Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Poll Question: Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
40 [78.43%]
11 [21.57%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?
    Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 09:29
Originally posted by Halevi

Originally posted by mamikon

Originally posted by Aydin

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

 

I'm not against evolution, either. Both can coexist.



I think so too, I think there is a lot of evidence to prove that Evolution does exist, but I also believe that the Universe is created by God.
 


Im pretty sure you're both deluding yourselves, only it would scare you tremendously to truly investigate why you practice such self-delusion.

All in all, your delusion makes you happier, and it is shared by the majority of people around you, which gives you an added bonus of feeling you belong. Since that's all good for your mental, and thus physical, health, all the best to you.




lol, ok. Then where do you suppose the Universe came from. Since there is no scientific evidence (no justifiable evidence) of the origins of the Universe (big bang?), I have the right to believe that it was created by God.

What I dont understand is how some people say Earth is only 6000 years old...
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 11:44

Thats just the simple answer, if we can't figure it out, something greater must have done it. Right?

Seems like it's a psychological thing we have ingrained in our minds. It's like we always need to be lead by something higher, that their has to be a leader, or something greater then us. Am I the only one that thinks it comes from evolution as we seem to be tribal animals, well I mean group animals. Whatever you want to call it.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
dirtnap View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2005
Location: Virgin Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 605
  Quote dirtnap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 14:30

What is interesting is if there is a discovery(that final link) what will be the position of religion then?

Armegeddon, chaos or is there an expanation already in place?
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 14:45
we are animals..we are just more powerful than other animals...
Back to Top
Halevi View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
  Quote Halevi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 16:05
Originally posted by mamikon

Originally posted by Halevi

Originally posted by mamikon

Originally posted by Aydin

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

 

I'm not against evolution, either. Both can coexist.



I think so too, I think there is a lot of evidence to prove that Evolution does exist, but I also believe that the Universe is created by God.
 


Im pretty sure you're both deluding yourselves, only it would scare you tremendously to truly investigate why you practice such self-delusion.

All in all, your delusion makes you happier, and it is shared by the majority of people around you, which gives you an added bonus of feeling you belong. Since that's all good for your mental, and thus physical, health, all the best to you.




lol, ok. Then where do you suppose the Universe came from. Since there is no scientific evidence (no justifiable evidence) of the origins of the Universe (big bang?), I have the right to believe that it was created by God.



You certainly have that 'right', sure, whatever that means, but its still a delusion.

See my latest post on this thread


"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 16:44
lol, ok. Then where do you suppose the Universe came from. Since there is no scientific evidence (no justifiable evidence) of the origins of the Universe (big bang?), I have the right to believe that it was created by God.


Science is not always about finding the correct answer. Much of it is about eliminating an improbable answer.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 20:07
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

lol, ok. Then where do you suppose the Universe came from. Since there is no scientific evidence (no justifiable evidence) of the origins of the Universe (big bang?), I have the right to believe that it was created by God.


Science is not always about finding the correct answer. Much of it is about eliminating an improbable answer.


so how does it prove that the Universe has not been created by God?
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 00:32
Originally posted by Illuminati

It's backed by more scientific evidence than "Intelligent Design" is. The theory of evolution ahs it's holes of course, but is more logical than believing that god did everything
Illuminati is one of the "holes" the mathematical impossibility that life arose out of a "primordial soup?" Complexity of the universe points to God, read my response to SearchAndDestroy in regards to this point almost at the end of this post. The quote is from, www.nutters.org 
Quote:

As you can see, I'm being so kind as to assume that stage 2 is completely successful, such that we have an ideal environment for stage 3. But then what happens in stage 3? Basically, the stuff mixes around, producing more and more complex organic substances, until they start to exhibit life-like qualities. Exactly how these life-like qualities emerge or what the pre-cellular sort-of-life forms looked like is a matter of little agreement. Then in stage 4 a genetic code "appears"! Where the heck does it appear from? Where is the simple formula that we need to perform this apparent miracle? Note that this stage is still not quite at the level of the degenerate Mycoplasma genitalium which represents the simplest living organism we have observed directly.

My objections, therefore, are aimed largely at stages three and four of this scenario. Within the space of these two stages, all the complexity of a "simple" single celled organism with at least 256 genes must arise. This is a huge problem, and the amount of hard science that exists to show that it is at all feasible is pretty darn flimsy. For all I know, maybe it is possible for organisms to arise by a natural process like this, but if so, we know ten tenths of nothing at all about it in a scientific sense.

As a parting shot, let's assume that each of the 256 genes necessary for the supposed simplest cell could each arise independently and then fortuitously join up. Would this make the problem feasible? The short answer is no. The average number of base pairs per gene in Mycoplasma genitalium is about 1200, meaning that there are on average around 400 amino acids per protein. Each protein is thus the rough equivalent of a 345 keystroke document as produced by one of our monkey typewriters. This is still way into the ludicrous end of the spectrum, even if we allow for huge wads of error.

In short, molecular biology has a lot of explaining to do. Stories such as "more complex substances were formed", and "a genetic code appeared" may be satisfying to those who are predisposed to belief in a natural origin of life, but they are not testable scientific hypotheses. Random strings of letters or DNA base pairs do not become "more complex" simply by joining up into longer strings -- any more than a canvas more closely resembles a Rembrandt painting the more blobs of paint you hurl at it.

From a strictly mathematical perspective, the idea that life arose out of a pre-biotic soup is about as reasonable as the idea that Hamlet could arise out of alphabet noodle soup

Originally posted by Halevi

It's the most logical theory out there thus far. We know, by the way, that it happens. Its really a question of whether its they key principle that shapes differentiation into species, etc. And nearly all studies conducted thus far imply that that is the case. 

The actual mechanisms and processes involved in macro-level genetic change, however, are still quite ill understood, and this is what scientists are now working at.
Good point Halevi, the fact that the mechanisms of "macro evolution" is not known means that darwinian macro evolution is nothing more then a hypothesis.
Originally posted by red clay

Intelligent design is a "belief"

   Evolution is science.

