical evidence necessitates.

Human are subjective beings, with only limited mental capabilities. The fact that we cannot understand how things can come about naturally does not automatically mean we were created. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the opposite is therefore the case either. Rather, our inability to comprehend something is not in itself sufficient to guarantee either possible conclusion. I fully understand your hesitation at accepting that the universe is entirely naturalistic. And you are more than welcome to have your own views and opinions, and they need not be justified either. Whether you are justified in your beliefs only comes into question in two possible circumstances. Firstly, when you are trying to convince others of your views. And secondly, when you are otherwise acting upon your beliefs, such as abortionists being murderers who need to be killed.


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 4, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> I'm not sure in what sense you are using the term "accident", so I cannot be more specific than I'm about to be. Firstly, probability certainly is a powerful tool of estimation, and one which we base a large portion of our lives on. However, the mere fact that something is improbable does not rule it out. Only logical incoherence and physical impossibility do.
> 
> The most important error you make is by insinuating that science can prove things. In fact only mathematicians are "allowed" to prove anything. Part of the power of science is the readiness of science and scientists to throw out old theories and replace them when the empirical evidence necessitates.
> 
> Human are subjective beings, with only limited mental capabilities. The fact that we cannot understand how things can come about naturally does not automatically mean we were created. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the opposite is therefore the case either. Rather, our inability to comprehend something is not in itself sufficient to guarantee either possible conclusion. I fully understand your hesitation at accepting that the universe is entirely naturalistic. And you are more than welcome to have your own views and opinions, and they need not be justified either. Whether you are justified in your beliefs only comes into question in two possible circumstances. Firstly, when you are trying to convince others of your views. And secondly, when you are otherwise acting upon your beliefs, such as abortionists being murderers who need to be killed.



thankyou. that is right along the lines of my thinking. not sure about the abortionists bit tho and what you were getting at with that, but glad to see someone with the correct thinking.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 4, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> thankyou. that is right along the lines of my thinking. not sure about the abortionists bit tho and what you were getting at with that, but glad to see someone with the correct thinking.


I was just illustrating a dangerous belief which would be bad to act upon, and in which case it would be right to demand justification for such an action (which of course there isn't any).


----------



## Australis (Mar 5, 2012)

This is a really great TED video with Dawkins explaining the concept of the "middle world brain". It is a must see for anyone struggling with sound scientific facts being believable just because its too hard to understand.

*Richard Dawkins on our "queer" universe*
Richard Dawkins on our "queer" universe | Video on TED.com


----------



## Adzo (Mar 5, 2012)

I'll just put this here.
Scientist evolve Multicellular Yeast.
Multicellular Evolution Apparently Isn't That Tough To Do and Only Takes 60 Days

This clip is good for a laugh[video=youtube;z1xUiuZvUuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw&amp;feature=player_embedded[/video]
BTW, the best answer I have ever read to the question "If dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, why aren't they mentioned in the bible?" has to be "They were so common back then that they didn't no one thought to mention them."


----------



## Australis (Mar 5, 2012)

Great video Adzo.. ive seen this before, as well as a few other creationist museum videos scary stuff.


----------



## Snakewoman (Mar 5, 2012)

Adzo said:


> the best answer I have ever read to the question "If dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, why aren't they mentioned in the bible?" has to be "They were so common back then that they didn't no one thought to mention them."



:facepalm: That is all.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 5, 2012)

Adzo said:


> I'll just put this here.
> Scientist evolve Multicellular Yeast.
> Multicellular Evolution Apparently Isn't That Tough To Do and Only Takes 60 Days
> 
> ...


But they are mentioned in the bible...they just dont call them dinosaurs or brachiosaurs or such because those names were not derived till like the 1800's.


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Mar 5, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> But they are mentioned in the bible...they just dont call them dinosaurs or brachiosaurs or such because those names were not derived till like the 1800's.



can you quote the parts of the bible that mention dinosaurs??


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 5, 2012)

sure...

[h=3]Job 40:15-24[/h]King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]15[/SUP]Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 
[SUP]16[/SUP]Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 
[SUP]17[/SUP]He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 
[SUP]18[/SUP]His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 
[SUP]19[/SUP]He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 
[SUP]20[/SUP]Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 
[SUP]21[/SUP]He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 
[SUP]22[/SUP]The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 
[SUP]23[/SUP]Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 
[SUP]24[/SUP]He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 5, 2012)

Sounds kinda like an elephant to me...


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 5, 2012)

Do elephants have tails like cedar trees?? The cedar trees that the bible often refer to are cedars of lebanon which were massive trees of diameter up to 3 metres..

[h=3]Job 41[/h]New International Version (NIV)

[h=4]Job 41[/h] [SUP]1[/SUP] [SUP][a][/SUP]“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook 
or tie down its tongue with a rope? 
[SUP]2[/SUP] Can you put a cord through its nose 
or pierce its jaw with a hook? 
[SUP]3[/SUP] Will it keep begging you for mercy? 
Will it speak to you with gentle words? 
[SUP]4[/SUP] Will it make an agreement with you 
for you to take it as your slave for life? 
[SUP]5[/SUP] Can you make a pet of it like a bird 
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house? 
[SUP]6[/SUP] Will traders barter for it? 
Will they divide it up among the merchants? 
[SUP]7[/SUP] Can you fill its hide with harpoons 
or its head with fishing spears? 
[SUP]8[/SUP] If you lay a hand on it, 
you will remember the struggle and never do it again! 
[SUP]9[/SUP] Any hope of subduing it is false; 
the mere sight of it is overpowering. 
[SUP]10[/SUP] No one is fierce enough to rouse it. 
Who then is able to stand against me? 
[SUP]11[/SUP] Who has a claim against me that I must pay? 
Everything under heaven belongs to me. 
[SUP]12[/SUP] “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs, 
its strength and its graceful form. 
[SUP]13[/SUP] Who can strip off its outer coat? 
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor[SUP][b][/SUP]? 
[SUP]14[/SUP] Who dares open the doors of its mouth, 
ringed about with fearsome teeth? 
[SUP]15[/SUP] Its back has[SUP][c][/SUP] rows of shields 
tightly sealed together; 
[SUP]16[/SUP] each is so close to the next 
that no air can pass between. 
[SUP]17[/SUP] They are joined fast to one another; 
they cling together and cannot be parted. 
[SUP]18[/SUP] Its snorting throws out flashes of light; 
its eyes are like the rays of dawn. 
[SUP]19[/SUP] Flames stream from its mouth; 
sparks of fire shoot out. 
[SUP]20[/SUP] Smoke pours from its nostrils 
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds. 
[SUP]21[/SUP] Its breath sets coals ablaze, 
and flames dart from its mouth. 
[SUP]22[/SUP] Strength resides in its neck; 
dismay goes before it. 
[SUP]23[/SUP] The folds of its flesh are tightly joined; 
they are firm and immovable. 
[SUP]24[/SUP] Its chest is hard as rock, 
hard as a lower millstone. 
[SUP]25[/SUP] When it rises up, the mighty are terrified; 
they retreat before its thrashing. 
[SUP]26[/SUP] The sword that reaches it has no effect, 
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. 
[SUP]27[/SUP] Iron it treats like straw 
and bronze like rotten wood. 
[SUP]28[/SUP] Arrows do not make it flee; 
slingstones are like chaff to it. 
[SUP]29[/SUP] A club seems to it but a piece of straw; 
it laughs at the rattling of the lance. 
[SUP]30[/SUP] Its undersides are jagged potsherds, 
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. 
[SUP]31[/SUP] It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron 
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. 
[SUP]32[/SUP] It leaves a glistening wake behind it; 
one would think the deep had white hair. 
[SUP]33[/SUP] Nothing on earth is its equal— 
a creature without fear. 
[SUP]34[/SUP] It looks down on all that are haughty; 
it is king over all that are proud.”



waruikazi said:


> Sounds kinda like an elephant to me...


and they don't eat grass to my knowledge

[h=3]Isaiah 27:1[/h]King James Version (KJV)

[h=4]Isaiah 27[/h] [SUP]1[/SUP]In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 5, 2012)

Ur right, a dinosaur is much much more likely. And dinosaurs definately did not eat grass. That is a fact!

