12 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionDone it!!!
Uh oh is another creationist trying to make probability statements again?
Watch yourself, boy. Better read up on your probability theory or leave that propaganda out of the discussion.
Perhaps we are reading on different facts.
Have you read Darwins "Origin of the Species"?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionFair enough.
That's silly. I learned evolution in college from a theist. His work was actually in evolutionary biology, and yet he also believed in God. Ideas like the one you present here are the kind of crackpot conspiracy theories that really undermine your credibility.
Your tutor? Did he believe that man evolved under the control of God?
Perhaps he is right. If you agree with him, then perhaps YOU are right.
12 Jul 05
Creationism is a complete and utter waste of time. Believe in god all you want, it makes no difference to me. But the degree to which you believe in creationism, Phledos, is the degree to which you are an idiot. I'm sorry if that sounds a little harsh, but that's the way it is. You're in the 21st century now. Creationism belongs in the dark ages, along with the inquisition and the geocentric view of the universe. [/b]You may say that creationism died in the dark ages, but its main testamaent did not.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by PhledosWhen reading books aren't you reading what others are saying?
I already have.
Can I ask, how many of you have read many books on evolution?
Or do you go by what others say?
Phledos, stop trying to discredit other people when you yourself continue to have everything you say shown to be wrong.
It just makes you look like an idiot.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZCan I ask you the same question.
When reading books aren't you reading what others are saying?
Phledos, stop trying to discredit other people when you yourself continue to have everything you say shown to be wrong.
It just makes you look like an idiot.
When reading about the subject, to make up your mind, do you study it and accept/deny it, or do you just accept/deny it with no evidence at all.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by PhledosCombining this with your next post I assume you are asking if I've read the bible. Yes I have.
Can I ask you the same question.
When reading about the subject, to make up your mind, do you study it and accept/deny it, or do you just accept/deny it with no evidence at all.
Now my question; what does the bible have to do with evolution? It never once states "Thou shalt not evolve for that is against God's will and he shall smite your offspring with stubby fingers.", nowhere is it written that Genesis is a literal account. So what does a book of collected stories have to do with evolution?
12 Jul 05
Now my question; what does the bible have to do with evolution? It never once states "Thou shalt not evolve for that is against God's will and he shall smite your offspring with stubby fingers.", nowhere is it written that Genesis is a literal account. So what does a book of collected stories have to do with evolution?[/b]When I say that Ive read books on evolution I am not talking about the bible. I have studied both theories differently when I was younger. I have read bmany books on evolution and its teachings and I have read many books on creation and its teachings.
Each theory does not spite the other.
Evolutions books do not say that creation is wrong.
Creations books (the bible) do not say that evolution is wrong.
(Nice joke about stubby fingers) I like a good laugh.
Genetics is the study of human life and beginning.
Genesis shares a very similar name. (Talking about creation)
Intersting. Logic, tells us that our parents came from their parents who came from their parents (etc.) Of course 6000 years have passed, which explains why there are so many living on the earth today.
Does this seem logical?
Im sure you are a very thoughtful person with a lot of factual interllect. I would hope someone as clever as yourself would just recognise the holes in evolution and research them to see if they can be fixed.
If they can then I am very sorry.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by PhledosHow do you logically account for discounting the mountain of evidence that indicates that the earth has been around for billions of years and we have been around for much more that 6000?
When I say that Ive read books on evolution I am not talking about the bible. I have studied both theories differently when I was younger. I have read bmany books on evolution and its teachings and I have read many books on creation and its teachings.
Each theory does not spite the other.
Evolutions books do not say that creation is wrong.
Creations boo ...[text shortened]... n evolution and research them to see if they can be fixed.
If they can then I am very sorry.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrIf you actually follow what I am saying. I think i do make a distinction between facts, hypotheses, and theories.
I have no problem with theism. However, your original post at the start of this thread asserted that you had "just completed a brief unit on genetis and remain sceptical about evolution." You appeared to be framing an honest question, and to be seeking open inquiry.
Subsequently, you and others have deployed theism to distort evolution and stimulate the ...[text shortened]... course in genetics and fail to learn the difference between facts, hypotheses, and theories?[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by PhledosIts not impossibe. Just improbable.
I agree with Kelly Jay.
Genetic changes are more often, bad than good.
Even so, what is the chances of all those eye cells, coming together to create such a complex life form, such as the eye.
That is impossible, let alone humans and the earth evolving.
Your talking absolutly crazy odds.
12 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZWe can look at the rock layers or Geographic Time Eras.
How do you logically account for discounting the mountain of evidence that indicates that the earth has been around for billions of years and we have been around for much more that 6000?
Heres one:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html
This is very interesting.
It shows that at the end of the Precambrian Time Era, Life just exploded onto the scene. (Suggesting Creation.)
If you look before that time, all you will find is small bacteria. Now you may say, 'Well this bacteria is the basis for evolution'.
If this was the case then the time between the Cambrian period and the Proterozoic Era, we would see a lot of evolving skeletons and fossils. Unfortunatly we dont. This hasnt been found.
Its nice to have a peaceful conversation with you 'Xanthos'
Skeletons of humans have only been found in the past 6000 years, whereas animals have been found longer before that, and plants even longer again.
Bye from Tim 🙂
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, let's start with what you recognize, then.
You call starting with salmon and ending with salmon evolution?
Okay, starting with big dogs breeding them into little dogs is
evolution too. If that is what you call evolution, I believe in
evolution as 'you' define it here. I just don't believe you can
say that you start with a simple single cell creature and change
through time into a rose bush, a frog, or you.
Kelly
Speaking of fish, rainbow trout--the most abundant native trout of the Pacific Northwest--were classified Salmo gairdneri in 1836 by John Richardson, while a similar species on the Kamchatka Peninsula was classified Salmo mykiss by Johann Walbaum in 1792. Both of these classifications relied on similarity of appearance, skeletal structure, and behavior to Salmo trutta, the brown trout, a native of Europe. The genus Salmo includes Atlantic salmon.
In 1989, rainbow trout (in North America and Asia) were reclassified Oncorhynchus mykiss. They were placed in a different genus, Oncorhynchus, the genus of Pacific salmon, because they are genetically closer to Pacifis salmon than to Atlantic salmon and brown trout. The closerr genetic similarity reflectes a closer evolutionary relationship; that is, a closer kinship. The species name, mykiss, took precedence over gairdneri because it was an earlier designation.
The earliest known salmonid fossil is named Eosalmo driftwoodensis, found along Driftwood Creek, British Columbia and described by Mark Wilson, University of Alberta, in 1977. Other Eosalmo fossiles have been found near Republic, Washington and Princeton, Idaho. Eosalmo date to approximately 50 million years ago, and is considered by paleoichthyologists (scholars of ancients freshwater fish fossils) to be a member of the subfamily Salmoninae, and perhaps to be the progenitor of all modern trout and salmon.
Now, where does your problem begin within this brief snippet of data on the evolution of fishes?
Did God create Eosalmo or its ancestor? Did God create Salmo and [/i]Oncorhyncus[/i] separately? Did God create the many subspecies of Oncorhynchus mykiss as separate fishes, or just their parent species, letting the subspecies, stocks, and races develop on their own as they adapted to the several streams and lakes that they occupy?