Red Clay does the evidence for darwinian macro evolution come from the "fossil record?" Or does the fossil record give evidence for Intelligent Design? Many macro evolutionists blindly say the fossil record supports macro evolution. This is far from the truth as "punctuated equilibrium" would not have been proposed if the fossil record supported darwins theory of evolution. What is the evidence for punctuated equilibrium? None! Intelligent Design would expect species to appear and disappear abruptly and that is what we find in the fossil record and so the fossil record supports Intelligent Design. Here is a quote that establishes this point, Quote:
Below is a statement by an evolutionist:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

No, there is no theory of evolution, ...only the animals that Chuck Norris allows to live!
In all seriousness, I think there is enough evidence to say that its a good explanation. There are differing variations on the theory of evolutions, however, but all were developed logically based on observation.
On the other the hand, Intelligent design is not based on observation of the world.
Invictus did observation result in the discrediting of the horse fossil record series? Note the source is National Geographic and the year was in 1981. The series, though discredited, continues to be taught in universities and high schools.  Check out Campbell's university textbook. Here is a quote that makes that point.
Quote:
 Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the

one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74

Originally posted by Aydin

The theory itself is based on common sense and sounds logical generally speaking, however, there are far too many scientific and anthropologic missing links to support the theory... therefore I say NO!
Very good point Aydin. I have given a quote regarding the missing links in this post above, and the fact that the horse evolution series is not fact.
Originally posted by Aydin

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
Aydin, Einstein was correct and that is what Intelligent Design does. It brings science and religion together.
Originally posted by Cezar

The theory(es) of evolution is(are) sound enough to be acceptable. There are unexplained facts but that's why the scientists keep on doing the research work.
 Cezar, macro evolution "sounds" enough to be acceptable. Thus it is your "belief."  
Originally posted by Aydin

The theory itself is based on common sense and sounds logical generally speaking, however, there are far too many scientific and anthropologic missing links to support the theory... therefore I say NO!
Originally posted by Paul

Do you know what the theory if evolution is?
The definition is from http//education.yahoo.com
evolution 
  1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
  2. The process of developing.
  3. Gradual development.
  4. Biology
  5. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
  6. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. 
Paul, the definition is known, however "macro evolution" has not been observed as stated by Halevi above. However we have many countless of "micro evolutionary" changes both among domestic and wild animals. For example that is why we have so many types of domestic horses and micro changes in iguanas in the Galopogos Islands, which was observed by Darwin. He made a leap of faith from micro change to macro change. 
Originally posted by barish

I voted for yes. It may have some gaps, but science is always progressing and will never be perfect.
barish a disillusioned darwinian macro scientist does not agree with you and he knows more about the theory then you and I. This macro evolutionist says there is no hard science and that evolution is dogma, which is blind belief.Quote:

Ludwig von Bertalanffy - biologist.

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise

applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Ludwig von

Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith in his book "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind", Crossroads: New York, 1982 p:173

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

I also voted yes, due to the fact that unlike religiously backed theories, the theory(ies) of evolution have/has been supported through such scientific things as carbon dating.
How does carbon dating support macro evolution?
Originally posted by white dragon

i think it is supported and a good explaination, but not the best but, i vote yes, though i don't believe it personally
Dragon, stick to what you believe personally if that is Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by Aydin

God created the Universe, then angels then Adam.
What will really blow your mind is when you realize adam was created first but not placed on earth. So the Dinosaurs could have been on earth from the very beginning, while Adam was in paradise or still pure light.
Aydin, your correct dinosaurs where on the earth in the beginning when Adam was created, as stated in Genesis 1:20-27. For a description of dinosaurs in the Bible, read Job 40:15-24 and Job 41:34. Many people do not realize dinosaurs are in the Word of God.
Originally posted by Aydin

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert EinsteinI'm not against evolution, either. Both can coexist.
Aydin I know your not saying evolution is true as you stated above.
Originally posted by mamikon

I think so too, I think there is a lot of evidence to prove that Evolution does exist, but I also believe that the Universe is created by God.
mamikon, macro evolution does not have evidence and many former theistic evolutionists have become creationist. Note this quotation from the well know Gallup organization and the reason they give for this trend. The website is www.ridgecrest.ca.us 

Quote:
In the September 2005 Gallup poll, 53% endorsed the creationist position, 31% believed in theistic evolution, and only 12% selected the atheistic evolution option. This could be the beginning of a trend, but it might just be a one-time anomaly. If the change is real, it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isnt. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs.

Intelligent Design is a new idea that allows rejection of evolution without acceptance of the Judeo-Christian god. In the September, 2005, Gallup poll, 31% think Intelligent Design is true, 32% think it is false, and 37% dont know what to think.)

Originally posted by Aydin

God created the Universe, then angels then Adam.
What will really blow your mind is when you realize adam was created first but not placed on earth. So the Dinosaurs could have been on earth from the very beginning, while Adam was in paradise or still pure light.
Originally posted by Paul

[Did god tell you this?
  Paul the Bible is the source for what Aydin said. Genesis 3:20, in the Bible written thousands of years ago has stated that humanity is decended from one couple. Science has confirmed that the Bible is correct as DNA studies confirms that humanity is descended from Mitochondria Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. Prior to these DNA studies as you know Paul, the most popular theory was humanity was descended from different groups, from different parts of the world as a result of conclusions drawn from skulls and cranial size. Who would believe that theory now after these DNA studies?
Originally posted by Aydin

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert EinsteinI'm not against evolution, either. Both can coexist.

Originally posted by mamikon

I think so too, I think there is a lot of evidence to prove that Evolution does exist, but I also believe that the Universe is created by God.
 


Originally posted by Halevi

Im pretty sure you're both deluding yourselves, only it would scare you tremendously to truly investigate why you practice such self-delusion. All in all, your delusion makes you happier, and it is shared by the majority of people around you, which gives you an added bonus of feeling you belong. Since that's all good for your mental, and thus physical, health, all the best to you.
Halevi, at least your honest to admit you have some doubts. Your "pretty sure" they are deluding themselves.
Originally posted by mamikon