And yes elephants do eat grass.

OK... keep beleiving what you have to...

But what if you're wrong?


----------



## littlemay (Mar 5, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Do elephants have tails like cedar trees?? The cedar trees that the bible often refer to are cedars of lebanon which were massive trees of diameter up to 3 metres..



Just a note on how we choose to interpret translation... the ancients had really very strange ways of describing things and it is often extraordinarily difficult to know for sure what such descriptive language actually pertains to. For example, one of my favourite descriptions found in Greek papyri would be of a 'fiery eyed' chicken (or possibly pigeon), which mind you in this particular text is distinctly differentiated from a 'somewhat fiery eyed' chicken. 

We have to be very careful in interpreting these things. When something is described as like a cedar tree (likely from Lebanon, as you rightly pointed out), does this automatically mean that the writer is talking about size? What about relative shape? Colour? Any number of other factors associated with cedar trees in that time and place which we may never know about? Just a thought.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 5, 2012)

littlemay said:


> Just a note on how we choose to interpret translation... the ancients had really very strange ways of describing things and it is often extraordinarily difficult to know for sure what such descriptive language actually pertains to. For example, one of my favourite descriptions found in Greek papyri would be of a 'fiery eyed' chicken (or possibly pigeon), which mind you in this particular text is distinctly differentiated from a 'somewhat fiery eyed' chicken.
> 
> We have to be very careful in interpreting these things. When something is described as like a cedar tree (likely from Lebanon, as you rightly pointed out), does this automatically mean that the writer is talking about size? What about relative shape? Colour? Any number of other factors associated with cedar trees in that time and place which we may never know about? Just a thought.


true but if you go by that...what can we believe or take literally



waruikazi said:


> Ur right, a dinosaur is much much more likely. And dinosaurs definately did not eat grass. That is a fact!
> 
> And yes elephants do eat grass.
> 
> ...


Are you serious...you're going to go there? I believe I made that point in post #332 in this thread....I mean really, who has more to lose?


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 5, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Are you serious...you're going to go there? I believe I made that point in post #332 in this thread....I mean really, who has more to lose?



Oh i just went there!

What if the Muslims are right? Or the Hindus? What will happen to you if you're wrong and they are right?


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 5, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> true but if you go by that...what can we believe or take literally


The Bible isn't a literal word-by-word account. It's inter-dispersed with parables and other metaphorical language. Ancient authors were very different to what we are, not least because they knew far less than we do. They were less rigorous in their writing. It would only be by coincidence if every description of an animal in the Bible had a clear analogue in the real world. I have more to say, but I'm having a mental blank at the moment.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 6, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> Oh i just went there!
> 
> What if the Muslims are right? Or the Hindus? What will happen to you if you're wrong and they are right?


Somewhere along the line you need to make a choice on what you stand for and believe in....I guess you believe you are your own God...as long as you can get through life and our laws alright everything will be sweet...



Surroundx said:


> The Bible isn't a literal word-by-word account. It's inter-dispersed with parables and other metaphorical language. Ancient authors were very different to what we are, not least because they knew far less than we do. They were less rigorous in their writing. It would only be by coincidence if every description of an animal in the Bible had a clear analogue in the real world. I have more to say, but I'm having a mental blank at the moment.


That's why you need to study the Bible, not just read a part here and there. It takes thorough reading and meticulous study to begin to fathom what the Bible is saying. It's not just the obvious text but there are so many different levels beyond that. Been studying it for about 6 years now and I know very little....keep plugging away...
Realistically the scientists (or so claimed ) people on here have their own religion...they are still believing most of their theology on faith, on what the scientists have said...because most people do not really know any of this scientific fact first hand they are just believing what they say...not so different from religion really. Main difference is with science they are their own Gods and have only accountability to themselves in confines of what's accepted in our society.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 6, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Realistically the scientists (or so claimed ) people on here have their own religion...they are still believing most of their theology on faith, on what the scientists have said...because most people do not really know any of this scientific fact first hand they are just believing what they say...not so different from religion really. Main difference is with science they are their own Gods and have only accountability to themselves in confines of what's accepted in our society.


There are too many things to know in this world for any one person to know them all. That's why we rely upon other "authorities" to give us the unbiased facts in fields other than those which we are competent to discuss. Since we are all subjective beings, even authorities are wrong on occasion, both in matters of religion and science. It is a risk we must take, however.

As a non-scientist I have to rely upon scientists for virtually all of my scientific knowledge, some of which is bound to be either inaccurate or false. Is this a bad thing? That's a complicated question with no easy answer. Suffice to say in the short space I have that lucky philosophy exists to be able to go over the top of science and prove things using deductive arguments, which, if we simply relied upon the scientific method, would never be completely settled.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

The irony of all this belief is that from all the wars of recent time, none of them seemed to be against scientific beliefs.

No one all of a sudden went to war because someone sequenced the human genome. 

No one got up in arms over the discovery of ultra violet radiation (something we can't physically see - just like god really).


----------



## Retic (Mar 6, 2012)

I mean no offense to anyone but I just can't fathom why or how in the enlightened times we live in that people still believe this stuff with absolutely zero proof, just faith.


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> The irony of all this belief is that from all the wars of recent time, none of them seemed to be against scientific beliefs.
> 
> No one all of a sudden went to war because someone sequenced the human genome.
> 
> No one got up in arms over the discovery of ultra violet radiation (something we can't physically see - just like god really).



understandable so to, there is not just one religion, and this is in the bible, the fall of babalon for one, Genesis 11:1-9, when the people are torn apart, science wont cause wars, have a look at the schools for one, the teachers teach the kids science and they naturally believe what there being told, doest mean its correct, realistically science teachers teach mostly just text book theorys, which like anything is open to interpretation and manipulation. nothing against you slim6y for supposedly being a teacher.
Boa, "absolutely zero proof" mate open your eyes, have a look at some of the awsome things around you, science can not prove that all this has come to light from cell re production, have a look at earth for one, and the way it orbits and its precision, one degree out and we are all cooked. no magic, no machinery, just spinning perfectly, orbiting perfectly.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

Hang on a sec there.... I teach science... Are you telling me I'm part of the brainwashing society that isn't the 'church'?

Don't you think churches brainwash our kids of the day in far worse fashion?

I teach just as many morals (if not more), open mindedness and above all scientific technique to analyse situations.

I NEVER (and I mean NEVER) just teach out of a text book - we do equations in physics out of a text book, we do some chemistry in a text book... Blah blah... But the stuff that is just 'theory' is absolute RUBBISH.

I've never misinterpret something like the photoelectric effect. I've never manipulated facts such as free falling and terminal velocity, but above all - I teach stuff that CAN and IS and HAS BEEN proved time and time again. 

For example, I am currently teaching projectile motion to my year 12s (11 in Australia) - not only did I show theory, we do it for REAL in the class (limited wind resistance) and we get within 1% of the theoretical amounts for shooting darts across the room.

So - tell me, how am I brainwashing these kids again?

I'm meant to be in the hall now for a seminar with our younger cohort - but I am sure they're just being brainwashed too....

And BTW - the spin on earth is slowing - at one stage we had 23 hour days... Imagine that??? I'd say far from precision... 

The Japanese earthquake and resulting Tsunami (of course caused by god to wipe out the infidels - ho also tried the same in a city aptly named Christchurch) slowed the earth considerably that day - the earth did pick back up again.

