Evolution

geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/80#post_3375442
I owned several talking birds and have yet to have one verbalize a want or need, let alone carry on a conversation with a human or another bird in any form. Where's the "missing link". If we evolved from a lower life form surely there are fossils tying us to them?
Please see this article about Alex. Then go back and listen to your birds again. I know that my two parrots do use words they have learned appropriately, but I can't be sure that it isn't some form of advanced mimicry. However, I think that Alex did use language in the truest sense. As to "missing links", the only problem is that every time paleontologists find a new fossil ancestor it creates two new gaps so that creationists can claim that there are lots of gaps.IN fact, there are many fossils that appear to link "us" to our ancestral forms.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Even if other animals didn't kill for sport, I fail to see what that would prove aside from the fact that humans are different from every other species of animal.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Even if other animals didn't kill for sport, I fail to see what that would prove aside from the fact that humans are different from every other species of animal.
It shows a thought process instead of instinct as the catalyst for the action.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375565
Please see this article about Alex. Then go back and listen to your birds again. I know that my two parrots do use words they have learned appropriately, but I can't be sure that it isn't some form of advanced mimicry. However, I think that Alex did use language in the truest sense. As to "missing links", the only problem is that every time paleontologists find a new fossil ancestor it creates two new gaps so that creationists can claim that there are lots of gaps.IN fact, there are many fossils that appear to link "us" to our ancestral forms.
I am familiar with Alex having owned a grey myself. Alex knew colors, numbers up to 5 I believe and shapes and was a good talker. But when confronted with something he didn't know he didn't have the ability to say "I don't know". One of a kind to be sure but still even for a unique specimen still didn't have anything like our communication skills.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375621
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375619
Even if other animals didn't kill for sport, I fail to see what that would prove aside from the fact that humans are different from every other species of animal.
It shows a thought process instead of instinct as the catalyst for the action.
Zactly. Some claim a cat playing with a mouse is the same thing but if left unmolested the dead mouse usually ends up as a later meal.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375627
Zactly. Some claim a cat playing with a mouse is the same thing but if left unmolested the dead mouse usually ends up as a later meal.
I do not think it would be too hard to test and see who is right in this situation. Perhaps both sides are correct and this depends on the cat. I still don't really see how this fits into evolution. If it is a learned behavior that comes from a larger need for recreation then what does that show? If it is in fact a behavior influenced by genetics, then perhaps it is a behavior used to fulfill a need to kill that we may have had a long time ago. In any case it is an interesting thing and I'm glad you added it to the thread.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Pez, here is why I do not totally buy into the evolutionary theory. Just observations on my part that science seems to ignore.
No creature that has a heart, lungs, or brain can live if one of these are removed or lowt. Evolution calls for a baby step approach in our evolvement......thus meaning...say we came from fish (born to a creature in water with lungs instead of gills we would die as we would be inwater. Slight genetic mutation and ev olution can not explain how the body became so complex as to need every organ or death results.
The complexity of the mammal body alone implies a creator over evolutionary process for this reason.
Natural selection does not produce new genes.
Gene mutations are usually fatal. Of the mutations observed scientifiacally...none have produced new organs. Those in modern times such as down syndrome, dwarfism, albino, are not advances neither.
Pottasium argon dating has dated volcanos as millions of years old..but carbon dating places them attwo hundred years old.
If you track the average world population growth and then work backwards...it would take about 4000 years to get where we are today.
Evolution has no explanation for the creation of matter......where it came from.
Here is the cause for the 40% figure you were asking about........wow...I didn't even bring up cosmic dust.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
DT: Do you not believe then that some animals have evolved over the millions of years--such as amphibians?
Even horses starting out as the size of a dog, to what they are now. Dogs evolved from wolves, house cats evolved from wild cat ancestors. Now how to get a Chihuahua out of a wild wolf!??
Why are many Caucasians hairy, while Asians are not? Why are some of us black and others not? Why do blacks have course hair, and white people have every color and texture hair? The differences are endless. If we all came from Adam and Eve, and genes don't change, then we would forever have qualities of Adam and Eve.
Mutations that are genetic mistakes are frequently fatal. However, qualities that evolve due to natural selection happen over the eons, and not just the result of one random mistake.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375638
DT: Do you not believe then that some animals have evolved over the millions of years--such as amphibians?
Even horses starting out as the size of a dog, to what they are now. Dogs evolved from wolves, house cats evolved from wild cat ancestors. Now how to get a Chihuahua out of a wild wolf!??
DT: Research organ specialization. You will probably find the dead hand of Plato to be interesting as well. As for wolf dogs, that's another good read. A common belief is that domestication was a combination of nature and human involvement. It has to do with flight distance. Lets say a wolf is having a meal and hears a predator coming. To survive, the wolf should run away. Flight response is genetic. The wolves who wait too long to run away are killed by the predator. In a similar regard, the jump wolves that run away at the first sign of a predator don't get a wholesome meal and thereby also die. So over the course of many years these wolves develop the ideal flight distance. Lets say that humans are the predators. Humans don't go up to wolves and pounce. No, humans throw spears and sticks and stones in order to keep wolves away. Gradually, wolves evolve to have a shorter flight distance. We took over from there.
Have you seen pictures of domesticated silver foxes? They look strikingly like puppies. Tame genes. It's a neat thing.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