lol, ok. Then where do you suppose the Universe came from. Since there is no scientific evidence (no justifiable evidence) of the origins of the Universe (big bang?), I have the right to believe that it was created by God.
What I dont understand is how some people say Earth is only 6000 years old...
I agree mamikon as 6000 years are not mentioned in the Bible anywhere for the age of the earch!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Thats just the simple answer, if we can't figure it out, something greater must have done it. Right? Seems like it's a psychological thing we have ingrained in our minds. It's like we always need to be lead by something higher, that their has to be a leader, or something greater then us. Am I the only one that thinks it comes from evolution as we seem to be tribal animals, well I mean group animals. Whatever you want to call it.
Search, complexity is the reason people believe in God now and in the past. That means that complexity shows intelligence. For example when archeologists discover a cave were humans lived, they can eliminate animals lived there due to the complexity found in the cave, whether it be pottery or evidence of the use of fire. How do they draw those conclusions? Complexity my friend. One other example, you know about is Seti, which is searching the universe for radio signals in order to find life. This program began in 1960, and if they ever receive a signal, how would they determine it is an intelligent message? An intelligent message would be determined by a pattern, by complexity! Thus complexity of the "simple cell," the universe, functions of nature and the human body points to "intelligence." Intelligence we call God. Search "we" believe in God not because as you assert we have "pychological needs," but like discovering humans habitations on earth, or searching for signals from the universe, complexity leads to the logical conclusion that God exists.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 00:49
that was one long and confusing post,  lol, but anyway...I have no doubt of the existance of evolution (whether micro and macro) and I do not share the belief that Humans were created  by God, and that they get signals from the Universe...thats a little silly...

but anyway, you tend to think that humans are the most complex organisms because we can "think", and be "intelligent". Well what makes you think a dolphin, or a flower cant think? An oak tree has more than 500,000 genes while we have at most 80,000 if I am not mistaken. Our genetic makeup closely resembles that of the apes (about 99.9%), how do you suppose this ocurred?

so how old do you suppose the Earth is? and who lived on Earth before us, nothing?
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 00:53
Originally posted by mamikon

that was one long and confusing post,  lol, but anyway...I have no doubt of the existance of evolution (whether micro and macro) and I do not share the belief that Humans were created  by God, and that they get signals from the Universe...thats a little silly...

but anyway, you tend to think that humans are the most complex organisms because we can "think", and be "intelligent". Well what makes you think a dolphin, or a flower cant think? An oak tree has more than 500,000 genes while we have at most 80,000 if I am not mistaken. Our genetic makeup closely resembles that of the apes (about 99.9%), how do you suppose this ocurred?

so how old do you suppose the Earth is? and who lived on Earth before us, nothing?
Hi mamikon, I was attempting to answer most of the people who posted, so read it after each persons nicname. The only ones I did not respond to seemed to be answered by other responses I made. The points are there and supported by quotations. As far as the earh, I have no idea. Mamikon, I agree with the fact that humanity looking for signals from outer space is "silly." However you may not be aware that such a program exists in the United States. The program is called Seti. Clearly your correct humans can think, however I am sure you don't question humans ability to think is far greater then the "animal kingdom." No one would say animals are incapable of thinking. It is clearly the ability and degree of thinking that is so obviously much superior in humans. Apes, dogs ect., for example are not incapable of abstract thought. Are these animals capable of appreciating a museum full of paintings? It would be thrashed by them. As far as the "genetic" make up of apes, you realize that such a similiarity is of little value. Here is why, our "differences" with apes are "astronomical." We have to admit that. So one would think that such a percentage would result in ape 99% similiarity, but as you know that is a rediculous conclusion. So the genetic makeup does not translate in the ape to anything like us. No comparison that is even close to a "true" resemblance to humanity. 

Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 01:50

Search, complexity is the reason people believe in God now and in the past. That means that complexity shows intelligence. For example when archeologists discover a cave were humans lived, they can eliminate animals lived there due to the complexity found in the cave, whether it be pottery or evidence of the use of fire. How do they draw those conclusions? Complexity my friend. One other example, you know about is Seti, which is searching the universe for radio signals in order to find life. This program began in 1960, and if they ever receive a signal, how would they determine it is an intelligent message? An intelligent message would be determined by a pattern, by complexity! Thus complexity of the "simple cell," the universe, functions of nature and the human body points to "intelligence." Intelligence we call God. Search "we" believe in God not because as you assert we have "pychological needs," but like discovering humans habitations on earth, or searching for signals from the universe, complexity leads to the logical conclusion that God exists.
Alright, so lets say you prove evolution doesn't exist, how do you know it's the Christian god? How do you know their is one god?

And what about the other human sub species? Did Cro-magnon humans have their own adam and eve figures too? Did the H.Sapien Idaltu? Did another species of human, the Neanderthals?

And sorry I didn't answer you about insects in the last thread. Scientist from what I understand have a good fossil record of them. We know scorpians for one came from the ocean, the ancestors of the modern one I believe it was said they had gotten up to three feet long. There was also another large scorpian that was ten feet long and was around at the same time as the other sea scorpians, but never made it onto land. They believe Scorpians were the first creatures to adapt to land, and through evolution, shrank and gained the trait to breath only air. But one thing about insects in evolution is that they usually adapt by changing size usually. They also seem to lose and gain wings through evolution too.

Paul the Bible is the source for what Aydin said. Genesis 3:20, in the Bible written thousands of years ago has stated that humanity is decended from one couple. Science has confirmed that the Bible is correct as DNA studies confirms that humanity is descended from Mitochondria Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. Prior to these DNA studies as you know Paul, the most popular theory was humanity was descended from different groups, from different parts of the world as a result of conclusions drawn from skulls and cranial size. Who would believe that theory now after these DNA studies?
Don't even get started on this. I already gave you more then enough proof about this in the other thread, even a page explaining how it works. All you have is one single study that puts a mark at 12,000 which the scientific community doesn't agree with at all.

Also, there isn't a study that says the Human evolution of modern man happened through out the world. It just shows past species moving out and other evolving in different parts of the world, most of which modern human never came in contact with. There is only evidence from what I understand that Homo Sapiens came in contact with Homo Erectus, no other evolutionary ancestor. And this happened in North Eastern Asia where soon after they died out.

I can tell this thread is going Genisis.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 03:19

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search, complexity is the reason people believe in God now and in the past. That means that complexity shows intelligence. For example when archeologists discover a cave were humans lived, they can eliminate animals lived there due to the complexity found in the cave, whether it be pottery or evidence of the use of fire. How do they draw those conclusions? Complexity my friend. One other example, you know about is Seti, which is searching the universe for radio signals in order to find life. This program began in 1960, and if they ever receive a signal, how would they determine it is an intelligent message? An intelligent message would be determined by a pattern, by complexity! Thus complexity of the "simple cell," the universe, functions of nature and the human body points to "intelligence." Intelligence we call God. Search "we" believe in God not because as you assert we have "pychological needs," but like discovering humans habitations on earth, or searching for signals from the universe, complexity leads to the logical conclusion that God exists.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Alright, so lets say you prove evolution doesn't exist, how do you know it's the Christian god? How do you know their is one god?
Of course it does not prove the Christian God! However it proves Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And what about the other human sub species? Did Cro-magnon humans have their own adam and eve figures too? Did the H.Sapien Idaltu? Did another species of human, the Neanderthals?
Hey you may have a point there. DNA studies are so new, and they may answer your question when they are done on hominids! One question has been answered by DNA studies, your incorrect Neanderthal is "NOT" a human ancestor. Here is a quote for you, Here is a quote, Quote:
University Park, Pa. (10 July 1997)  New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses  indicates that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human ancestors.