We gained a wobble on Boxing Day in 2004... Amazing really - think about - spinning perfectly and perfectly created is all an imaginary thing... Evolution is NOT imaginary and is proven time and time again.


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 6, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Somewhere along the line you need to make a choice on what you stand for and believe in....I guess you believe you are your own God...as long as you can get through life and our laws alright everything will be sweet...



That doesn't answer my question. What will happen to you if you are wrong? 

Don't make the question about me. For one you don't know my beleifs and two, what will happen to me isn't the question.


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 6, 2012)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Somewhere along the line you need to make a choice on what you stand for and believe in....I guess you believe you are your own God...as long as you can get through life and our laws alright everything will be sweet...
> 
> 
> That's why you need to study the Bible, not just read a part here and there. It takes thorough reading and meticulous study to begin to fathom what the Bible is saying. It's not just the obvious text but there are so many different levels beyond that. Been studying it for about 6 years now and I know very little....keep plugging away...
> Realistically the scientists (or so claimed ) people on here have their own religion...they are still believing most of their theology on faith, on what the scientists have said...because most people do not really know any of this scientific fact first hand they are just believing what they say...not so different from religion really. Main difference is with science they are their own Gods and have only accountability to themselves in confines of what's accepted in our society.



JPN there are many well respected religious scientists, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up one for the other. Although you do have to question the literal interpretation of the bible which by the way was written, translated and copied by man, not God himself.


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> The irony of all this belief is that from all the wars of recent time, none of them seemed to be against scientific beliefs.


From my perspective the below comic is a sad reality... the most militant act an atheist commits is being open about their belief (really disbelief).

Currently there is a person (in Asia) potentially facing the death penalty for posting on Facebook his disbelief. He was already seriously assaulted shortly after posting on facebook, and now might be killed for it? what a world we live in.






JustPlainNuts (Poe's law anyone?)..

Try to remember you also disbelieve in gods, just like myself. However i disbelief in merely *one* more god than you do, just the one more.

Im happy to admit i have not dedicated any real time to studying "the bible" of course the question is why would i even come to the point of considering it over the hundreds (if not thousands) of other religions and or religious writings. 

Maybe ask yourself why you ended up with it, of all the possible options... why narrow it down to this one, and one only to pursue. If you ( or i for that matter) just so happen to be born in Australia a few hundred years ago we very well might believe Echidnas were "created" when a man was punished with spears to his back. Australian Aboriginal belief systems predate Judao-christian beliefs by tens of thousands of years...sadly a point that defies contemplation for you because of the young earth world view you must hold on to.

Imagine if you were wrong, and the chances of you being wrong are extremely high, given all the other options of religion you have. Imagine if a heaven and hell did exist.. and the deciding factor for acceptance to into heaven was critical thinking in this life and the legitimate search of truths and banishment to hell was for intellectual dishonesty and pseudo science... well you would be doomed.


I cant be bothered arguing absolute morality... but being a gott fearing christian doesn't make you a better person than an atheist. Everyone can live by the golden rule "do to other what you would want done to you" or something of this nature. 
When i walk down the street and see a little old lady has fallen down, i would help her... not because if wish for a reward in some afterlife, or fear punishment in a hell. 
I do it because of empathy for my fellow human, for self pressure i receive from doing something kind.

argh.. and finally something like less than 2% of American prison inmates are atheists. If disbelief was such a materialistic and lacking in moral fortitude lifestyle, one would expect a higher representation in the prison system.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> understandable so to, there is not just one religion, and this is in the bible, the fall of babalon for one, Genesis 11:1-9, when the people are torn apart, science wont cause wars, have a look at the schools for one, the teachers teach the kids science and they naturally believe what there being told, doest mean its correct, realistically science teachers teach mostly just text book theorys, which like anything is open to interpretation and manipulation. nothing against you slim6y for supposedly being a teacher.
> Boa, "absolutely zero proof" mate open your eyes, have a look at some of the awsome things around you, science can not prove that all this has come to light from cell re production, have a look at earth for one, and the way it orbits and its precision, one degree out and we are all cooked. no magic, no machinery, just spinning perfectly, orbiting perfectly.



Where did you go to school?

For one - Capital letters start a sentence. Capital letters also are used for proper nouns - Babylon is spelt with a Y and a capital B.

Look - clearly you weren't one of the ones brainwashed by science... But English.... You can't dispute English. 

I'm not doubting your beliefs at all - they're yours. But don't for one second ever believe that science is about brainwashing. Unlike religion which is all about control.

I'm really frustrated that people like you could actually exist in a society that has shown over and over and over again that science isn't the evil one on Earth. Some of the things we do with Science is a bit evil... Sometimes science is used for the wrong thing.

But look at Alfred Nobel... What did he invent? Now look at what goes on with that Swedish scientist.

How is what he did 'brainwashing'?

I just don't understand (or are you trolling) that you'd consider school science as a brainwashing institute?

If we still believed what god wanted us to believe the sun would revolve around the Earth and the Earth would be the centre of the universe.

Do you still believe that dinosaurs ran around with humans some 6,000 years ago?

Do you believe that fossilised remains buried under millions of years of evidence... Layers of rock... 

Do you believe in magnetism? 

Or do I brainwash kids about that too? 

Do you know we don't really understand everything - and that's something I do tell my students. Gravity.... Magnetism... Many things in Physics are difficult to explain.

Do you know one of the reasons we're so far behind from explaining some of this stuff....?

Give you a game of hang man.... Two words...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

or...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Without those two things people like Galileo would have lived in fear of suggesting the Earth rotates around the sun and that we weren't the centre of the universe.

The universe isn't filled with the 'ether'. In fact, the universe is barely filled!



junglepython2 said:


> JPN there are many well respected religious scientists, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up one for the other. Although you do have to question the literal interpretation of the bible which by the way was written, translated and copied by man, not God himself.



Newton was well known to be very religious.... So was Galileo (very different outcomes though).


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Where did you go to school?
> 
> For one - Capital letters start a sentence. Capital letters also are used for proper nouns - Babylon is spelt with a Y and a capital B.
> 
> ...





see you think you have the right to bag religion, and yet when the tide turns you become so defensive and ticked, oh i do believe in science, and do believe it does the world of good, but your not always right, and neither am i, so dont make out you are, yes i was trolling because it ****s me to a tee when i see a frigin no it all, that simply doesnt.


----------



## Snakewoman (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> have a look at earth for one, and the way it orbits and its precision, one degree out and we are all cooked.



What do you mean by one degree out? Do you mean temperature or position to the sun? 




> If a body (like the Earth) is orbiting around the Sun, we say it is closest to the Sun at perihelion and farthest from the Sun at aphelion. In 2000,perihelion for the Earth was on January 3, 2000, and aphelion was on July 4, 2000. The Earth was 91,405,436 miles from Sun at perihelion and 94,511,989 miles from Sun at aphelion.
> 
> Earth Numbers - perihelion, aphelion? At what month is the Earth closest to the Sun? circumference? How fast is the Earth moving about its axis; how about around the Sun?


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> see you think you have the right to bag religion, and yet when the tide turns you become so defensive and ticked, oh i do believe in science, and do believe it does the world of good, but your not always right, and neither am i, so dont make out you are, yes i was trolling because it ****s me to a tee when i see a frigin no it all, that simply doesnt.



Do I know it all?

Do I know nothing?

Do I know something about nothing?

Or nothing about something?

Do I claim to know something of nothing or everything of something?

Hmmmm.... I claim evidence is biased in the favour of science and yep... I have heavily weighted my beliefs on that bias....



snakerelocation said:


> see you think you have the right to bag religion, and yet when the tide turns you become so defensive and ticked, oh i do believe in science, and do believe it does the world of good, but your not always right, and neither am i, so dont make out you are, yes i was trolling because it ****s me to a tee when i see a frigin no it all, that simply doesnt.