DT: Do you not believe then that some animals have evolved over the millions of years--such as amphibians?

Even horses starting out as the size of a dog, to what they are now. Dogs evolved from wolves, house cats evolved from wild cat ancestors. Now how to get a Chihuahua out of a wild wolf!??

Why are many Caucasians hairy, while Asians are not? Why are some of us black and others not? Why do blacks have course hair, and white people have every color and texture hair? The differences are endless. If we all came from Adam and Eve, and genes don't change, then we would forever have qualities of Adam and Eve.

Mutations that are genetic mistakes are frequently fatal. However, qualities that evolve due to natural selection happen over the eons, and not just the result of one random mistake.
Microevolution I will not dispute....I own a grooming business....I see the results of micro evolution on a daily basis..........macro is where they lose me.........some of macro evolution I can by into...but not entirely...hell I can even see the earth being older than 4000 years.......but the single glaring thing missing from macro evolution is the creation of matter........
I would like to add...the entire idea of evolution is not preposterious to me...just like the idea of a creator is not either....the points I was pointing out were the ones where their are holes and faults within the theory......
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
Right now God is sitting up there in the heavens laughing at all of our dumb arses. He is laughing because in all of our grand wisdom and self centered egotistical characteristics of needing to be right we still haven't figure it all out. Why must it all be separate?
Religious views and scientific theories set aside lets think about it for a moment. Surely creation has happened. All of the matter that surrounds us had to come from somewhere at some point in time. So why couldn't creation have spawned evolution? I believe it all was created in one way or another and I am also inclined to agree that life evolves. Why can't evolution and creation live hand in hand? Just because science sets out to explain the way things work for those of us not blessed with the gift of blind faith for the sake of our religious views does not mean that gods creation doesn't exist. If anything, IMO science only helps to explain how it was done. And for me it simply provides more proof of how wondrous and magnificent gods creation really is. I think our personal views is what gets in the way of how awesome the bigger picture really is.
Did god create the heavens and the earth by setting into motion the events that brought forth all matter into being? What and who is god (yes I ask) and how was god created? Did god create himself out of thin air? After he made himself did he realize that he was the only god and then realized that he was bored so in order to amuse himself he figured he would create the universe and man in order to amuse himself? Certainly he didn't make us perfect because how boring would that be?
Call me crazy but I believe we all have a spirit. And that spirit lives within our physical bodies. But just because this body grew and or evolved over a long period of time from something else doesn't make it any less special to me IMO. It's part of my own personal belief that everything in this universe and on this planet is all connected by matter and energy. I believe this because of things that I have witnessed in my life time which lead me to believe that we do indeed have a spirit because I see no other explanation for some of the things that sometimes seem unexplainable. I also think that animals have spirits (gasp), but I do. And just because our body dies does not mean that our spirit does not live on and cannot be reborn in another life or another form. But that's just me.
I do believe in creation, and perhaps my god is different than all of yours (if you have one). But one thing to me seems sure and that is that none of us have all of the answers and until we do there will always be division in point of views from one to the next. But what ever has happened from the beginning until now and who ever we truly are there is one thing that I feel is for certain... and that is that this life has been and will continue to be one hell of a ride. Cheers!
2 (The Seer) Quills....out!
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
I didn't intend for the thread to go in this direction, but I'm fine with it. You can believe in both God and evolution. Some scientists do. What if we are made in God's image but not immediately. What if all life started from one cleverly engineered cell and a planet for it to flourish. Being omniscient, God would have realized exactly how each of us would look after a few billion years of evolution. I don't believe this, this is just an example of how one can believe in God and evolution. I'm not sure that idea could be considered divine creation. Then there's abiogenesis. I can't remember the person who played with this, but in any case he found abiogenesis to be possible, but incredibly unlikely. He came up with some figure to gauge the likelihood. I see his work as being only slightly better than a complete guess. It may or may not be credible. Scientists haven't had any luck, but then again no scientist has lived for ten billion years. I personally hope that we can synthetically create life one day. How awesome would that be? Maybe abiogenesis is impossible. Maybe abiogenesis is not only possible but inevitable. If there are an infinite number of universes, then not only would abiogenesis exist in this universe, but in an infinite number of universes. Things get crazy from there.
I watched a video once (I doubt I can find it again). There were a couple of philosophers (I think anyway) that were talking about how if there are an infinite number of universes all of which were different, then only one universe could exist that contains nothing. If we were to take a pin which is infinitely thin and throw it at this field of universes, the odds of hitting a universe with matter is infinitely likely. I wouldn't post the video anyway, it probably wouldn't be worth anyone's time to watch as it is very lengthy.
Both science and religion have the same problem though. Where did matter come from? Okay, so God right? Where did God come from? Some people say that God created himself. I'm not sure if Quill was implying that he was one of those people. I'm also not sure that it matters.
Why do I feel as though I've opened a can of worms on this thread? I like talking about this, but I've learned that this really isn't something to get too worked up about. It doesn't get us anywhere.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I didn't intend for the thread to go in this direction, but I'm fine with it. You can believe in both God and evolution. Some scientists do. What if we are made in God's image but not immediately. What if all life started from one cleverly engineered cell and a planet for it to flourish. Being omniscient, God would have realized exactly how each of us would look after a few billion years of evolution. I don't believe this, this is just an example of how one can believe in God and evolution. I'm not sure that idea could be considered divine creation. Then there's abiogenesis. I can't remember the person who played with this, but in any case he found abiogenesis to be possible, but incredibly unlikely. He came up with some figure to gauge the likelihood. I see his work as being only slightly better than a complete guess. It may or may not be credible. Scientists haven't had any luck, but then again no scientist has lived for ten billion years. I personally hope that we can synthetically create life one day. How awesome would that be? Maybe abiogenesis is impossible. Maybe abiogenesis is not only possible but inevitable. If there are an infinite number of universes, then not only would abiogenesis exist in this universe, but in an infinite number of universes. Things get crazy from there.

