09 Sep 05
Originally posted by joedrummer2422I think the fact that someone who disagrees with me is calling you wrong should be a hint. Do a bit more research.
WOW, I definately see your point.
I think that both of those are called evolution for a reason.
Evolution in different stages.
Humans are adapted to their country? You mean environment.
I agree.
Good points. But evolution in animals has and always will happen.
Joe
09 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by CoconutGeez. not again.
I think the fact that someone who disagrees with me is calling you wrong should be a hint. Do a bit more research.
You have good points.. none the less
You have made me right, and you wrong. Thanks for agreeing in not one but two different evolutions.
And at least I see others points, try doing the same.
Joe
09 Sep 05
Originally posted by CoconutReally. Really?
I believe the earth can't be more than 7000 years old.
How long do you think it took for the mighty Colorado River to carve the Grand Canyon?
How long do you think it took the continent of Pangea to break apart and float away via plate tectonics to form the continents we know today?
How long do you think it took for all the prehistoric forests and dinosaurs to eventually deteriorate and coalesce into the fossil fuels coal and oil?
09 Sep 05
Originally posted by SuzianneI agree with the ignorance of that comment as well.
Really. Really?
How long do you think it took for the mighty Colorado River to carve the Grand Canyon?
How long do you think it took the continent of Pangea to break apart and float away via plate tectonics to form the continents we know today?
How long do you think it took for all the prehistoric forests and dinosaurs to eventually deteriorate and coalesce into the fossil fuels coal and oil?
10 Sep 05
Originally posted by joedrummer2422My opinion is that all life evolved from ribosome-like not quite organism things which gained RNA and evenutally made the first cells which evolved to be all life today. The main point I am arguing is when you or someone else misunderstands or misrepresents science. I hate common misconceptions about things like evolution and sometimes try to inform people of the theories proposed by science, not the skewed versions that everyone seems to think science proposes.
Mad Scientist.
I understand you know a lot of theorys and large words that no one has ever heard off.
That is great.
I will only concede one point. And that is that large animals aren't finished evolving.
Other than that, what I said was accurate.
I do not know how animals got here because I dont know how anything got here. But we w ...[text shortened]... than that. Why dont you stop reading off text from a book and voice your opinion on the matter.
I'm glad you admit that I know a lot about science and have a large vocabulary, but that wasn't the point of my post. I sometimes slip into a writing style that sounds a little more serious than usual forum banter. Usually in longer posts like this. It isn't something I do consciously but it happens. As far as the big words, I have a game with my friends where we try to use as many big or rarely used words as possible during the day. You ain't read nothing yet.
Darwin's evolution is the basis for today's genetic theory, but many of his ideas have been revised or built on significantly. We are all talking about evolution, thats how animals got here if you don't believe creationism.
I pointed out that there is a difference between bacteria and diseases and that the vast majority of bacteria do not cause any disease. This is an all to common misconception, and being into microbiology, I get somewhat annoyed by it. It was also a half-joke based on my current avatar.
Toxoplasma that I mentioned are easily one of the most advanced organisms out there, and it is your point of view that is flawed. They infect about 1/3 of the human population and only kill the imunodefcient. Parasites, bacteria and viruses that kill most hosts are more primative.
Flies are immensly sucessful.
Evolution is all about sex, offspring, and survival of those offspring. The Natural selection doesn't breed for things like intelligence or strength. The males who have more sex, the females who have more babies, and the children who are more likely to make it to childbearing age are selected. The more intelligent humans, way back, were more likely to not be killed or to gather more food which would allow their children to survive better. It is one of many solutions to allow a species to better reproduce itself. Reproduction is what evolution and natural selection are all about, intelligence is just a side effect.
It may be harder for a parasite to play chess. But our cells aren't able to hide from other animals immune systems. If you inject your cells into your pet cat's body, they will quickly be destroyed by the immune system. We even need drugs to get our bodies to accept organ transplants from other humans.
You don't have a very specific theory of evolution, but science does and it is generally agreed upon as the best current theory that explains all our observations and has no obvious flaws. A few other evolution theories have been proposed in the past, but all have been disproven except Darwin's basic idea which has been modified to explain more things. You should learn about evolutionary theory before trying to argue it.