I've never bagged out religion I might add - but you've got your faith - I can't follow a faith that believed in wars because people blieved in different things - ie the Crusades. 

How it slowed our advancement as a scientific world. How it segregated our people and divided nations. 

Right now - macro/micro evolution is the topic - it brought up creationism, it got argumentative for a few strongly religious people. Where it appears, you'd go to war to make people believe.

Me - on the other hand, could care less what you believe - what bugs me, is the narrow minded 'believe in ghosts' attitude that continues to spread from the church about things like evolution. 

How can the people believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Really... What evidence exists that shows this is the case?

What evidence is there that proves we're from just 8 people? 

What evidence is there that suggests we didn't originate out of Africa and that we formed (sprung up bing!) from Adam and Eve, then wiped out everyone, then rejoined with Noah and his ark.

Let's look at ALL animals on Earth right now... They all came from ONE pair of animals? Is this correct?

They were then redistributed to lands (such as Australia) where they went on happily to enjoy their lives until they became extinct like the Tasmanian Tiger...

Just how can you believe this stuff - that's what I am bagging - not bagging religion at all!


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> *yes i was trolling* .



Every post ? 

Please tell the excruciatingly ignorant human gestation angle you tried was trolling


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 6, 2012)

Point of literary contention here Slim6y. Evidence is what you base your opinions on, not beleifs. Opinions require some kind of evidence, whereas beleifs require little more than superstition.


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

"I've never bagged out religion I might add - but you've got your faith - I can't follow a faith that believed in wars because people blieved in different things - ie the Crusades."

no i guess you never once bagged the bible for being full of it.
My faith doesnt believe in wars, the wars happen not because of a religion, but because people carnt accept that other people follow different beliefs, and like yourself get aggresive about it. I on the other hand do not give to hoots about what you believe, or any one else for that matter. The Bible states quite clearly that we have been given a choice to choose, and basically that goes against door knockers and the like. religious wars are not following that are they, so they are man created, not from God,

"What evidence is there that proves we're from just 8 people? " - what evidence is there to say we are not? evolution is not evidence, just an plausible option. Look at the way Australia started, that wasnt that long ago, and we originated from a small ship full of people.


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> "i've never bagged out religion i might add - but you've got your faith - i can't follow a faith that believed in wars because people blieved in different things - ie the crusades."
> 
> no i guess you never once bagged the bible for being full of it.
> My faith doesnt believe in wars, the wars happen not because of a religion, but because people carnt accept that other people follow different beliefs, and like yourself get aggresive about it. I on the other hand do not give to hoots about what you believe, or any one else for that matter. The bible states quite clearly that we have been given a choice to choose, and basically that goes against door knockers and the like. Religious wars are not following that are they, so they are man created, not from god,
> ...



hahahahahahaha!


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

Whammo.... I've just read something about Noah's Ark that MUST (surely) back up evolution...

Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? • ChristianAnswers.Net (have a good read) - could Noah's Ark really be big enough...

Now... This is where it gets interesting. Noah only required to take on board 35,000 animals according to Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? • ChristianAnswers.Net

That is merely 17,500 pairs - right (the 35,000 is individual animals).

So - EACH of these pairs went fourth and spawned, reproduced, did what they needed to do. 

Unfortunately many tree species, grasses, fungi etc were unable to survive. The remaining trees, fungi and grasses we see today are either fully evolved (eg cactuses only had 6,000 years to be able to adapt to dry conditions) or they survived the flood.

Well, let's forget that... Let's keep on with animals....

17,500 pairs.

Let's start with snakes....

(BTW - the site continues to suggest that we should allow 50,000 animals = 25,000 pairs)

I'm going to use Wiki - and you can be anti this all you like, but we'll start with this as a reference:

Snake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go down about a quarter of the page to the TABLE = FAMILIES:

Note... There's about 2,700 (give or take) species of snake... As far as I am aware - these are individual species, I'm not sure how genetically any of these could be viable mates - but that's just SNAKES! Snakes couldn't have survived otherwise....

Except maybe sea and water snakes - so that takes out a few...

Now... I'm going to stop at snakes, just because right now you can tell you'll need more than 50,000 animals (25,000 pairs) if I started going through all other family groups that would have required the ark. You can research all other families of animals that must have been required to populate the earth with current populations.

Otherwise - what you'll find, if Noah and family took just ONE pair of snakes from EACH family, then they have EVOLVED in 6,000 years to the modern snake we see and keep as our hobby now!

Pythons came from just TWO pythons. Scrubbies, spotteds, coastals, etc etc - 

Elapids all came from just TWO elapids - taipans, red bellies etc etc....

Colubrids of course, just two colubrids made ALL our current colubrids... Tell that to a BTS and GTS and a Maclealy's....

So two colubrids make: 1938 species from just over 300 genera....

Is it really possible???


----------



## Snakewoman (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation:

I would like to see you construct an argument that isn't based on fallacies. So far that's about all I've seen in your posts. Here's a site that explains what different fallacies are and gives examples:

Educational Assets | Young Australian Skeptics


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 6, 2012)

Lol you intelectual lightweight Slim6y, Macleay's are Homalopsids not Colubrids!


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

Dinosaurs:

"The Ark was a very large ship designed especially by God for its important purpose. It was so large and complex that it took Noah 120 years to build. Noah used this time to warn people about the Flood and convince them to turn to God and be saved with his family."

Did Noah take dinosaurs on the Ark? (Part 1) (The Great Dinosaur Mystery™ and the Bible) - ChristianAnswers.Net

"There is evidence that dinosaurs lived after the Flood. For instance, Job saw “behemoth” after the Flood. (Other evidences will be discussed later.)"

BRILLIANT!!!!

6,000 years ago Dinosaurs walked the Earth, for some of that time they MUST have been on the ark too... They were then wiped out!

It's no long fairytale - it's now bordering on hallucinogenic prophecies... Surely, if someone had enough faith to believe this, they are already too far gone to believe anything scientific!


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Dinosaurs:
> 
> "The Ark was a very large ship designed especially by God for its important purpose. It was so large and complex that it took Noah 120 years to build. Noah used this time to warn people about the Flood and convince them to turn to God and be saved with his family."
> 
> ...






And yes your not bagging religion, dont you have any science classes today....


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> And yes your not bagging religion, dont you have any science classes today....



I'm NOT bagging... I said it was BRILLIANT!!!

Then I said that it was bordering on hallucinogenic prophecies - well, surely no human could have come up with stories like that without the aid of some drug? Did you know the first bibles were made from cannabis?

Anyway... Bagging aside...

No... I don't have science classes today, it's been a day where students have been in seminars about, ironically, Free Choice... The choice to say NO!!! About drugs, smoking, alcohol, etc etc... 

I did teach agricultural science this morning - we looked at topography and climate. But now I am considering to see what their point of view is on the 'Ark' and whether they believe the sheep, cows, horses, goats, pigs, crops etc etc we currently have all could have come from the 'Ark'.

Then this afternoon it's SPORTS time! I'm on high jump today... Last week we got rained out so we had to move to today!

Is this ok with you?

So, while I am with my children of the Ark can you please elucidate on how species we currently have (6,000 years after the flood) did NOT evolve?

Can you also please elucidate (you may use wiki if you want) how dinosaurs were also included on the ark - we need to assume that they came from all the periods of dinosaurs that we currently believe occurred. 

I'm happy for you to now just say - no, the Ark is just a story to help people understand right from wrong... good from evil... Or, I'd like you to at least give us the evidence you believe is lacking from evolution theory.... (so called theory for your benefit).

Also, if you were to ever become a science teacher - how will you teach evolution (noting it's actually a topic in year 13 biology in NZ and also in Australian curriculum too)?

Evolution is actually a topic in Year 13 Biology - we actually TEACH it at school - how does that make you feel? Would you teach it knowing it's in the Curriculum? Or would you teach creationism knowing it is not?