I watched a video once (I doubt I can find it again). There were a couple of philosophers (I think anyway) that were talking about how if there are an infinite number of universes all of which were different, then only one universe could exist that contains nothing. If we were to take a pin which is infinitely thin and throw it at this field of universes, the odds of hitting a universe with matter is infinitely likely. I wouldn't post the video anyway, it probably wouldn't be worth anyone's time to watch as it is very lengthy.

Both science and religion have the same problem though. Where did matter come from? Okay, so God right? Where did God come from? Some people say that God created himself. I'm not sure if Quill was implying that he was one of those people. I'm also not sure that it matters.

Why do I feel as though I've opened a can of worms on this thread? I like talking about this, but I've learned that this really isn't something to get too worked up about. It doesn't get us anywhere.
Religion covers the god quewtion in one phrase. I am the begining and the end. God is and always shall be in other words. God just is........you are looking at god from a physicallity standpoint. God is an entity...a spirit........
Do you believe people have souls? Do you believ e in ghost or super natural phenomonon? A rotation of the spirit....reincarnation........anything like this?
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375683
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375669
I didn't intend for the thread to go in this direction, but I'm fine with it. You can believe in both God and evolution. Some scientists do. What if we are made in God's image but not immediately. What if all life started from one cleverly engineered cell and a planet for it to flourish. Being omniscient, God would have realized exactly how each of us would look after a few billion years of evolution. I don't believe this, this is just an example of how one can believe in God and evolution. I'm not sure that idea could be considered divine creation. Then there's abiogenesis. I can't remember the person who played with this, but in any case he found abiogenesis to be possible, but incredibly unlikely. He came up with some figure to gauge the likelihood. I see his work as being only slightly better than a complete guess. It may or may not be credible. Scientists haven't had any luck, but then again no scientist has lived for ten billion years. I personally hope that we can synthetically create life one day. How awesome would that be? Maybe abiogenesis is impossible. Maybe abiogenesis is not only possible but inevitable. If there are an infinite number of universes, then not only would abiogenesis exist in this universe, but in an infinite number of universes. Things get crazy from there.
I watched a video once (I doubt I can find it again). There were a couple of philosophers (I think anyway) that were talking about how if there are an infinite number of universes all of which were different, then only one universe could exist that contains nothing. If we were to take a pin which is infinitely thin and throw it at this field of universes, the odds of hitting a universe with matter is infinitely likely. I wouldn't post the video anyway, it probably wouldn't be worth anyone's time to watch as it is very lengthy.
Both science and religion have the same problem though. Where did matter come from? Okay, so God right? Where did God come from? Some people say that God created himself. I'm not sure if Quill was implying that he was one of those people. I'm also not sure that it matters.
Why do I feel as though I've opened a can of worms on this thread? I like talking about this, but I've learned that this really isn't something to get too worked up about. It doesn't get us anywhere.
Religion covers the god quewtion in one phrase. I am the begining and the end. God is and always shall be in other words. God just is........you are looking at god from a physicallity standpoint. God is an entity...a spirit........
Do you believe people have souls? Do you believ e in ghost or super natural phenomonon? A rotation of the spirit....reincarnation........anything like this?
I realize this, I was just expressing how unsatisfying I find this. I'm not going to sit here and express how I think it is wrong. Nothing would be accomplished in doing so. I'm just saying that I wish there was more. Can you image if we did unlock the secret of the universe? I wonder what that would be like. If nobody believed in a religion or rather, if everyone believed in the same religion much like "everyone" believes that the Earth is round (of course the Earth is not round, but something close to it). Would this be a good thing? On one hand we would not have debates like this. At first I was going to say that events such as the holocaust would not happen again, but I'm not so sure of that. If the secrets of the universe are unlocked and we find that God does not exist, I bet the number of nihilists would skyrocket. I am doubtful that morality would go out the window though. Is religion a good thing? I'm not sure we can answer that question definitively. Some would cite the crusades and others would cite how Napoleon and Jeffrey Dohmer (sp) are atheists.
