Originally posted by nickybuttCreation is faith/belief, what else could it be? Scripture says "God
Very interesting post Kelly!
>if your complaint about creation is that it isn't science, my question to you is, so what?
My main objective against the Creation theory is that it isn't scientific, and some people are trying to make ...[text shortened]... jections, please look at http://www.talkorigins.org for answers.
created" and we can know that is true how? It is faith, but when we
look at what man has come up with on his own about the beginning,
that too can only be taken on faith; there is no other way to take it, it
is a belief when we buy into man's ideas on the beginning. So if we
want to reject religious beliefs being brought into the school system
on the beginning; why should we accept any other beliefs that cannot
be proven? Each belief system used on children will mold their
foundational world views, it will color everything for them.
I'm still waiting on a paper on blood clotting or the eye we can all look
at that is not part of an old school text book. Lets look at one paper
and see if there is anything there that must also be taken on faith
as people do with scripture. What is the difference between science
and religion when it comes down to events that people say occurred
in the distant past? Shouldn't be to hard, since people have called
billions of years 'facts' and evolution a 'fact', matters of belief cannot
be proven while facts should be, or we don't call them facts.
Kelly
Originally posted by WulebgrAre we going to be given a paper to look at on blood clotting or the
The "so what" stems from the hoards of folks who labor to have Creationism taught as science in schools. They harm our schools.
No one disputes that notions of Creation are religious notions; creationism claims to be science, although it clearly is not.
eye by you or not?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHere is some links, within them you'll find links to scientific papers.
Are we going to be given a paper to look at on blood clotting or the
eye by you or not?
Kelly
Blood clotting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
The eye:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
Actually here is the entire list of claims against evolution. Please confer with this list before posting in here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Originally posted by KellyJayThis one looks interesting. Unfortunately you have to pay for it.
Are we going to be given a paper to look at on blood clotting or the
eye by you or not?
Kelly
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ProduktNr=223831&Ausgabe=230321&ArtikelNr=79743
Originally posted by nickybuttThere are no links to scientific papers in the link about the eye. The link itself would be good for us to debate, and there are a few references to works cited or that might be relevant, but there are no links to scientific papers.
Here is some links, within them you'll find links to scientific papers.
Blood clotting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
The eye:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
Actually here is the entire l ...[text shortened]... e posting in here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
EDIT - I was also unable to find any links to scientific papers about the evolution in the eye in the last link.
For anyone who's interested, for biological scientific papers, this is the best search engine out there as far as I know:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Limits&DB=pubmed
"Originally posted by nickybutt
One of the cornerstomes of the TOE is this: What you don't need you don't have. Plants don't need eyes therefor they don't have eyes. Just like our common ancestors didn't need to see in the dark therefor we and other Primates don't have night vision." -nickybutt
"Seems like being able to see in the dark would have been a great advantage to the survival of our common ancestors, especially in the period before they started using fire to keep away hungry predators. Why would that not have given such individuals a great edge in survival?" -Delmer
Still waiting for an answer, nickybutt.
Originally posted by DelmerGood thing calling me out, I had complete forgot it 😕
"Originally posted by nickybutt
"Seems like being able to see in the dark would have been a great advantage to the survival of our common ancestors, especially in the period before they started using fire to keep away hungry predators. Why would that not have given such individuals a great edge in survival?" -Delmer
Still waiting for an answer, nickybutt.
One theory is that the Primates in order to go from eating leaves to becoming fruit eating, needed to be able to distinct colours (A red cherry is ready to eat, but a green is not). The eye cells that can distinct colours are not useable at night, and there is only a limited space for eye cells, så the number of nocturnal cells were decreased. Obviously the advantage of being able to distinct colous were greater than the disadvantage of not being able to see at night. Perhaps the Primates back then didn't have any natural enemies, just like the treeliving primates of today.
Originally posted by nickybuttThank you, NB. You have great faith in the TOE.
Good thing calling me out, I had complete forgot it 😕
One theory is that the Primates in order to go from eating leaves to becoming fruit eating, needed to be able to distinct colours (A red cherry is ready to eat, but a green is not). The eye cells that can distinct colours are not useable at night, and there is only a limited space for eye cells, så th ...[text shortened]... Primates back then didn't have any natural enemies, just like the treeliving primates of today.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'll take your word for it about links to scientific papers. I'm not
There are no links to scientific papers in the link about the eye. The link itself would be good for us to debate, and there are a few references to works cited or that might be relevant, but there are no links to scientific papers.
EDIT - I was also unable to find any links to scientific papers about the evolution in the eye in the last link.
...[text shortened]... e as far as I know:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Limits&DB=pubmed
interested in seeing others debate the issue, I want a paper that is
fits the bill on what is being held out there as the new golden calf
a scientific paper on either subject.
Kelly
Originally posted by PotatoErrorBut wouldn't it have been of great benefit for protohumans to see in the dark if something suddenly woke them, like a hungry carnivore, for example? Wouldn't those who could see best in the dark survive and breed more often than the others?
The answer is that humans are not nocturnal. We don't need to see in the dark because we sleep in the darkness.
"But wouldn't it have been of great benefit for protohumans to see in the dark if something suddenly woke them, like a hungry carnivore, for example? Wouldn't those who could see best in the dark survive and breed more often than the others?"
If this happened reguarly enough then I think it would be beneficial. Not as beneficial as hearing though.
Humans already have night vision, its just not very good. It could be improved by increasing the number of rods in the eye. That's microevolution isn't it? Ie variation within a species.
So I am sure that if there was enough of a benefit for humans to see better in the dark then humans would have microevolved better night vision.
And if night vision really is such a great benefit then why would an intelligent designer leave it out?
Originally posted by KellyJayOk then let's let the Raelians have a turn and then the Greek Pagans. Next come the Maya Quiche. Then the zoroastrians. Finally let's leave time in the semester for any idea anyone has. Once you say, "The Bible says so. I take it on faith that this is the Truth," Muffy will rise from the classroom and what a fool you'll look.
Creation is faith/belief, what else could it be? Scripture says "God
created" and we can know that is true how? It is faith, but when we
look at what man has come up with on his own about the beginning,
that too can only be taken on faith; there is no other way to take it, it
is a belief when we buy into man's ideas on the beginning. So if we
want t ...[text shortened]... atters of belief cannot
be proven while facts should be, or we don't call them facts.
Kelly
That's why we have science with tests, criticisms, and updates. When was the last time Genesis 1 got an update?
Once blood clotting is taken care of you'll just have another silly "how could x have occured" question. It would be a good question except that you have no real curiosity. Why should you? You already no what the universe is for, where it came from, and where it is going. Who cares what we see around us. The Bible cannot be wrong!
Really you have so many questions about evolutionary biology. You should think about going to school, learning about it, and then getting out there and testing it yourself, instead of relying on fundamentalist hacks to give you your next piece of propaganda.
Your disregard for intellectual inquiry does us all a great disservice KJ. Enough said. Continue with the charade.