----------



## saratoga (Mar 6, 2012)

I've never read so much crap!

Only 35,000 species taken on board the ark. One of the references says that one set of every kind of air-breathing animal was on board.

There are well in excess of 350,000 different types of beetles, and I believe all are airbreathing?


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> (you may use wiki if you want)



You might have to be more specific for the kid as "they" have their own wikis now.. just like creation museums... instead of real ones.


----------



## Adzo (Mar 6, 2012)

and just to lighten the mood...View attachment 241695


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 6, 2012)

BTW how did all the fresh water fish survive in a flood that covered the entire earth?


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I'm NOT bagging... I said it was BRILLIANT!!!
> 
> Then I said that it was bordering on hallucinogenic prophecies - well, surely no human could have come up with stories like that without the aid of some drug? Did you know the first bibles were made from cannabis?
> 
> ...



who stated that animals dont evolve?
also while we are at it, all you have done is try to dissprove creattion, no where have i seen you prove evolution, just mere possabilities.


----------



## saratoga (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> all you have done is try to dissprove creattion



do you mean disprove cretin?


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> *who stated that animals dont evolve?*
> also while we are at it, all you have done is try to dissprove creattion, no where have i seen you prove evolution, just mere possabilities.



Settle there petal... 

Notice I did prove evolution and disprove creation... I used a very good LINK that supports evolution to the greatest of extents.

So far you've failed to provide either a) adequate links to support your theory (I'm going to up your superstition to theory for your benefit only) or b) answered questions supporting the text book you use (the bible) - I've asked plenty of relevant questions pertaining to Noah's Ark and evolution and you've failed to answer those. And finally c) you now support evolution and not creation... Do you mind saying exactly where it is you stand? Because at present, I'm mildly confused.

So in summary... The facts presented here are in favour of evolution (not counting either micro or macro in this case), the facts for creationism appear to be non-existent and to all extent appear made up or easily disproved. 

So where do you really stand? Because in your latest statement you're suggesting animals do evolve. Humans being a particular 'animal' must therefore - evolve. Or are humans not animals now?


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> who stated that animals dont evolve?
> also while we are at it, all you have done is try to dissprove creattion, no where have i seen you prove evolution, just mere possabilities.



If the 4 years of biology you allegedly studied wasn't enough for you to see the proof, perhaps you are simply incapable of learning.

I love a good trolling.. but .. unless every post you have contributed to this thread has been a troll post in say the spirit of Poe's Law then im afraid you are just reaaaaaaally ignorant.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

saratoga said:


> I've never read so much crap!
> 
> Only 35,000 species taken on board the ark. One of the references says that one set of every kind of air-breathing animal was on board.
> 
> There are well in excess of 350,000 different types of beetles, and I believe all are airbreathing?



Did you also know the flood was for 137 days - I always thought it was 40 days and 40 nights - which would mean some grasses and trees could have survived that, but at 137 days, I'm guessing NONE could survive that - especially the likes of the cactuses. 

Algae and yeasts I'd give credit for - so this brings us straight back to evolution. 

After the flood algae would be the plants that remained. Macro-evolution in this case would suggest they branched out extremely quickly to form all the families and genera of plants that are out there today - from the early ferns to conifers, to cactus and succulents. 

From this we can also state that if Noah had taken 25,000 pairs of animals on board, they too have evolved incredibly quickly to form the current families of animals (including the snakes, which, if I recall rightly had legs before Eve took a bite of the apple). 

So we have in excess of (god only knows - scuse the pun) species of plants, animals, fungi etc that have currently inhabited the Earth all of which have evolved from the ones from Noah's Ark - yet humans did not evolve at all!!!

Amazing!!!

saratoga - I'm not sure how you can't understand that. It's plain English really... Geeeeee.... That's what I call science!!!

Incidentally - snakerelocation - how do you explain the 'skulls'? You know... Of other primative humanoid creatures? 

How many people were alive from the great floods?

If dinosaur fossils remain (assuming they weren't on the Ark) how come human fossils also remain - but very little evidence of a mass killing because of the floods (I'm assuming populations were very high 6,000 years ago and most certainly there'd be evidence of this in highly populated places).


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Mar 6, 2012)

Wow, I did not know the following, thank you christiananswers.net!



> *How could Noah’s family take care of all those animals?
> *Once aboard, many have suggested that Noah’s problems really began, with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.
> 
> *Conclusion*
> It is evident, when all the facts are examined that there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of Noah’s ark is a myth or fable. The facts support the view that Noah’s ark was large enough to carry the number of animals required to repopulate the earth after the flood and that Noah and his family were capable of caring for the animals during their time on the Ark.



There's your proof right there Slim, Australis, Saratoga, et al. Jeez, it's all right there in black and white yet you still refuse to believe! The use of the word "aestivate" alone should remove any and all doubt.


----------



## saratoga (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> saratoga - I'm not sure how you can't understand that. It's plain English really... Geeeeee.... That's what I call science!!!



I understand completely; Slim6y, you are speaking plain english and producing logical evidence based arguements (I'm on your side); unlike the utter crap being put forward by the other side!


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

saratoga said:


> I understand completely; Slim6y, you are speaking plain english and producing logical evidence based arguements (I'm on your side); unlike the utter crap being put forward by the other side!



haha... I know you're on my side mate - was being sarcastic (sorry)... Just noted the evidence above from christian answers - want to have a laugh or some 



Snake_Whisperer said:


> Wow, I did not know the following, thank you christiananswers.net!
> 
> 
> 
> There's your proof right there Slim, Australis, Saratoga, et al. Jeez, it's all right there in black and white yet you still refuse to believe! The use of the word "aestivate" alone should remove any and all doubt.



HAHAHA! What about the word 'supernaturally'?

Sorry, did you say you did biology for how many years?

Aestivation: is a state of animal dormancy, characterised by inactivity and a lowered metabolic rate, that is entered in response to high temperatures and arid conditions.

These are the EXACT same conditions that did NOT occur during the flood HAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> haha... I know you're on my side mate - was being sarcastic (sorry)... Just noted the evidence above from christian answers - want to have a laugh or some
> 
> 
> 
> ...




you know as well as i do that not all of biology and science = evolution, considering your a science teacher, right, you would know that.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

But the word aestivate certainly comes up in biology from time to time - surely?

To use it in this context is completely wrong... And then you suggested that using the word aestivate was clear evidence Noah's Ark could have existed. :facepalm:

That's pretty backward way of thinking which therefore really goes to show - who'd the ones trying to brainwash here?

I'd really like it if you or JPN could please elucidate my other questions:

1) Are humans animals?

2) do animals and plants evolve?

(we'll start with those two and then we'll move forward to question this further)


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> haha... I know you're on my side mate - was being sarcastic (sorry)... Just noted the evidence above from christian answers - want to have a laugh or some
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SHHHHHHHH!!!!! You weren't supposed to say anythink!


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

Noah's Ark (part 1 of 2) - YouTube
Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood - YouTube


----------



## Retic (Mar 6, 2012)

I reckon people should believe in what they want to but at least try and make it something with at least some credibility. Surely in this day and age no-one HONESTLY believes in Noah's Ark and the Earth being 6000 years old ? it wasn't that long ago that people believed the Earth was flat and the Sun went around the Earth.


----------



## Snakewoman (Mar 6, 2012)

Problems with taking a literal view of Noah's ark:



> In the book of Genesis, Abraham's god [AG] is depicted as regretting he'd created such wicked creatures as human beings. He favors Noah and his family but destroys most other living creatures, not just the humans whose wickedness offended him, but all animals and presumably all plants as well. AG plans to drown the whole world in a flood. To save himself and other animal species, Noah is directed to build a big boat that will save them from the flood.





> In Genesis 6:19-21, it is written:
> And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
> Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
> And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
> ...



