02-24-2003, 10:08 AM | #21 | |
Jack Burton
Join Date: March 31, 2001
Location: The zephyr lands beneath the brine.
Age: 39
Posts: 5,459
|
Quote:
Also, you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Firstly, I did not say it was impossible. Secondly, I was not talking about Christians in general. Rather, I was referring to those who are 'emotionately disturbed' by the notion of evolution. And although I'm sure there are still some with us today, I thought the context of the words was taking me more to Darwin's days than todays world (BTW, I wasn't even talking about christians specifically, just religion in general) where the words of, for example, the bible, were taken much more literally than they are by many 'modern christians', if I may use that description And yes, atheists will undoubtedly have more diffculty being creationistic [img]smile.gif[/img] |
|
02-24-2003, 10:09 AM | #22 |
Very Mad Bird
Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
|
Heirophant, I'm aware of all that. But none recorded in 4000 years?? It's speculation on fossils that such a concept even exists, not factual experienced and quantifiable evidence. Apparently to some, the foundation of 'science'.
Regarding your gene idea of the olive skinned man/short fat guy, this is not something I'm disputing. These are changes WITHIN A SPECIES, not creations of a new species. The genetic abberances and mutations don't reproduce. Look at the mule. Look at the gene lock that will not allow offspring from a cat and dog mating. (Slightly offtopic) While where at it let's look at the code. The program. The blueprint and design for how we end up. A code usually has a tranmitter and receiver. A design or plan usually has a designer or architect behind it. A programmer creates a program yes? Enter God. Architect, artist, designer, programmer, implimenter, enabler, sustainer. [ 02-24-2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] |
02-24-2003, 10:13 AM | #23 | ||
Avatar
Join Date: January 12, 2003
Location: Paris, France
Age: 44
Posts: 594
|
By Yorick :
Quote:
The only noticeable evolution is maybe our size, we're taller than our ancestors. Oh also our feet size has increased...I think [img]smile.gif[/img] EDIT : Quote:
[ 02-24-2003, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]
__________________
<br /><br />-=*roaar*=- |
||
02-24-2003, 10:15 AM | #24 |
Very Mad Bird
Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
|
The thinking behind the text I quoted is that the need creates a change in the species, not that it's a purely random development As you and Heirophant are putting forth Maskilnn.
|
02-24-2003, 10:18 AM | #25 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: October 31, 2002
Location: Western Australia
Age: 43
Posts: 3,293
|
Not much more i can add to that, Heirophant. Except maybe Amen.
*Ducks for cover* Seriously though, in light of all that we've learned, it seems to me that an incredible amount of naivete is required to believe the Creation theory over Natural Selection. Sorry.
__________________
Say say, oh playmate i cannot play with you my dolly's got the flu boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo |
02-24-2003, 10:22 AM | #26 | |||
Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom
Join Date: May 10, 2002
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
Age: 42
Posts: 2,860
|
Quote:
Quote:
Indeed, behold! It is a beautiful mule! But yes, what you are inferring is right, and so that particular genetic design is doomed to extinction. In 5 million years I predict that there shall be no mules! [img]smile.gif[/img] Quote:
Ultimately, you and I are here now, debating this via electronic signals. What are the odds of this coming to pass? What are the ODDS? Big [ 02-24-2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]
__________________
[img]\"hosted/Hierophant.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Strewth! |
|||
02-24-2003, 10:23 AM | #27 | |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: October 31, 2002
Location: Western Australia
Age: 43
Posts: 3,293
|
Quote:
__________________
Say say, oh playmate i cannot play with you my dolly's got the flu boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo |
|
02-24-2003, 10:29 AM | #28 | |
Very Mad Bird
Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