Using refined and expensive genetic techniques, U.S. and German researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bone. These studies showed that the Neanderthal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.

"These results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neandertals are not our ancestors."

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And sorry I didn't answer you about insects in the last thread.
Search, it seems you did not answer because you don't seem to understand the point that was made. Macro evolution should be happening all over the place because insects have short life spands. I am sure you know how long a "fruit fly lives." Thus if "Macro Evolution" is happening it should be in the "insect world" however what we see in the insect world is what we see in "higher animals," changes within kinds. That was the results of the Dobzhansky, who was an "darwinian macro evolutionist," studies on fruit flies. Here is the quote, This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org
Quote:
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organisman increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

In Dobzhanskys work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organisms offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.

 
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Scientist from what I understand have a good fossil record of them. We know scorpians for one came from the ocean, the ancestors of the modern one I believe it was said they had gotten up to three feet long. There was also another large scorpian that was ten feet long and was around at the same time as the other sea scorpians, but never made it onto land. They believe Scorpians were the first creatures to adapt to land, and through evolution, shrank and gained the trait to breath only air. But one thing about insects in evolution is that they usually adapt by changing size usually. They also seem to lose and gain wings through evolution too.
Search, with this qoute, you still have not answered me. Do you understand the point made about insect evolution? I will say it to you again, if macro evolution is happening, it should be in the insect world, however the darwinist Dobzhansky shows "micro changes" only occured in his fruit fly studies.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Paul the Bible is the source for what Aydin said. Genesis 3:20, in the Bible written thousands of years ago has stated that humanity is decended from one couple. Science has confirmed that the Bible is correct as DNA studies confirms that humanity is descended from Mitochondria Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. Prior to these DNA studies as you know Paul, the most popular theory was humanity was descended from different groups, from different parts of the world as a result of conclusions drawn from skulls and cranial size. Who would believe that theory now after these DNA studies?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Don't even get started on this. I already gave you more then enough proof about this in the other thread, even a page explaining how it works. All you have is one single study that puts a mark at 12,000 which the scientific community doesn't agree with at all.
 Search, you "never" gave any "proof" except that you did not read carefully. Let me repeat you misunderstood. I never said a scientific study showed Adam or Eve ever lived 12,000 years ago. Read our posts below to each other.
SearchAndDestroy wrote:
You brought up one study saying Adam was from 12,000 years ago, but scientific community doesn't believe that due to the timeline alone. That was the Ice Age, man was already out of Africa.
Search you need to read carefully. I never said that Y Chromosome Adam lived 12,000 years ago! What I did say is that there was a DNA study, the Hammer study, that put 12,000 years between the existence of Adam and Eve. Here is our dialogue so you can read it more carfully. It includes the study that "separates" Adam and Eve by 12,000 years. Search as you know these studies based on DNA are new. I am sure they will become more exact, and once again neither of us can predict whether they will be placed in the same period. Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see. You have no idea whether there was a population of tens of thousands as nobody was there. "You believe that and want to believe that," however you have no proof, it is nothing more then your opinion, as NO BODY was there. In fact one study separates them by a 12,000 years! A second in time, but I am not saying that is the definitive time. Don't miss my point, it is too early to establish that yet. That study is the Hammer study that arrives at the time I referred to above, and as you know, his study is one of the definitive studies on this subject. I will quote it here, the site is, http://wrsv.clas.virginia.edu,

Quote:

About 10 years ago, molecular biologists found evidence in human genes that all people share a common female ancestor, dubbed Eve, who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. The claim has been challenged on both genetic and fossil evidence, and it has been supported by a repetition of the same kind of analysis. There is an argument that one would expect all current humans to have one common ancestor based on sampling statistics alone.

Now comes corroboration from a different kind of genetic study. While the earlier claim was based on DNA transmitted only through the maternal lineage (mitochondrial DNA), the new report uses DNA transmitted and possessed only by males (the Y chromosome).

Michael F. Hammer, a researcher in molecular evolution at the University of Arizona in Tucson, reported in the Nov. 23 Nature that his analysis of a part of the Y sex chromosome indicates that modern humans descended from a common male ancestor who lived 188,000 years ago. Although the new report does not say where that ancient man, whom some are calling 'Adam,' lived, his age is close enough to Eve's for this kind of work.

 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Also, there isn't a study that says the Human evolution of modern man happened through out the world. It just shows past species moving out and other evolving in different parts of the world, most of which modern human never came in contact with.
 Search I am beginning to wonder how much your aware of the theories of darwinian evolution regarding humanity. Most who have studied science, recognise that contributions of human developement came from separate populations in Asia, Africa and Europe. You may have done some "recent" search, however you may not find the information, since it is a discarded theory that humanity was descended from different groups and from different parts of the world. Who would want to support those studies now after DNA studies say we are descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve? 
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

There is only evidence from what I understand that Homo Sapiens came in contact with Homo Erectus, no other evolutionary ancestor. And this happened in North Eastern Asia where soon after they died out.
Search yes as "you understand," however the previous theory before DNA studies agreed with Genesis 3:20, was that humanity arose from different parts of the world. I can give you a quote from a macro evolutionist who responded to me in another thread. Here is the quote,
Originally posted by Encoberto

I must say that opinion is still divided on the subject. Although most scientists have discarded the multi-region hypothesis, many are still to be convinced by the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis. Still, it is the most reasonable explanation to date.
Search as you can see your just unaware of the theories before the DNA studies. As you see Ecoberto even stated some scientists still believe in the "multi-region hypothesis." Search I think you may not have studied this subject to a degree of understanding as the above information is well known.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I can tell this thread is going Genisis.
Well Search you did not answer me there and you probably will not answer me now, but I hope you will. It may be you don't answer because what your saying you don't understand, for example the salmon study you gave that supported my position and not yours. Macro evolutionists did not like the conclusions that Media was drawing because speciation is to take hundreds of thousands of years that "darwinian macro evolutionist" teach, instead of the 60-70 years it had taken. You brought up the horse fossil series and you never answered me. The horse fossil series is not true. Note the source is National Geographic in 1981. You learned about the horse fossil series in high school and university even though it was shown to be false in 1981! Search you seem to be unaware of the studies of the so called "horse evolution series" that have been founded to be false. Here is a quote that makes that point.
Quote:
 Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the

one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74

 Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?  Your the one that put them in a straight line, NOT me. I responded by citing "National Geographic" magazine!I assumed nothing except what you said that all transitions fit and as we can National Geographic does not agree with you, the transitions do not fit.



Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
Halevi View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
  Quote Halevi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 04:43
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search, complexity is the reason people believe in God now and in the past. That means that complexity shows intelligence. For example when archeologists discover a cave were humans lived, they can eliminate animals lived there due to the complexity found in the cave, whether it be pottery or evidence of the use of fire. How do they draw those conclusions? Complexity my friend. ...
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Alright, so lets say you prove evolution doesn't exist, how do you know it's the Christian god? How do you know their is one god?
Of course it does not prove the Christian God! However it proves Intelligent Design.

Hahaha. No, it doesnt. It doesnt *prove* anything. Proof can only be attained through pure logic. We're talking about competing theories, and the evidence each one uses to assert its respective probability.

What apparent complexity does, is provide evidence for the fact that the world is complex, period.

Moreover, Cuauhtemoc, what your reaction does is provide evidence for the theory that, whenever humans see complexity they can't yet understand themselves, they have a psychological need to attribute it to a form of higher intelligence, otherwise their worldviews go all wonky. Many people simply can't deal with uncertainties. Its natural. We've evolved to  have a penchant for searching out  the causes of things. Withought a psyche-assaugeing 'reason' or 'cause' for existence, many people simply feel psychologically uncomfortable. I feel sorry for them.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

One question has been answered by DNA studies, your incorrect Neanderthal is "NOT" a human ancestor. Here is a quote for you, Here is a quote, Quote:
University Park, Pa. (10 July 1997)  New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses  indicates that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human ancestors.

Using refined and expensive genetic techniques, U.S. and German researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bone. These studies showed that the Neanderthal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.

"These results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neandertals are not our ancestors."


Acutally, that conclusion is reductionist. All it means is that we have no female Neaderthal ancestors. Males Neaderthals could have impregnated female humans. Nonetheless, its perfectly plausible to suggest that neaderthals and humans were actually divergent species, rather than one being the ancestor of another. They likely did, however *share* common anscestors. The likelihood of this, of course, is wholly dependent on whatever evidence we continue to find in the field that either corroborates, or calls into question, the various theories regarding how, exactly, the two species were related.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And sorry I didn't answer you about insects in the last thread.
Search, it seems you did not answer because you don't seem to understand the point that was made. Macro evolution should be happening all over the place because insects have short life spands. I am sure you know how long a "fruit fly lives." Thus if "Macro Evolution" is happening it should be in the "insect world" however what we see in the insect world is what we see in "higher animals," changes within kinds. That was the results of the Dobzhansky, who was an "darwinian macro evolutionist," studies on fruit flies. Here is the quote, This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org
Quote:
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organisman increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

In Dobzhanskys work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organisms offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.


All this shows is that this one scientist was incapable of artificially creating strains of fruit fly so different from each other that they were incapble of breeding with each other (the definition of species differentiation). No more, no less. It is not proof of anything. It is evidence for the argument that it is hard to demonstrate macro evolution on a very short time scale, in a controlled environment, on fruit flies.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Dobzhansky shows [only] "micro changes" ... occured in his fruit fly studies.

True. No more, no less.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

  Search, you "never" gave any "proof" except that you did not read carefully. Let me repeat you misunderstood. I never said a scientific study showed Adam or Eve ever lived 12,000 years ago. Read our posts below to each other.
SearchAndDestroy wrote:
You brought up one study saying Adam was from 12,000 years ago, but scientific community doesn't believe that due to the timeline alone. That was the Ice Age, man was already out of Africa.
Search you need to read carefully. I never said that Y Chromosome Adam lived 12,000 years ago! What I did say is that there was a DNA study, the Hammer study, that put 12,000 years between the existence of Adam and Eve. Here is our dialogue so you can read it more carfully. It includes the study that "separates" Adam and Eve by 12,000 years. Search as you know these studies based on DNA are new. I am sure they will become more exact, and once again neither of us can predict whether they will be placed in the same period. Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see.

The study suggests that all humans alive today are descended from one female, and one male. There are competing theories, but the evidence is so inconclusive for each theory that there is simply no convincing concensus on the matter within the scientific community.

If more evidence does emerge to corroborate the 'one female/one male' ancestor-theory, then other theories will have to be adjusted/discarded accordingly. It does not, however, provide any proof for Genesis. All it does is provide one instance of evidence, put forth by one study, that suggests the idea of an 'Adam and Eve' is not immediately dismissable. It says absolutely nothing about the validity of Genesis as a history, or the relative truth of Genesis versus other cultures' myths regarding the origin of humankind.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

  Search I am beginning to wonder how much your aware of the theories of darwinian evolution regarding humanity. Most who have studied science, recognise that contributions of human developement came from separate populations in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Clarify.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Encoberto

I must say that opinion is still divided on the subject. Although most scientists have discarded the multi-region hypothesis, many are still to be convinced by the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis. Still, it is the most reasonable explanation to date.

I don't know about 'most reasonable', but it does currently seem more likely that all humans descended from one common gene pool in Africa, as oppossed to evolving convergently, from other hominids, in different parts of the globe. This is a theory, and is subject to change and revision as new evidence is presented.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


Quote:
 Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the

one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74



If this is truly what National Geographic said, it is but another instance of unfortunate populist reductionism of scientific theory. 'Evoultion' does not 'demand that there be millions of years between the three-toed and one-toed species'. All this finding means - if it is accurate - is that previous theories as to the evolutionary trajectory of the horse have to be re-evaluated. Perhaps the one-toed and three-toed horses simultaneously occupied different ecological niches for a considerable period of time. We don't know. All we can do is theorize, and then continue to sharpen and revise our theories as new evidence comes in.