Creationists Fight Over "Real" Noah's Ark : Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Why Isn't "Flood Geology" Accepted Today?
Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense

​


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> But the word aestivate certainly comes up in biology from time to time - surely?
> 
> To use it in this context is completely wrong... And then you suggested that using the word aestivate was clear evidence Noah's Ark could have existed. :facepalm:
> 
> ...



who used the word aestivate? I certainly did not, why would i use a a big word like that, i would use something that the general persons would know, I dont try and make out im some big know it all nob...... (no pun intended).
To answer your question-
1. science tells us that we are either plants or animals- and consider we believe everything science says... i guess yes
2. need to be more specific, everything evolves, the meaning of evolve is to undergo gradual change, everything changes.


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> who used the word aestivate? I certainly did not, why would i use a a big word like that, i would use something that the general persons would know, I dont try and make out im some big know it all nob...... (no pun intended).
> To answer your question-
> 1. science tells us that we are either plants or animals- and consider we believe everything science says... i guess yes
> 2. need to be more specific, everything evolves, the meaning of evolve is to undergo gradual change, everything changes.



The good people at christiananswers.net did. Apparently they are


> a mega-site providing biblical answers to contemporary questions for all ages and nationalities with over 45-thousand files


. I agree, they are nobs fer tryin tuh use big wurds like dat! 

P.S. How was your statement in any way a pun?


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

Snake_Whisperer said:


> The good people at christiananswers.net did. Apparently they are . I agree, they are nobs fer tryin tuh use big wurds like dat!
> 
> P.S. How was your statement in any way a pun?



thats my point, it wasnt a pun,
and as for the website you pointed out, its an american website made by who? as i said in the thread earlier, anyone can post a website, and at that post anything they want on the net, most of the time it is just someones interpretation, christian or scientist alike.


----------



## waruikazi (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> thats my point, it wasnt a pun,
> and as for the website you pointed out, its an american website made by who? as i said in the thread earlier, anyone can post a website, and at that post anything they want on the net, most of the time it is just someones interpretation, christian or scientist alike.



But with scientists or anybody writing factual texts, they show the data that they interpreted and that data they use is usually shown to be credible.


----------



## Wally (Mar 6, 2012)

Gold star to slim6y for perseverance.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> who used the word aestivate? I certainly did not, why would i use a a big word like that, i would use something that the general persons would know, I dont try and make out im some big know it all nob...... (no pun intended).
> To answer your question-
> 1. science tells us that we are either plants or animals- and consider we believe everything science says... i guess yes
> 2. need to be more specific, everything evolves, the meaning of evolve is to undergo gradual change, everything changes.



Science tells us that we are either plants or animals - what does snakerelocation tell us? Are we plants? Or animals? Or, in your view, neither? Can you be specific with YOUR views on this matter (no trolling, just YOUR views)?

As evolution goes, we're talking about evolution of species - such as evolution from single celled algae to full grown conifers - all evolving from prokaryotes... (I'll skip the necessities of this and hope you'll answer the simple question about whether or not you believe plants and animals evolved from prokaryotes and eukaryotes...) 

Need I be more specific than that? My guess is you were stalling for a reasonable answer - because you KNEW what I meant. I'd now like a truthful and honest answer - Do you believe PLANTS and ANIMALS evolved from lower single celled organisms - start with the obvious - plants evolved from prokaryotes to form algae, bryophytes, followed by the vascular plants... Etc


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> But with scientists or anybody writing factual texts, they show the data that they interpreted and that data they use is usually shown to be credible.



Don't even try explaining peer review to him :lol: i doubt he could comprehend the distinction between a peer reviewed source and some $10 creationist blog.


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

Australis said:


> Don't even try explaining peer review to him :lol: i doubt he could comprehend the distinction between a peer reviewed source and some $10 creationist blog.



oh you hurt my feeling you imature twit.
not


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

Just ignore them snakerelocation and answer the questions posed to you - what is it YOU believe... Please help me out here. I'm struggling to see the relevance of your claims about creationism... PM JPN if you want extra help - the equivalent of phone a creationism friend...

It may feel like you're outnumbered on this site, which, clearly you are, but that's because you haven't actually stated why it is you believe the stuff you do believe and why it is you don't believe the rubbish they teach you at school (which is basically the way you put it).

So - are humans animals? 

Did humans evolve?

Simple questions - yes or no answers... Use previous posts here to guide you on how to answer these questions about what I mean by evolve....


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Science tells us that we are either plants or animals - what does snakerelocation tell us? Are we plants? Or animals? Or, in your view, neither? Can you be specific with YOUR views on this matter (no trolling, just YOUR views)?
> 
> As evolution goes, we're talking about evolution of species - such as evolution from single celled algae to full grown conifers - all evolving from prokaryotes... (I'll skip the necessities of this and hope you'll answer the simple question about whether or not you believe plants and animals evolved from prokaryotes and eukaryotes...)
> 
> Need I be more specific than that? My guess is you were stalling for a reasonable answer - because you KNEW what I meant. I'd now like a truthful and honest answer - Do you believe PLANTS and ANIMALS evolved from lower single celled organisms - start with the obvious - plants evolved from prokaryotes to form algae, bryophytes, followed by the vascular plants... Etc




Im not stalling for anything, nor am i looking up words and meanings, or am i trying to make out that im some top dog teacher, teaching so called proven "facts", i dont preach, and i certainly dont make out that i have the only answer. mate if you want to believe you came from slime, then good for you. I dont.
and thats my view. you are no different to a typical bible basher thinking they have it all.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> Im not stalling for anything, nor am i looking up words and meanings, or am i trying to make out that im some top dog teacher, teaching so called proven "facts", i dont preach, and i certainly dont make out that i have the only answer. mate if you want to believe you came from slime, then good for you. I dont.
> and thats my view. you are no different to a typical bible basher thinking they have it all.



Settle down there tiger....

I'm not a dog... My dog is a dog, but I think we've had this discussion on other threads... Everybody, SLiM6y has a dog... ok???

Which therefore means I can't be a top dog teacher... So therefore I don't make out I am a top dog teacher....

Above all... I need to re-point out this very interesting fact... I teach PHYSICS... Ok??? I don't teach about evolution... I teach sexual reproduction, natural selection, some on genetics, etc etc for agriculture. But I do not talk about how humans farmed dinosaurs. 

I also don't preach.

I also point out I know just limited amounts of very useful information in order to pass NCEA level 1, 2 and 3 and hopefully help them on their first year of University to become analytical adults.

My job isn't just to teach - it's to teach to question.

I hope you understand that.

I see you possibly do - you seem to question the facts with evidence rather than the facts without....

If I believe we come from prokaryotic cellular life - then so be it too - Slime... Hmmmm.... Seems so hard to fathom really doesn't it?

I'm clearly not a bible basher therefore I am guessing I'm rather different to one. As far as having it all goes - I already told you - I have a dog... But I don't have a cat... So I definitely don't have it all... The next door neighbour has a cat - will that count?


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Settle down there tiger....
> 
> I'm not a dog... My dog is a dog, but I think we've had this discussion on other threads... Everybody, SLiM6y has a dog... ok???
> 
> ...



mate if you had a cat you still wouldnt have it all, cats are only good for dim sims with soy sauce. or maybe in a hangi, with pork and poatatoes.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 6, 2012)

never tried cat in a hangi... but the next door neighbour has three cats... and I think she's maori too... She might have a good recipe - they look too skinny... And I've been put off food seeing as I just discovered it all evolved from slime....


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

So in a nutshell you reject the work of decades of brilliant scientists for two primary reason..

1) Its too difficult for you to comprehend.
2) You dislike the conclusion. 

If you want to talk arrogance and "know it all" mentalities.. you have elevated the "opinion" you hold above that of virtually the entire scientific collective worldwide across multiple disciplines.. .and you don't have a leg to stand on to support these "ideas".