As for the other questions I would like to bring up Blaise Pascal. You know the guy, the Pascal's triangle guy. He was a french mathematician, inventor, philosopher, Catholic, writer, prodigy, etc. He was a philosopher and is famous for Pascal's wager. I'm sure all of you have heard this, but maybe not by the proper name. I will paraphrase because I would rather not look it up and semantics don't matter for this. Basically, believing in God is a good thing because if you are right, you will be rewarded with Heaven and if you are wrong it wouldn't have mattered anyway. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and you are right, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, but if you are wrong you are going to hell.
At first glance this seems completely reasonable, but for me (personally at least) I don't see it. I cannot make myself believe in God. I can try and I have, but it won't work. If I could control what I believe in to that extent I would believe in God. You know that way I would be with the masses and win Pascal's wager. But it is not that simple. The closest I can come to believing in God is denying my atheism. In any case I am a firm believer in reading both the bible and evolution literature. I don't think EVERYONE should read up on EVERY religion. There are honestly better things that can be done with that time. In America though, the Holy Bible is important because of our culture.
I didn't mean to go off on a tangent. I do not believe in ghosts either. I do however like watching those ghost shows. Mindless entertainment.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
I suppose some need to be right. I don't. I just need to (and do) know God is and God said what he did and how he did it. It is quite the opposite of conceit to say "I don't know, but God does". If someone wants to beleieve otherwise, I really couldn't care less. What I do care about is those who think they know more than God. It is folly. Let's say God started the thing and His 6 days were billions of years. So what? He didn't say 6 billion years, He said 6 days. But either way, I'll trust Him at His word. I'm certainly not important enough to tell Him He was just joshing and that He couldn't have created the universe in 6 days so He must have meant something else. That is the ultimate in conceit: saying God is wrong. Try to spin it as one might, that is what the "creation evolutionists" are saying. And evolutionists are saying there is no God. Again, where did all the "stuff" that made up the big bang come from? And what made it explode? And the space that the "stuff" got exploded to and is still expanding come from? These are reasonable questions and those inconsistencies enough to discredit evolution. Which is why it is still just a theory. It is rubbish.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375650
Microevolution I will not dispute....I own a grooming business....I see the results of micro evolution on a daily basis..........macro is where they lose me.........some of macro evolution I can by into...but not entirely...hell I can even see the earth being older than 4000 years.......but the single glaring thing missing from macro evolution is the creation of matter........
I would like to add...the entire idea of evolution is not preposterious to me...just like the idea of a creator is not either....the points I was pointing out were the ones where their are holes and faults within the theory......
The erosion caused by time may never allow science to fit the pieces together like an unedited movie, but there seems enough irrefutable science that the theory really is science. As human beings become more science-minded, demanding rationality to believe, then that 40 percent will become less and less.
Someone here early on in this discussion pointed out that the belief in a creator does not have to be at odds with science. I believe that. Its really the interpretations of the religious doctrines that seem always at odds with science. Religious dogma will have to change, though, eventually, or it will die-out.
Just think, 500 years ago, I would have been burned alive for saying this, as would all of us. Everything evolves--even our thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top