|
Post by las logged out on Sept 5, 2007 17:09:56 GMT -5
DNA Research has proven that evolution is false. If so, then why do scientists continue to accept evolution as fact?
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Sept 5, 2007 18:27:56 GMT -5
be careful who you listen, to las. DNA research almost conclusively proves evolution, and is perhaps our most reliable way of tracing our own evolutionary roots.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 6, 2007 15:00:16 GMT -5
be careful who you listen, to las. DNA research almost conclusively proves evolution, and is perhaps our most reliable way of tracing our own evolutionary roots. Balognia
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 6, 2007 18:56:08 GMT -5
Christians make themselves look like fools by denying evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory it is a fact. how it works is still largly theory though, but scientists are gradually filling in the spaces. There is no reason why one cannot believe in God and Jesus and still believe that things evolve. Many folks do. they just consider it one of the "tools" god uses! Ed
|
|
|
Post by Laughter on Sept 6, 2007 19:07:25 GMT -5
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ha h a ha haaaaahahaha
You're soooooo funny.
(and ignorant)
hee hee heeeee
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 6, 2007 19:10:53 GMT -5
Funny maybe........... But far fron ignorant!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Laughter on Sept 6, 2007 19:12:46 GMT -5
Ignorant people keep denying God because they do not want God's judgment on their life.
All "scientists" who believe in "the theory of evolution" are liars and deceived.
Hard/real/true science can prove the age of the earth and that it was created.
There are many kinds of animals and plants and you cannot breed a monkey with a plant not a lichen with a hippo.
There are many "time pieces" on this planet that tell when the great flood happened. These time pieces change at specific rates and when you calculate time based on these rates, you can tell about how long ago it was to the great flood. The Bible is an awesome history book on this.
- heee he heeeeee
Evolutionist are such proud ignorants sons of devils when God has manifested hard evidence in rock and geological structures and fossils.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 6, 2007 19:16:59 GMT -5
Ignorant people are those who make sweeping comments without signing their name to them.
|
|
|
Post by you are a liar on Sept 6, 2007 19:28:02 GMT -5
Ignorant people are those who make sweeping comments without signing their name to them. That is not true. Do not redefine words to your liking. Definitions of ignorant on the Web: uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication; "an ignorant man"; "nescient of contemporary literature"; "an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issues"; "exhibiting contempt for his unlettered companions" uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field; "she is ignorant of quantum mechanics"; "he is musically illiterate" unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge; "he was completely ignorant of the circumstances"; "an unknowledgeable assistant"; "his rudeness was unwitting" -you are a liar too
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 6, 2007 19:34:55 GMT -5
look like it's a good thing I don't know you. we certainly could never be friends. I have never called anyone either ignorant or a liar whom I have only known for 10 minutes. someone who would do that doesn't rate very high with me. Ed Service
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 6, 2007 19:57:23 GMT -5
t is impossible to prove that the theory of evolution is absolutely true. The theory maintains that plant evolution, animal evolution and the major geological changes to the earth unfolded over billions of years. Thus, the full theory cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory. Processes like the rise of mountains and erosion are simply too slow to be observed during one person's lifetime. Elements of the theory (e.g. species evolution of fruit flies in the laboratory and of Tilapia fish in East African lakes) have been observed. But nobody was on hand to observe what the world and its life forms looked like hundreds of millions of years ago.
However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology.