Evolutionary science offers no proof of anything; only malleable theories that help explain the current body of evidence.




Edited by Halevi
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
Back to Top
Aristandros View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Aristandros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 10:59
Well this whole topic is Whether or not this theory is supported or not. When I skim over what's being posted in this topic, I hear only christianity. It's not just Christianity, or some of it's follower's, that contradict the theory of evolution. To have a concrete answer, you need to ask other religions. Since christianity, and Islam are derived from Judaism, you need to know how the Jewish feel about this. Most, apart from orthodox Jews, really don't care. Even then, just Judaism isn't enough. I, myself, and a bhuddist, so it is in my religion to believe that we, of course, are reincarnated. Do I know that? No, I'm only fourteen. But is it possible? Yes. Anything in this world is possible. Even the creation of human life. Now, philosphers from the enlightment believed that religion should stay out of discussion, but they supported the theory that someone did creat life, but stood down, to watch it work. Who creatd life? Can we ever know that? Is it possible? Yes. In my religion I do not have a god, but can I believe in another? Of course I can. My religion is more lax with beliefs, but more strict with practice. But one thing strikes me. What is it that devoted christians are arguing about? They have the right to argue, but scientists never proposed any thoery that denounces god, or any other religion. For all mankind knows, maybe there is a god that created the universe, or maybe the Big Bang happened for some reason. At this point of time, in earth's history, humans will never be able to comprehend anything beyond the galaxies in our sight. Nor will we be able to fathom the life beyond death. Maybe there is something beyond death, and maybe, after life, one ceases to exist. I support the theory of evolution, wholeheartedly, because my religion does not conflict with it. My religion accepts the bones of our ancestors. I would never dream of criticizing a religion so tolerable as christianity, because most followers believe the same thing I do.
"It is a brave man's part to live with glory, or with glory die."
                  -Sophocles
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 13:09

See Aristandros, the Christians have the strongest belief in intelligent design. They even want to push it into schools. They think, or atleast seem to think the Theory of Evolution is a science alone and that scientist who study it are Evolutionist, truth is it's backed up by many sciences that basicly prove it to be fact. To quote a site I'll give you a link too,

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003 EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&chanID=sa008

Hey you may have a point there. DNA studies are so new, and they may answer your question when they are done on hominids! One question has been answered by DNA studies, your incorrect Neanderthal is "NOT" a human ancestor. Here is a quote for you, Here is a quote,
You'll have to forgive me if I didn't make it exactly clear, but I said Human species, but not our ancestor. They are Human too, they just aren't Homo Spaiens like us.

We share two common ancestors with Neandthals: Homo Erectus, which then had a off shoot of four different Human species, the fourth one went on and is the second species that we shar a ancestor with. Homo Antecessor, which was found in May of 1997. Before it was found it was believed that both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandthalensis evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis, but now we know it's only the Anecestor of the Neanderthal. So Homo Antecessor gave way to two more human species like said about, Homo Sapien, and Homo Heidelbergensis:Which moved to Europe and was isolated to evolve to Neanderthal. Homo Sapiens:Evolved subspecies, us being Homo Sapien Sapien.

Search, with this qoute, you still have not answered me. Do you understand the point made about insect evolution? I will say it to you again, if macro evolution is happening, it should be in the insect world, however the darwinist Dobzhansky shows "micro changes" only occured in his fruit fly studies.
No where in the Theory of Evolution does it say that life spans matter. If anything it shows the opposite, especially with with insects in general. The only difference between the scorpion of today and the Sea Scorpion of the past is size and the organ that allowed Sea Scorpions to breath in water that is gone in today's scorpions. Dragon Flys were around when Dinosaurs were and used to be huge, now they are small but look the same as they always did. Ants came from wasp, but lost their wings. Wasp became bees and other hornets and evolved to what we have today. We see stick bugs gaining back wings that were lost in evolution, we observed one sub-species changing into a second. It's all change, and it's all evolution.

 

Search I am beginning to wonder how much your aware of the theories of darwinian evolution regarding humanity. Most who have studied science, recognise that contributions of human developement came from separate populations in Asia, Africa and Europe.
Recent studies put the change from our ancestors to modern man at 200,000 years ago, which makes it to early for the multiregional hypothesis. Here's what this website says,
Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis."
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm This pretty much answers the next two questions/answers as far as I can see.

I understand one horse was the Equus, which is the ancestor of modern horse, Zebra, and Donkeys, what was the other?

You'll have to forgive me, I did read it wrong thinking you said the Adam and Eve came along 12,000 years ago. But now I understand you said it was a distance of time between the two. Sorry again, my mistake. But I do have to ask, how does this period between the two prove Gensis in the last thread if it's said that the Mitochondrial Eve came before Adam? Atleast thats how it's accepted through studies.

 

 

 



Edited by SearchAndDestroy
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Luv_ya_Azerbaijan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 13-Feb-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
  Quote Luv_ya_Azerbaijan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 20:40
I believe the Evolution theory, that sure sounds  more acceptable than Adam and Eve
Turk milletlerinin birlik yoluna!!!!
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 03:44

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

[QUOTE=Cezar

The theory(es) of evolution is(are) sound enough to be acceptable. There are unexplained facts but that's why the scientists keep on doing the research work.

 Cezar, macro evolution "sounds" enough to be acceptable. Thus it is your "belief."  

I don't believe (in) anything.

  1. the macro evoluition theory doesn't "sound", it's more sound than intelligent design.
  2. Evolution theoryes state basically that there is a process (called evolution) going on in this universe. No ultimate answer given about it. It's a fact and considered as such. I don't need to "believe" it like I don't need to believe that I'm going to die.
  3. Intelligent design assumes a non observable/provable axiom: "everything is at it is due to the intelligence of God".
  4. Quit quoting the Bible if you want to be consistent.