And I never quote or paraphrase from a book deliberately without giving credit. I may come off sounding like a book because I read books, unlike some people, and have learned most things from books or professors who sound vaugely like books. I was giving information as clearly as I could. If you read it carefully, you can tell that my posts have not been copied from books.
As I said, my opinion is that macroevolution, not divine creation, is where all species came from. My other opinion is that you need to learn what you are talking about before arguing it and know the facts and theories behind your broad statements.
Thanks.
10 Sep 05
Thank you for your lengthy and enjoyable post.
I agree with much of what you said and I always enjoy learning more.
Science is always fun! Expecially Scientists. (pun).
That is a pretty cool game, a little dorky but cool. I need to start playing that game.
Where do you think the first atom from an element came from? Or isotope, I forgot what is the new' smallest particle of matter.
Your, almost animal-like creatures you were talking about that gained RNA, where did they come from? Do you consider anything before that period.
Joe
10 Sep 05
Originally posted by joedrummer24221. Volcanic Debris: Volcanos are shooting out about a cubic mile of material into the air every year. If this rate has continued for the proposed 4.6 billion years, 10 times the volume of the earth would be produced. Right now, about 25% of the earth's sediments are volcanic.
Tell you what coconut.
You give me some facts behind thinking that.
How can the earth not be older than 7,000 years?
Joe
2. Continental Erosion: Continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years. However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years.
3. Meteoritic Dust: Meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth so fast that, after 4 billion years, there would have been 16 feet of this dust accumulated on earth. It is high in nickel, so the earth's crush should have an abundance of nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young.
4. Planetary Rings: The rings around Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune are being rapidly bombarded by meteoroids. Saturn's rings should be pulverized and dispersed in about 10,000 years. Since this had not happened, the rings appear to be quite young.
5. Shrinking Sun: Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct, viusal measurements that suggest the sun's diameter is shrinking. Records of solar exlipses indicate that this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 years. With the most conservative calculations, a million years ago, the sun would have been far to large and powerful for the earth to have ever sustained life. Yet evolutionists claim that most of the world's species were done evolving by that time.
In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Walt Brown
10 Sep 05
Originally posted by Coconut"The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy."
1. Volcanic Debris: Volcanos are shooting out about a cubic mile of material into the air every year. If this rate has continued for the proposed 4.6 billion years, 10 times the volume of the earth would be produced. Right now, about 25% of the earth's sediments are volcanic.
2. Continental Erosion: Continents are eroding at a rate that would level them ...[text shortened]... time.
In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Walt Brown
Behold the bias'ness of your statements coconut. We now know your agenda and where your science comes from.
Joe
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by obvekThanks eldragonfly.
alright dinosaurs laid eggs millions of years before chickens evolved there problem solved without any evolution crap. now, if you want to talk about CHICKEN eggs coming before actual chickens, thats a different story but not asked for in the original question.
Plonker
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by SuzianneLess than a week. After all the earth is only 7000 years old. Remember that please.
How long do you think it took for the mighty Colorado River to carve the Grand Canyon?
How long do you think it took the continent of Pangea to break apart and float away via plate tectonics to form the continents we know today?
How long do you think it took for all the prehistoric forests and dinosaurs to eventually deteriorate and coalesce into the fossil fuels coal and oil?
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by joedrummer2422Uhm some radioactive isotopes have half-lives measure in the 10,000's of years and more. in fact the half lives of U235 and U238 are measured in the 100's of millions and billions of years respectively. That should be sufficient.
Where do you think the first atom from an element came from? Or isotope, I forgot what is the [newest] smallest particle of matter.
29 Sep 05
2 edits
I haven't had the chance to read every post on the topic, but I have some points.(that may or may not have been said)
Eggs have been around long before Chickens or their Chicken-eggs as a productive method.
Most any creature that reproduces with eggs, comes before their egg. Because the egg forms around the embryo
This may not apply to sea creatures or other creatures with different reproductive methods involving eggs
Anybody disagree?