From Religious tolerance.org Ed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2007 7:02:07 GMT -5
Las, where did you get this "DNA Research has proven that evolution is false"? If there was such "proof" then scientists would not accept evolution. There is no such proof. DNA supports evolution. DNA is the driver of evolution. And remember, the last "missing link" in the hominid line we belong to is our friend Homo sapien idaltu? He lived 100,000 years ago in Ethiopia. Possibly the last sub-species before ourselves, Homo sapien sapien. [/img][/center]
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 7, 2007 7:50:44 GMT -5
Christians make themselves look like fools by denying evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory it is a fact. how it works is still largly theory though, but scientists are gradually filling in the spaces. How evolution "works" is utter conjecture. No scientist has yet put forward a workable, plausible theory explaining how inanimate compounds and chemicals could bind together to produce a single living cell with sufficient complexity to reproduce. No scientist has yet been able to demonstrate how amino proteins could enter existence in the unfavourable environmental conditions that allegedly existed during the alleged billions of years ago. The Miller-Urey experiments did produce a number of amino-acids, but only in laboratory conditions most scientists agree is not consistent with environmental factors as they are now understood. No scientist had yet been able to offer any workable solution to the problem of the innate complexity required for a self-sustaining cell, and the fact that the simplest self-sustaining cell known to man contains many organelles comprised of incredibly delicate sub-structures. Escherichia coli, one of the simplest single-celled organisms known to man. Note the array of flagellum, themselves incredibly complex structures.A conceptual diagram of the flagellum of Escherichia coli. Remember that this structure, designed to aid the organism's propulsion, is merely one organelle which is absolutely necessary to reproduction. A stationary cell, unable to move, will find it difficult to obtain sufficient food and therfore energy required to perform mitosis (cell division in which the nucleus divides leaving equal number of chromosomes in the two daughter nuclei). A cell that cannot move away from the sister cell after mitosis is doomed to the slow starvation of over-population.The oft-repeated claim that scientists are even at this moment "filling in the gaps" is really an admission of two things. First, that the theory has gaping black holes that cannot even be hidden from public scrutinty, and second, that many scientists hold evolution to the status of "theory" even though the conceptual basis has not yet been adequately proven or theorised in a workable way. Scientists have had more than a hundred and fifty years to "fill in the gaps". Ironically, Charles Darwin, the originator of the concept in modern times himself excused the flaws in his theory by simply stating that given sufficient time, answers would be found. There is no reason why one cannot believe in God and Jesus and still believe that things evolve. Many folks do. they just consider it one of the "tools" god uses!Theistic Evolution presents a violent disharmony with the theology of scripture, which presents death "as the last enemy", not the creative force from which life is fashioned. Theology bespeaks the need of a Saviour to overcome sin which entered the world through Eden; but if there was no Adam and no Eve then the basis upon which the Christian faith stands is removed and the Faith is a nonsense. It is impossible to prove that the theory of evolution is absolutely true.This is the first assertion yet made with which I would wholeheartedly agree. Despite the fact that evolution can never be proven, and that no evidence of changes (macroevolution, not microevolution which is a fact) within populations have ever been demonstrated even by Neo-Darwinists in their fruitfly experiments (some of which have run for decades), you still claim the theory is a fact. Talk about building on the sand! The theory maintains that plant evolution, animal evolution and the major geological changes to the earth unfolded over billions of years. That's old hat! Some Natural Scientists now believe that, notwithstanding the huge age now ascribed to earth of billions and billions of years, that it is functionally impossible for this relatively "short" time to produce anything resembling basic DNA. There is now a suggestion that biological material was deposited on earth from an extra-terrestrial source, such as a meteorite. Another theory suggests that evolution went through stages of languity and apathy, and then brief (i.e. millions of years) of rapid development. This is the "Punctuated Equilibrium" model popularised by the late Stephen Jay Gould. Thus, the full theory cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory.Because evolution cannot be categorised among the empirical sciences which can be demonstrated. Evolution must be classified as "origins science" and must forever remain in the realm of theory, describing events which happened long before any human being was around. In other words, drop a stone and you see it fall. Newton's Laws of Gravitation follow. It is repeatable. It is observable. It