Edited by Cezar
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 10:12

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search, complexity is the reason people believe in God now and in the past. That means that complexity shows intelligence. For example when archeologists discover a cave were humans lived, they can eliminate animals lived there due to the complexity found in the cave, whether it be pottery or evidence of the use of fire. How do they draw those conclusions? Complexity my friend. ...
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Alright, so lets say you prove evolution doesn't exist, how do you know it's the Christian god? How do you know their is one god?
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Of course it does not prove the Christian God! However it proves Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by Halevi

Hahaha. No, it doesnt. It doesnt *prove* anything. Proof can only be attained through pure logic. We're talking about competing theories, and the evidence each one uses to assert its respective probability. What apparent complexity does, is provide evidence for the fact that the world is complex, period.
Halevi, my friend, the subject above is complexity and I used complexity to point out it is just as "logical" to conclude that Intelligence is involved. You did not address that. Your response was as if I stated complexity without any supporting logic! You did not address the facts I gave that complexity shows intelligence is involved. For example I gave the exammple of humanity inhabiting a cave and not animals? Seti's search for signals of intelligence in the universe? How are these conclusions arrived at? Complexity! Thus complexity "logically" points to intelligence. My friend Halevi, you ignored these points I made "logically" regarding conclusions drawn from complexity that I supported with examples. I did not state complexity and left it alone without supporting my conclusion. Thus belief in God as a result of complexity is not as a result of "pychological" need, but as a result that complexity indicates "intelligence" as it does in other areas. This "intelligence we call God.
Originally posted by Halevi

Moreover, Cuauhtemoc, what your reaction does is provide evidence for the theory that, whenever humans see complexity they can't yet understand themselves, they have a psychological need to attribute it to a form of higher intelligence, otherwise their worldviews go all wonky. Many people simply can't deal with uncertainties. Its natural. We've evolved to have a penchant for searching out the causes of things. Withought a psyche-assaugeing 'reason' or 'cause' for existence, many people simply feel psychologically uncomfortable. I feel sorry for them.
Halevi, it is not a matter of psychological needs. Again complexity without supporting logic was not given. Would one look at a house and say it happened by chance? If one finds a watch on a beach, would one conclude such complexity just happened? It has been discovered, that what resembles a battery has been found in the Middle East. Why did they draw such a conclusion, though they are not sure how it was really used? Complexity, and therefore intelligence, my friend is what led to the involvement of humanity as the original cause. A rock with an unusual configuration was not even considered.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

One question has been answered by DNA studies, your incorrect Neanderthal is "NOT" a human ancestor. Here is a quote for you, Here is a quote, Quote:

University Park, Pa. (10 July 1997) New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses indicates that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human ancestors.

Using refined and expensive genetic techniques, U.S. and German researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bone. These studies showed that the Neanderthal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.

"These results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neandertals are not our ancestors."


Originally posted by Halevi

Acutally, that conclusion is reductionist. All it means is that we have no female Neaderthal ancestors. Males Neaderthals could have impregnated female humans. Nonetheless, its perfectly plausible to suggest that neaderthals and humans were actually divergent species, rather than one being the ancestor of another. They likely did, however *share* common anscestors. The likelihood of this, of course, is wholly dependent on whatever evidence we continue to find in the field that either corroborates, or calls into question, the various theories regarding how, exactly, the two species were related.
Halevi, you correctly focussed on Mitochondria, however these conclusions due to these DNA studies caused scientists to say no relationship ocurred. However, as you know before these DNA studies Neanderthal was a human ancestor. These studies caused scientist to conclude that Neanderthal is not in our ancestry. Y Chromosome may be extracted in the future, so your point is merely defensive and hopeful at the best. This is pure speculation on your part as these scientists concluded from the mitochondria extraction alone that neanderthals are "not related to human ancestors." The quotation from the previous sentence is the first sentence in the quote above. These scientists obviously made there observations from the data and concluded that neanderthal is "not" related to humanity. Here is another quote were scientists again as a result of these "mitochondria" extractions "only," made such statements that "humanity" are not related to Neanderthal

DNA tests show humans not Neanderthals' descendantsDecember 17, 1997
Web posted at: 11:11 p.m. EST (0411 GMT)

From Correspondent Siobhan Darrow LONDON (CNN) -- For more than a century, scientists believed that Neanderthal man, a hulking ape-like creature who lived in Europe and the Middle East some 300,000 years ago, was the direct ancestor of human beings. But new DNA tests may have finally proven that, while we may be distantly related to the Neanderthals, they were not our direct forebearers. Scientists extracted and cloned DNA from the bones of a Neanderthal specimen. The results showed that human DNA and Neanderthal DNA had too many differences to be directly related. Instead, the results bolster the hypothesis that our ancestors, the first homo sapiens, emigrated from Africa about 100,000 years ago and lived side-by-side with the Neanderthals.

Halevi, as we can see from these DNA studies alone as stated in the above quote "human DNA and Neanderthat DNA had too many differences to be directly related." My friend what can be more clear.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And sorry I didn't answer you about insects in the last thread.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search, it seems you did not answer because you don't seem to understand the point that was made. Macro evolution should be happening all over the place because insects have short life spands. I am sure you know how long a "fruit fly lives." Thus if "Macro Evolution" is happening it should be in the "insect world" however what we see in the insect world is what we see in "higher animals," changes within kinds. That was the results of the Dobzhansky, who was an "darwinian macro evolutionist," studies on fruit flies. Here is the quote, This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org

Quote:

Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organisman increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

In Dobzhanskys work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organisms offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.

Originally posted by Halevi

All this shows is that this one scientist was incapable of artificially creating strains of fruit fly so different from each other that they were incapble of breeding with each other (the definition of species differentiation). No more, no less. It is not proof of anything. It is evidence for the argument that it is hard to demonstrate macro evolution on a very short time scale, in a controlled environment, on fruit flies.
Halevi, don't miss the point as this shows that "time" is not a factor. The writer above attempted to use time as a factor for darwinian macro evolution. Your mistaken that it shows macro evolution does not take place in a "short time scale! For the life of the insect is considerably shorter then our life spans and so it is incorrect for you to say it was not a factor, that is it was a very short time scale. The fruit fly was chosen for this experiment because they only live "10" days. These studies on fruit flies had been done since the 1906!
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Dobzhansky shows [only] "micro changes" ... occured in his fruit fly studies.

Originally posted by Halevi

True. No more, no less.
Not so, in addition it shows "time" is not a factor in macro evolution which is not occuring in the "insect world" anymore then in "higher" animals. In both we have only "micro changes" within kinds.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search, you "never" gave any "proof" except that you did not read carefully. Let me repeat you misunderstood. I never said a scientific study showed Adam or Eve ever lived 12,000 years ago. Read our posts below to each other.