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

Australis said:


> So in a nutshell you reject the work of decades of brilliant scientists for two primary reason..
> 
> 1) Its too difficult for you to comprehend.
> 2) You dislike the conclusion.
> ...



Um yep thats what i said, oh hang on, no i didnt. 
slim6y has put in a good fair fight with "facts" 
oh bother, slim6y you are right. now i am starting to believe we do come from slime.
some have just evolved quicker than others........


----------



## Darlyn (Mar 6, 2012)

Good god, hasn't this thread evolved?


----------



## Snakewoman (Mar 6, 2012)

Darlyn said:


> Good god, hasn't this thread evolved?



Kind of


----------



## Australis (Mar 6, 2012)

Admittedly trying to make any sense of what you have been posting is fairly difficult.. but i think point 1 & 2 sums it up. 
The way you refer to an evolutionary origin as some kind of "slime" only adds to the impression that you hold some dislike of the notion. 

If we did come from some "slime" resembling substance so what ?


----------



## Darlyn (Mar 6, 2012)

Oops, forgot the caption had a swear word in it, I can't delete it


Phew, that was naughty


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

Australis said:


> Admittedly trying to make any sense of what you have been posting is fairly difficult.. but i think point 1 & 2 sums it up.
> The way you refer to an evolutionary origin as some kind of "slime" only adds to the impression that you hold some dislike of the notion.
> 
> If we did come from some "slime" resembling substance so what ?




***** and clay mate.


----------



## Donkey_Kong (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> Um yep thats what i said, oh hang on, no i didnt.
> slim6y has put in a good fair fight with "facts"
> oh bother, slim6y you are right. now i am starting to believe we do come from slime.
> some have just evolved quicker than others........



you may not have said it, but it's essentially what you have done..

for what it's worth i think you're doing far more harm to the argument of the creationist in this thread which you seem to side with than you are to disprove these so called "facts" that you're seemingly so vehemently against..


----------



## snakerelocation (Mar 6, 2012)

Donkey_Kong said:


> you may not have said it, but it's essentially what you have done..
> 
> for what it's worth i think you're doing far more harm to the argument of the creationist in this thread which you seem to side with than you are to disprove these so called "facts" that you're seemingly so vehemently against..




im not trying to disprove anything, just saying it how it is, im not saying evolution isnt possible, just believe there had to be a alpha before the beta gamma delta. for evolution to work there still has to be a beginning.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> mate if you want to believe you came from slime, then good for you. I dont.


It's not about what we want to believe. It's what we _should_ believe; the direction in which the facts point. And if the facts pointed in the direction of us having evolved from slime, then it would be rational to believe that. Though we need to allow the possibility that new evidence will come along and show that we actually evolved from prokaryotes with little more than a cell wall; their DNA free-floating around within its confines. In that sense our beliefs should be provisional.


----------



## saratoga (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> My job isn't just to teach - it's to teach to question.



Thank God for that!


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Mar 6, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> im not trying to disprove anything, just saying it how it is, im not saying evolution isnt possible, just believe there had to be a alpha before the beta gamma delta. for evolution to work there still has to be a beginning.



You're saying that the timeline relating to the scientific theory of the big bang is incorrect, based on your belief in creationism. Yes? (Just clearing it up for everyone else in the thread.)

Creationism (the modern classification) was an attempt that started in the 1960's to stop people from questioning our beginnings. While I'm more than happy to debate with the many denominations in this world, I have almost zero respect for those that claim creationism is a logical, solid arguement for their beliefs. Christianity, Catholism... they're all about believing; that you can trust that there is a higher power watching over you, providing a moral compass for you to live by, and that when you die there's an after life waiting for you. 

What's wrong with believing that there is something else out there, but also understanding that a BOOK WRITTEN BY HUMANS isn't a factual account? That maybe, just maybe, this ancient Earth, the universe, and everything beyond that is just so vast that it'll take us thousands of years (still) to comprehend? That it should be something to learn from, but not preach truth from? 

Oh right, people are weak and gullible fools.

And for future reference, Science is a guide, not a religion. Stop behaving like it is one.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Mar 6, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Hang on a sec there.... I teach science... Are you telling me I'm part of the brainwashing society that isn't the 'church'?
> 
> Don't you think churches brainwash our kids of the day in far worse fashion?
> 
> ...


this sounds a bit far fetched??? More info and PROOF...as you call it...



junglepython2 said:


> JPN there are many well respected religious scientists, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up one for the other. Although you do have to question the literal interpretation of the bible which by the way was written, translated and copied by man, not God himself.


Totally agree with you that science and religion are not mutually exclusive...


----------



## slim6y (Mar 7, 2012)

Proof of what exactly JPN? The time difference in a day after serious earthquakes?

Firstly I'll start off with - what do you know about rotational motion?

Let's take a great example of a merry-go-round with four places for individual kids to stand on opposite sides.

Let's start with all four kids on the outside of the merry-go-round and we'll get a decent runner to spin it for them.

Weeeeeee they go... As they spin around. 

They maintain a constant speed (for a few seconds) before we ask ONE of the kids to move to the centre of the merry-go-round from the outside.

What happens?

Try it yourself if you want?

Why not do it on your office chair - spin around with your legs out and then bring your legs in really fast.

So - what happens?

You sped up didn't you?

So, let's continue with my rotational motion lesson and why not let's start with all the four kids as close to the centre of the merry-go-round as possible. 

Spin it. Get it to a constant speed.

Now, one of the kids moves to the outside.... What happens?

The merry-go-round slows down.

This same effect can occur when large masses of the Earth move (particularly outward).

One thing I was wrong about was that the Earth slowed down because of the earthquakes. I didn't take into consideration that the earthquake caused massive amounts of movement towards the centre of the Earth, thus speeding up the Earth's spin, not slowing it down.

The Chilean earthquake also had similar effects.

This man here (from NASA) is one of the men who calculated the speed of the Earth after the Japanese earthquake:

Science and Technology

From NASA: NASA - NASA Details Earthquake Effects on the Earth


----------



## Australis (Mar 7, 2012)

Clean cut case against "intelligent design" the laryngeal nerve. This example also demonstrates a link between mammals and fish.
Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe - YouTube

If you want to watch a more in-depth video on "Intelligent design" vs real science..
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design - YouTube 


> Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller basically rips Intelligent Design apart in a 2 hour long exposé of the claims of intelligent design and the tactics that creationists employ to get it shoehorned into the American school system.



Intelligent design or irreducible complexity are NOT scientific theories. If you disagree please provide reference to published papers supporting either "theory" in a respectable peer reviewed science journal.


----------



## Mark Newton (Mar 24, 2012)

I don't 'believe' in macroevolution, I understand it and realise it to be fact. 'Believing' is having faith where knowledge does not exist.


----------



## SYNeR (Mar 25, 2012)

I really don't see the point in this thread. The only time I've seen the terms micro and macro evolution used is by creationists.
Macro-evolution is micro-evolution. The only real debate, as I see it, is around speciation.


http://i.imgur.com/oAnfA.jpg




snakerelocation said:


> im not trying to disprove anything, just saying it how it is, im not saying evolution isnt possible, just believe there had to be a alpha before the beta gamma delta. for evolution to work there still has to be a beginning.




Yes, abiogenesis - whereby chemistry becomes biology and self-replicating molecules such as DNA and its early precepts start the process of evolution by natural selection.


I have nothing to say on the subject without wasting breath, as this has all been documented and referenced by far greater people than myself (scientists) in numerous places numerous times. So, here's a web site:


TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy


An Index to Creationist Claims


or, more specifically relating to the thread topic:


CB901: No Macroevolution

For those like myself who aren't so scientifically-minded, check out John Conway's 'The Game of Life'.. It illustrates how self-replicating 'entities' within some system (or set of physics) evolve over time, how patterns form, etc..