is science. But, on the other hand, a monkey in a jungle grows a tail billions of years ago, and it cannot be repeated, it cannot be observed, and therefore is not science as science has been understood for the past couple of centuries. Evolution is something else. Processes like the rise of mountains and erosion are simply too slow to be observed during one person's lifetime. Elements of the theory (e.g. species evolution of fruit flies in the laboratory and of Tilapia fish in East African lakes) have been observed.I follow evolutionary news with a passion. Could you please outline which elements of macroevolutionary theory have been observed in fruit-fly experiments? But nobody was on hand to observe what the world and its life forms looked like hundreds of millions of years ago.Ergo, it is not real science. However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology. Virtually a word-for-word repeat of what popular science journals will argue (written and edited by people who are more philosophers of science than scientists within a discipline). Because most scientists believe in the theory, therefore you should as well. Consenses = truth, right? Yet time and experience have shown that evolutionary science is prone to the most embarassing blunders and revisionism of any scientific enterprise. Piltdown Man, for instance, which was believed to be a real human ancestor for over fifty years before being identified as a hoax. Or the ridiculous saga of the Leakey's "Lucy", which increasingly looks to be a kind of extinct chimpanzee, but which for a long time was hailed as "our grandmother", human ancestory, and transitory form between the ape-like creatures and upright humans. The feeble efforts of some in the scientific community to rehabilitate Lucy (including the laughable statements of Richard Leaky himsef) have not stopped the imminent reclassification of the remains of the venerable chimp. The idea that evolution is "the key unifying concept" of science is plain silly. Scientists across a variety of disciplines may pay lip-service to evolution, but no scientific discovery has ever been dependant on evolution. No one can point to any significant advance in Medical Science, Geology, or Biology (or any other field) that required a knowledge of evolution; all scientists are able to function effectively and successfully without the theory, which suggests that it is not quite the "key unifying concept" (whatever that might mean) as evolutionary apologists love to project. It is true, however, the evolution is "the theory of absolutely everything". You will find just about everything in the modern world explained in the terms of evolution (although the vast majority of people - even those who speak in support of the theory - know virtually nothing about it and would not be able to engage in any meaningful discussion on its strengths and weaknesses as a theory). Bill Clinton's behaviour is explained in terms of evolution: " the powerful pack leader hogs the mates"; adolescent stupidity: " young males irritate their elders to test their strength of resolve in the social pack" etc, etc, etc. And a theory of absolutely everything is really a theory of absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Visiting on Sept 7, 2007 7:57:19 GMT -5
I have always found it interesting that the events proposed in the theory of Evoloution follow very closely to the order that is recorded of Creation. I don't believe that the 7 day time scale was literally 7 24 hour days, as in the light of eternity a billion years is a relatively short period of time and could be viewed as a day. And it makes one feel even more insignificant to think that God most likely laboured for this period of time to create earth as we know it.
There is ample evidence to support the theory of evolution, however there are also many, many gaps, and the "intelligent design theory" is becoming quite prevelant, where the theory of evolution is thought to be the mechanism used by an intelligent creator - ie God. The reality is that life was created from the dust either way, just as in the account of Creation.
The theory of Evolution is no reason to doubt the existance of God, and I have found that studying it and the complexity of life function only serves to create a deeper faith in God, the creator of all things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2007 8:01:18 GMT -5
Interesting examples of evolution abound in Australia. The main one at the moment is the cane toad. This feral pest is spreading across the country. Those toads with longer legs are at the edge of the "invasion front" and colonise new areas faster. Short legged toads find new territories are occupied, and die out. So we have a "new" type of toad.
And some snakes are evolving in response to this toad. Those snakes which have smaller heads, and thus can't swallow the large toads, are less likely to die of poisoning. Thus we are seeing a "new" type of small headed snake.
This is how God's creation works, and frankly, I find it amazing.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 7, 2007 8:17:34 GMT -5
Interesting examples of evolution abound in Australia.
These are examples of microevolution, or Natural Selection. All Christians should accept the reality of Natural Selection because it can be seen, observed, and concrete data exists about the environmental effects upon populations.