The only noticeable evolution is maybe our size, we're taller than our ancestors. Oh also our feet size has increased...I think [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]O.k. and then we get into a debate about how old the earth is. THen we present information like the amount of "dust" that falls on the moon (and earth) from space each year. Same amount each year. There's no wind on the moon so none of it has blown away, yet the amount is not that which you would get from a moon as old as is needed by what you're saying. Even if it were so, if not one change occurs in any species in 4000 years, I don't believe the math adds up as to the time frame evolution theory puts forth. In any case Evolution theory is reliant on an old earth. With creationism, the earth can be young or old. It's doesn't matter. Another example of the difficulty an atheistic evolutionist faces when gathering and formulating evidence and theories. It all must fit into a preexisting framework rather than be looked at with an open mind. Just today, I was reading an article about "The first human to leave Africa". In terms of evidence, all that exists is a skull in the earth. So much is assumed from so little. We don't know how the sull got there. Whether the person was alive when the bones got there and if he had died, how long he was dead before he was moved their. However unlikely or likely a scenario surrounding bones may be, all we actually have in our hands are bones. Not firsthand proof. Howver the evolutionist, when confronted with new evidence, will attmempt to place their find into the pre-existing theories and it's framework. Bias and preheld agenda. So. The atheist needs evolution theory which needs an ancient earth. A theistic creationist could accept a world that began two seconds ago. |
|
02-24-2003, 10:31 AM | #29 | |
Very Mad Bird
Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
|
Quote:
|
|
02-24-2003, 10:32 AM | #30 |
Anubis
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Up in the Freedomland Alps
Age: 60
Posts: 2,474
|
Wow interesting posts ! [img]smile.gif[/img]
I asked the question of emotional reluctance because from what I have read about the way people - and scientists - have handled the fossils discoveries and tried to make hypothesis throughout the last three centuries seem to show an amazing tendancy to unconsciously center the discoveries and the deduced theories about simian and human fossils around our human line. When I read that it is only very recently that scientists started to realize that maybe all the human and proto-human fossils they had found did NOT all belong to the same line - that human evolution seems to be indeed a bush with many branches, only one of them leading to us homo sapiens, all the others being extinct now - I realized that although I honestly believe I have no conscious feeling of belonging to a 'special' line, I hadn't considered the possibility of it ! So I thought that I had probably some unconscious cultural blind spots deeply hidden in my own mind. [img]smile.gif[/img] Am I making sense ? Yorick, about your post about animals suddenly growing stuff - evolution doesn't work that way. I have a norwegian cat - these are supposedly the descendants of the cats that the vikings brought with us on their ships to kill the rats, and have been left alone in cold forests for 1000 years. Now they have evolved a heavy fur. But it doesn't mean that one morning one of those cats suddenly grew fur ! It means that most of these cats died except the ones with the biggest individual fur - and those bred and transmitted the gene, who grew stronger with time. [img]smile.gif[/img] The way scientists conceive human evolution has drastically changed during the last decade. Before, they didn't think of a bush with many branches - so when they found a fossil, they tried to situated it on the supposedly linear human line. So for example, they assumed that bipedia and a big skull were both derived characteristics - and they got perplexed when they found a fossil with both a very modern bipedia and a small skull. Especially since they thought both characteristics were related. Like Tumaï, discovered a year ago, 7 million years old. Now they think that bipedia exists as potential in both human and ape original gene pool, and that it developped or not depending on environment (as : the individuals that walked upright the most were those who were able to better escape predators in savana areas (fewer trees to hide in), so more and more surviving individuals bred and passed the genes on).
__________________
[img]\"http://grumble.free.fr/img/romuald.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br />The missing link between ape and man is us. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evolution of Dance? | robertthebard | General Discussion | 1 | 05-12-2006 10:21 AM |
Turok:Evolution | SomeGuy | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 1 | 06-30-2003 11:31 AM |
Evolution II | Moiraine | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 87 | 02-28-2003 04:30 AM |
Pearl Jam - Do The Evolution | uss | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 6 | 09-14-2002 10:52 PM |
Evolution Dun Exist Because... | Rikard | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 65 | 11-04-2001 03:16 PM |