30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzHmmm, sounds like an opinion to me, I reject it because opinions
we know where the splits and the rates of movement are. We can between this and rock profiles extrapolate back to Pangea (up until 180 MYA) but as far as I'm aware no further back (rock profiles suggest the continents were seperate before that). The faults represent inherent weaknesses in the crust which probably always existed - I'd say it's probably ...[text shortened]... movements have been. But I'm no geologist so can't really give too much more than that....
are not science.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI believe in change, I believe in change but it will be limited, as I said
Yeah, the difference is that we find things all the time that provide positive evidence for evolution. Hardly 'once in a blue moon'!!!
before, we can watch dogs change, but we start and end with dogs.
That doesn't mean that there are not small changes, but like waves
it could simply be part and parcel of a natural rhythm of life too.
Saying that those changes add up to where they can go from cell
to whale is an opinion I do not share.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI believe God is all powerful, and that all the power sources of the
No sourc eof external energy - unless you are suggesting that either (a) god didn't make man from clay, or (b) god can be represented by high temperature and electrical discharges for tens of thousands of years.
universe comes from him, and are bound to the laws He sets for them.
I don't see how you think power unlimited is some how going against
that law?
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJaygoes against second law of thermodynamics.
I believe God is all powerful, and that all the power sources of the
universe comes from him, and are bound to the laws He sets for them.
I don't see how you think power unlimited is some how going against
that law?
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayHmm, I thought about this for a while. (mainly cos I had a few beers) Then I realised the pivotal word is 'opinion'.
Hmmm, sounds like an opinion to me, I reject it because opinions
are not science.
Kelly
Now, there are two very contrary definitions.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.
Since the information that I presented is an informed extrapolation (which is not an unreasonable method in science - all science is extrapolation) then I guess it is opinion, in the sense of the second definition. This is very possibly a best guess, but ALL information that we have (including homologous fossil deposits) points to it - so I'm pretty confident it happened that way. A damn sight more confident that you can be of proving god any time soon.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJaySee the science article I posted earlier in the thread.
It cannot be proven false because it takes billions/millions of years
to record it. You want to start that stop watch now and monitor the
next visable change? In the here and now, we start with one type
of creature we monitor it, we end of with the same type of creature.
Evolution can proven wrong, how? Unless you have a time machine,
the clock moves a ...[text shortened]... ee dogs being bread to be larger or
smaller, but you start with dogs, you end with dogs.
Kelly
Speciation precursors shown - all it needs is time. Two non-breeding populations, genetic drift will carry them on different paths. Soon, they won't be able to interbreed.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell an important part of this is, I never make the claim I can prove
Hmm, I thought about this for a while. (mainly cos I had a few beers) Then I realised the pivotal word is 'opinion'.
Now, there are two very contrary definitions.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.
Since the ...[text shortened]... happened that way. A damn sight more confident that you can be of proving god any time soon.
God, god, or gods. As far as God is concern the only one able to
prove God, is God. I'm content to say I have faith, beliefs, and even
dare I say it, opinions. 🙂
Positive knowledge can mean ID is right. Proof, no, there are very
few things in this life where we can say proof without a great deal
of discussion. Even saying 1+1=2 requires a few pages of text a
friend of mine once said. As far as special knowledge is concern,
I agree as chess players we know there are some among us that
see the board much better than we do at a glance. It is all the
same pieces on the same board, but it is done at different skill
levels of play.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzEvidence, I was thinking about one of my predictions I made in an
Show me one, just one, piece of evidence against evolution. Bet you can't. People have been trying for nearly 150 years, unsuccessfully.
earlier post...I guess I have to retract because I already know about
creatures that have been found that people thought had died off
millions of years ago. So I cannot claim it will happen, when it already
has, but I bet more will occur!
I gave you my opinion on the matter of evolution, I don't see it has
never been recorded to the degree that people claim, it is only
proclaimed as true. Where we can go from cell to whale in only a few
short billion years of evoutionary change if more a matter of faith
than fact. I don't attempt to prove God because I cannot, God being
real does not rest on my believing in Him or not, He is what He is.
I have faith in God, I believe Him to be real, I cannot prove it. People
believe life has moved from cell to whale, it has never been seen,
recorded, and so on in nature or a lab. People have been trying to
disprove God much longer than 150 years too, does that mean that
God is real?
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzGive me the link again if you don't mind, when I have time I'll read
See the science article I posted earlier in the thread.
Speciation precursors shown - all it needs is time. Two non-breeding populations, genetic drift will carry them on different paths. Soon, they won't be able to interbreed.
it. Thanks in advance.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI agree with that, but your dealing with kinds of animals that may
See the science article I posted earlier in the thread.
Speciation precursors shown - all it needs is time. Two non-breeding populations, genetic drift will carry them on different paths. Soon, they won't be able to interbreed.
give us different flavors, but it does not mean that you can go from
worm to eagle, maybe dog to fox.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWorm to eagle - may be possible, depending on what qualifies as a worm.
I agree with that, but your dealing with kinds of animals that may
give us different flavors, but it does not mean that you can go from
worm to eagle, maybe dog to fox.
Kelly
Dog to fox - remind me again, is the fox canine, feline or something else altogether?
30 Dec 05
If you look up the current definition of species, you'll see that different breeds of dogs should be considered different species. Wow,! we do have evidence of speciation!
Anatomic similarities supports ID, genetic similarities (even more) supports ID. I've heard we share about 70% genes with a flea, and 40% with yeast and bananas. Ironically, the thing that most supports ID, is genetic commonality between diverse species.
All the facts that support "common decent" also support "common designer". Funny how a slight change in your presuppositions changes your view of the facts.
"The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool." This is the key to TOE. Every time someone says this is evidence of TOE, ask - how does this show "common descent" over a "intelligent design".
When you read a comment that mentions "evolution" or ancient ancestors or relations, ask yourself if this comment adds anything to biology, or is it merely speculation that added to the fantasy of TOE. Does it really support a common ancestor, or does it merely show how x is similar to y. Isn't it true that you must make a leap of faith going from x and y have common genes, to x and y have a common ancestor?
Logically, TOE requires as much faith as ID. But since TOE is so popular, it's easier to go along with the herd. Are you all a bunch of sheep? Hmmmm... Sure looks like it.