This is quite different to macroevolution - the "goo to you" theory.
The main one at the moment is the cane toad. This feral pest is spreading across the country. Those toads with longer legs are at the edge of the "invasion front" and colonise new areas faster. Short legged toads find new territories are occupied, and die out. So we have a "new" type of toad.
I have to respectfully disagree, Bert. The cane toad is still a distinct species incapable of breeding with any other organisms save those of its own population. And the essential structures of the toad have no changed. It has not sprouted wings, for example.
Should environmental changes occur in which this is no longer the most favourable "design" of the toad, the present dominant genotype for long-legged toads will become again recessive within the population, and the short-legged genotype will be prevalent once more.
And some snakes are evolving in response to this toad. Those snakes which have smaller heads, and thus can't swallow the large toads, are less likely to die of poisoning. Thus we are seeing a "new" type of small headed snake.
Again, Natural Selection.
This is how God's creation works, and frankly, I find it amazing.
I agree! The self-adjustment mechanism God has included in the living creatures he has made is truly amazing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2007 8:35:29 GMT -5
quote - "... The cane toad is still a distinct species incapable of breeding with any other organisms save those of its own population. And the essential structures of the toad have no changed. It has not sprouted wings, for example." Given time a species genome can be so significantly altered as to make it impossible to have viable offspring with its parent species. Our Aussie rabbit is larger and redder than its European ancestors. It would take a long time before it became a different species.
quote - "Should environmental changes occur in which this is no longer the most favourable "design" of the toad, the present dominant genotype for long-legged toads will become again recessive within the population, and the short-legged genotype will be prevalent once more. Agree, and that happens often ( but not always!)
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 7, 2007 9:58:52 GMT -5
Christians make themselves look like fools by denying evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory it is a fact. how it works is still largly theory though, but scientists are gradually filling in the spaces. There is no reason why one cannot believe in God and Jesus and still believe that things evolve. Many folks do. they just consider it one of the "tools" god uses! Ed Evolution is a lie
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 7, 2007 10:02:58 GMT -5
There is no way for example that a certain species lets say could ever evolve it needs all it's body parts all at once to survive eh? what happens to a human when he dies he starts to stink eh? Wake up
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 7, 2007 13:35:16 GMT -5
I hope your salvation doesn't depend on evolution being false Lloyd. evolution, just like the order of the solar system, will be proven someday, in spite of what folks chose to believe! At one time people staked their reputation on believind the world was flat! many even died because they claimed it was round AND revolved aroud the sun, contrary to what the established religions were so positive about! Ed
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 7, 2007 18:27:53 GMT -5
I hope your salvation doesn't depend on evolution being false Lloyd. evolution, just like the order of the solar system, will be proven someday, in spite of what folks chose to believe!
You have an incredible faith in scientists, those fallible human beings, who, contrary to the opinions of some, do not become prophets not subject to sin and deceit because they wear a white coat and have a three-year degree.
"It will be proven someday". The same phrase found in the mouths of all those who wish wholeheartedly that some pet idea will be found to be fact. I used to say similar things to my mother about the mysterious, human-sized, tin-soldier which appeared in my bedroom one night.
At one time people staked their reputation on believind the world was flat!
Flat-earth theories were not nearly as widespread or fervently believed as evolutionists would have us think.
...many even died because they claimed it was round AND revolved aroud the sun, contrary to what the established religions were so positive about!
Not the old "enlightened-scientists-versus-the-idiot-clergy" routine! Not the old "many-died-for-speaking-scientific-truth" routine! Absolute nonsense to anyone with half an understanding of Church History, and history itself!
The ancients had some weird ideas, of course. The Babylonians concieved of the world as hollow, and the Egpytians thought the world was square. But the Greeks, through the logic of Aristotle, thought of the world as spherical - a point of view accepted by the Early Church. This was supported by Eratosthenes and Poseidonius, who first measured the size of the earth, and demonstrated it was a sphere by measuring the angle of sunlight falling at different places during solstice.