Conway's Game of Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 26, 2012)

SYNeR said:


> I really don't see the point in this thread. The only time I've seen the terms micro and macro evolution used is by creationists.


'Macroevolution' is simply 'microevolution' extrapolated over long periods of time. So to the orthodox Darwinian, to accept one entails acceptance of the other. However, creationists accept that evolution can occur within a relatively fixed 'type', but that new species cannot arise (i.e. speciation). That is why I made the dichotomy, even though it is basically never made by anybody other than those who disagree that evolution can create new species. If I had of simply asked whether people believe in evolution then we would have had a lot of 'microevolution but not macroevolution' responses, so I thought I'd pre-empt them.


----------



## SYNeR (Mar 26, 2012)

There is no dichotomy whatsoever.

It's a basic process of induction that small changes over larger periods of time will result in large changes.

For a creationist, it's kind of like denying ageing & death whilst acknowledging ageing on a smaller timeframe..
Eternal youth!

Really, the idea of Platonic "forms" (which is really all creationists are spouting/recycling) has been rejected by anyone sane across all areas
of life and disciplines for centuries now.

The irony is that the only "forms" that exist eternally are the same rehashed creationist arguments and false dichotomies that reappear time & time again.


----------



## Surroundx (Mar 26, 2012)

SYNeR said:


> There is no dichotomy whatsoever.


What I meant was distinction, sorry.

Earlier you wrote:

_"The only time I've seen the terms micro and macro evolution used is by creationists."_

Just perusing John Endler's _Natural Selection in the Wild_ (1986) and found that he mentions both on pp. 7 when discussing the definition of 'evolution' population geneticists use.


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 30, 2012)

One for austy...


----------



## moosenoose (Mar 30, 2012)

The less I know about things, the better


----------



## Skeptic (Apr 11, 2012)

Well, there really is no such thing as micro vs macro evolution in the context you put it in. Micro and macro evolution are terms invented by the proponents of intelligent design to confuse the subject. The only difference between the two is time. And anyway, reality doesn't give a **** about your beliefs.


----------



## Surroundx (Apr 11, 2012)

Skeptic said:


> Well, there really is no such thing as micro vs macro evolution in the context you put it in. The only difference between the two is time.


Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution over time. To any orthodox Darwinian, to accept one but not the other is preposterous. However, as many people (creationists in the general sense) do not accept that evolution can produce new species (speciation), but do believe that evolution can occur within a relatively fixed "type", I decided to make the distinction to prevent the inevitable complications which naturally arise during discussions on evolution.



Skeptic said:


> Micro and macro evolution are terms invented by the proponents of intelligent design to confuse the subject.



Regarding "micro-" and "macroevolution" being terms invented by proponents of the "intelligent design" movement, _as far as I can tell_ the two terms pre-date the official inauguration of the movement by at least several years. According to (Scott, 2005: 116) the movements origin can be pinpointed as the publication of _The Mystery of Life's Origin_ (Thaxton et. al. 1984). References to both micro- and macroevolution date back to at least 1980 (Roger Lewin cited in Scott, 2005: 185), and who knows how much earlier again.

*References:*

Scott, Eugenie C. (2005). _Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction_, paperback edition. London, England and Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L. and Olsen, Roger L. (1984). _The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories_. New York: Philosophical Library.


----------



## Skeptic (Apr 11, 2012)

Surroundx said:


> Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution over time. To any orthodox Darwinian, to accept one but not the other is preposterous. However, as many people (creationists in the general sense) do not accept that evolution can produce new species (speciation), but do believe that evolution can occur within a relatively fixed "type", I decided to make the distinction to prevent the inevitable complications which naturally arise during discussions on evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well we seem to agree that the only difference between the two is time. However, when you say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both, I say that any orthodox Darwinian sees the terms as a false dichotomy. And you are right in correcting me that proponents of intelligent design didn't actually invent the terms micro and macro evolution. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution ​_Variabilität und Variation. _However, modern day proponents of I.D have re-invented the terms to present their idea's as scientific and credible when they are not. Also, even though you say the I.D movement started in 1984, this was only when they dumped the term creationism and took on the new title I.D in an attempt to sneak back into the education system. 

As for my last remark, "Reality doesn't give a **** about your beliefs". That's just a saying. I wasn't referring to your beliefs.

BTW, I'm a big fan of Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and think without them, education in the U.S would be in a sorrier state.


----------



## jeffa_8 (Apr 11, 2012)

Wrightpython said:


> There is enough scientific material to totally prove Evolution not just microevolution. If stuff did not evolve then we wouldnt have the animals we have today after the meteor hit and wiped out 90% of the planet. They can prove certain types of marine life are unchanged in 135 million years and crocs have been around for millenia but mammals as we know are only in the last million years give or take a week. Humans are the best example of micro evolution, we get faster taller stronger every generation or so this is evolving and as its on a tiny basis it is microevolution. Take legless lizards, did they evolve without legs abd are still growing them threw evolution or did they have them and are losing them thru evolution, we wont know for another ten thousand years or do we. Even the most religious of folk must believe in some evolution.



Why would we be evolving and becoming faster, taller and stronger when we use more machinery and technology now than ever? It contradicts what people are saying in that there needs to be a necesity for evolution. I dont believe that a species can completely change to another. One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages. Its the same with dogs they are bred for their traits buts the species doesn't change.


----------



## Skeptic (Apr 11, 2012)

jeffa_8 said:


> I dont believe that a species can completely change to another. One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages.



One experiment done over the career of one scientist doesn't disprove evolution. Give it a few million years and it won't be the same species. You've got to remember that evolution has been playing out since the dawn of life some 4 billion years ago. A time frame that's hard for a human to contemplate.


----------



## Surroundx (Apr 12, 2012)

jeffa_8 said:


> One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages. Its the same with dogs they are bred for their traits buts the species doesn't change.


Any given species cannot just turn into a new species, even given thousands of years or even hundreds of thousands of years (or more again). Phenotypic plasticity is only finite for any given organism, and especially limited for some species depending upon their morphology and physiology. Look up "developmental constraint" on Google.



Skeptic said:


> Well we seem to agree that the only difference between the two is time.


The only difference between the two is that one is the accumulation of the other _over_ time. So I wouldn't say that the difference is time. The difference is the number of genetic changes.



Skeptic said:


> However, when you say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both, I say that any orthodox Darwinian sees the terms as a false dichotomy.


I didn't actually say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both. I made what I think is a slightly lesser claim that, on the practical level, it is a preposterous notion to accept one but not the other in the eyes of an orthodox Darwinian. I don't know if that makes any difference, but I was allowing for the fact that somebody would object if I made such a seemingly overconfident statement. Perhaps some orthodox Darwinists do not believe it necessary to accept both, though obviously they themselves do accept the reality of both.



Skeptic said:


> And you are right in correcting me that proponents of intelligent design didn't actually invent the terms micro and macro evolution. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution ​_Variabilität und Variation. _However, modern day proponents of I.D have re-invented the terms to present their idea's as scientific and credible when they are not.​


​I wasn't aware that the terms had such vintage as 1927, same year Parliament House, Canberra, opened. Thanks for the consciousness-raising 



Skeptic said:


> Also, even though you say the I.D movement started in 1984, this was only when they dumped the term creationism and took on the new title I.D in an attempt to sneak back into the education system.


Eugenie Scott is the one who states that the movement began in 1984. I was simply quoting her on it, as somewhat of an authority figure. Though of course authorities can be wrong, and science is by its very nature provisional.



Skeptic said:


> As for my last remark, "Reality doesn't give a **** about your beliefs". That's just a saying. I wasn't referring to your beliefs.


I though as much, which is why I didn't not mention it in my reply 



Skeptic said:


> BTW, I'm a big fan of Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and think without them, education in the U.S would be in a sorrier state.


Amen to that!


----------