The concept of a flat earth was promoted throughout the centuries by a handful of "scholars" whom the Church by-and-large ignored. Most people held to the concept of a spherical world, but evolutionists prefer the folk of history to be a superstitious, muddle-headed lot, bound in ignorance by power-crazed clergy:
Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."
I wish these evolutionists would publish some names of those allegedly "put to death" for their round-earth theories. But I suppose that all manner of lies, distortions and inaccuracies are permissable for the sake of the Theory, which is due to be proved any day now...
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 8, 2007 6:21:14 GMT -5
Bump. (Important issue).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2007 6:25:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 11:39:10 GMT -5
quote from Las - "There is no way for example that a certain species lets say could ever evolve it needs all it's body parts all at once to survive eh?" Las, don't leave us!
quote - "what happens to a human when he dies he starts to stink eh? Wake up" Ever! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maybe Bert can answer question how a animal or human can live with only half it's body parts if evolution is true?while waiting to evolve huh lol
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Sept 8, 2007 13:38:46 GMT -5
Maybe Bert can answer question how a animal or human can live with only half it's body parts if evolution is true?while waiting to evolve huh lol I have a suggestion, Las. You need to read a book about evolution to see just what it is all about instead of repeatedly making a fool of yourself. No one has ever suggested that a whole body part evolves in a single swoop. Consider eyes. The most primitive eye is a a single photoreceptor. Organisms such as euglena find this useful for locating sunlight for photosynthesis. Moving along, planaria have photo-receptors in slightly indented 'cups' which allow some perception as to the direction of the light. Gradual changes in this structure, covering with a clear membrane, increase in the number and types of photo-receptors, the thickening of the covering into a lens, etc. could all happen gradually oner time and end up with the variety of eyes that are now in existence. One of your problems, Las, is that you listen to the people who do not support nor, from what you are telling us, understand what evolution is and isn't.
|
|
|
Post by newby on Sept 8, 2007 13:50:05 GMT -5
Just passing through and I have a question for those who believe in evolution. Where are all the fossils of the partially evolved animals, people, etc?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 14:36:07 GMT -5
Maybe Bert can answer question how a animal or human can live with only half it's body parts if evolution is true?while waiting to evolve huh lol I have a suggestion, Las. You need to read a book about evolution to see just what it is all about instead of repeatedly making a fool of yourself. No one has ever suggested that a whole body part evolves in a single swoop. Consider eyes. The most primitive eye is a a single photoreceptor. Organisms such as euglena find this useful for locating sunlight for photosynthesis. Moving along, planaria have photo-receptors in slightly indented 'cups' which allow some perception as to the direction of the light. Gradual changes in this structure, covering with a clear membrane, increase in the number and types of photo-receptors, the thickening of the covering into a lens, etc. could all happen gradually oner time and end up with the variety of eyes that are now in existence. One of your problems, Las, is that you listen to the people who do not support nor, from what you are telling us, understand what evolution is and isn't. One last question did Adam & Eve evolve
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Sept 8, 2007 14:36:14 GMT -5
The question is at what stage did God suddenly take an interest in saving one particular branch of the evolutionary chain?
I imagine that He doesn't require the orangatang or gorilla family to serve him in the same manner as the human family on threat of everlasting punishment, but did He require our common chimpanzee ancestor to serve Him? And what about neanderthal man?
I wonder did God just wake up some day and realise that a certain branch of the ape species had developed a slightly larger brain than the others and say "ok that's it - from now on those guys descendant's souls will go to hell if they don't serve me". And what happened to the souls of our common chimpanzee ancestors - if they had souls? I wonder was the soul a later development - perhaps linked to the development of the brain?
All very puzzling isn't it?
I think I'll stick to believing all that Adam and Eve in the garden caper - it makes it all so much easier to explain.
|
|