SearchAndDestroy wrote:

You brought up one study saying Adam was from 12,000 years ago, but scientific community doesn't believe that due to the timeline alone. That was the Ice Age, man was already out of Africa.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search you need to read carefully. I never said that Y Chromosome Adam lived 12,000 years ago! What I did say is that there was a DNA study, the Hammer study, that put 12,000 years between the existence of Adam and Eve. Here is our dialogue so you can read it more carfully. It includes the study that "separates" Adam and Eve by 12,000 years. Search as you know these studies based on DNA are new. I am sure they will become more exact, and once again neither of us can predict whether they will be placed in the same period. Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see.

Originally posted by Halevi

The study suggests that all humans alive today are descended from one female, and one male. There are competing theories, but the evidence is so inconclusive for each theory that there is simply no convincing concensus on the matter within the scientific community.
If more evidence does emerge to corroborate the 'one female/one male' ancestor-theory, then other theories will have to be adjusted/discarded accordingly. It does not, however, provide any proof for Genesis. All it does is provide one instance of evidence, put forth by one study, that suggests the idea of an 'Adam and Eve' is not immediately dismissable. It says absolutely nothing about the validity of Genesis as a history, or the relative truth of Genesis versus other cultures' myths regarding the origin of humankind.
Halevi, there is not just "one" DNA study. Results from these studies are conclusive to the extent that humanity is descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. There are many DNA studies to support this conclusion. My interpretation of the data is as legitamite as any to conclude that the data supports Genesis 3:20. Besides that, these studies are so "new" and I believe they will become more exact when time may become more definite. At this time these studies have so many varied dates, it is not conclusive. However one study as I pointed out have Adam and Eve separated by 12,000 years. As you Halevi that is a mere second in time! Thus when these studies become more exact, they may place them in the same period at the same time. Certainly a real possibility. One could even suggest the 12,000 year difference essentually puts them together. However I am simply pointing this out as "only a possibility." I would not go beyond all these studies as the date results from these studies are "so" varied. We await the future.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search I am beginning to wonder how much your aware of the theories of darwinian evolution regarding humanity. Most who have studied science, recognise that contributions of human developement came from separate populations in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Originally posted by Halevi

Clarify.
Clarified that the theory that humanity was decended by different groups from different parts of the world was the most popular theory before these DNA studies. These conclusions resulted from skulls and cranial size that resembles humanity. That was the purpose of Ecoberto's quotation regarding "multi-region" hypothesis below.
Originally posted by Encoberto

I must say that opinion is still divided on the subject. Although most scientists have discarded the multi-region hypothesis, many are still to be convinced by the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis. Still, it is the most reasonable explanation to date.
Originally posted by Halevi

I don't know about 'most reasonable', but it does currently seem more likely that all humans descended from one common gene pool in Africa, as oppossed to evolving convergently, from other hominids, in different parts of the globe. This is a theory, and is subject to change and revision as new evidence is presented.
Halevi, it seems we are in agreement here with Encoberto who pointed out that the theory that humanity arose in different parts of the world from different groups does not enjoy as much support as it did at one time. Thus due to current DNA studies it is clearly more reasonble that humanity is descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. More "reasonable," lets not lose site that "logic" must be used Halevi, my friend. Thus the "theory" of convergent evolving populations from different parts of the world was a point I was making to the writer above who appeared was "unaware" of this currently discredited theory.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Quote:

Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the

one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74



Originally posted by Halevi

If this is truly what National Geographic said, it is but another instance of unfortunate populist reductionism of scientific theory. 'Evoultion' does not 'demand that there be millions of years between the three-toed and one-toed species'. All this finding means - if it is accurate - is that previous theories as to the evolutionary trajectory of the horse have to be re-evaluated. Perhaps the one-toed and three-toed horses simultaneously occupied different ecological niches for a considerable period of time. We don't know. All we can do is theorize, and then continue to sharpen and revise our theories as new evidence comes in.
Halevi, your doing alot of side stepping here. The source is given and clearly National Geographic does not agree with your personal opinion or speculation. Their conclusion is the horse series is "not" valid for the very reason you are trying to wiggle around! The "ancestors" lived together and obviously did not evolve from one another. Not my words but the valid conclusion of the magazine. Here is another quote of a palaeontologist who is also an "Darwinian Macro Evolutionist" who does not agree with your assessement, and as a result of his field, we know he knows more about this then my opinion or your opinion.
"The supposed pedigree of the Equidae [ie horses, asses, zebras etc] is a deceitful delusion, which

..... in no way enlightens us on the palaeontological origin of the horse". Written by French palaeontologist and

evolutionist Charles Deperet in "Transformations of the Animal World", Arno Press: New York, 1980 p:105



Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 14:46

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

See Aristandros, the Christians have the strongest belief in intelligent design. They even want to push it into schools. They think, or atleast seem to think the Theory of Evolution is a science alone and that scientist who study it are Evolutionist, truth is it's backed up by many sciences that basicly prove it to be fact.
Hi Aristandros, please read carefully the following post, you will see that Darwin's theory of evolution is not so factual or scientific as you were taught. The reason Intelligent Design is making inroads into the American educational process is because the Darwinian Macro Evolutionist theory has failed to give legitimate conclusions to what we see around us in nature. To establish this point Aristandros, here is a quote regarding university professors who reject the Darwinian Macro Evolutionist theory. Aristandros, please note the date of this quotation, Quote:

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwins Theory


By: Staff
Discovery Institute

February 20, 2006

 

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage, www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

SEATTLE Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
.

Aristandros, if darwinian macro evolution was as strong as presented in classrooms, why are scientists abondoning the theory? Notice that the professors are from prestigious universities and again notice the date of this quotation. What is so significant about this quotation? The fact a few years ago, "ONE" would be "hard pressed" to find even "one" professor to take this position "openly." Don't miss my point here, for I am merely pointing out "Intelligent Design" is making inroads. If the "proof" for Darwinian Macro Evolution was so "strong" why are some university professors rejecting the theory?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

To quote a site I'll give you a link too,

Quote:

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003 EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&chanID=sa008

Hi Search, the above quotation from the article you gave seems like alot of opinion from the writer of the article. What needs to be given is the evidence to establish the theory of Darwinian Macro Evolution. I understand that is the position of the writer, however such a statement I am sure you recognise is "not" evidence in and of itself. Such a statement is pretty amazing as noted by Halevi in an earlier post that the mechanism are not clearly understood yet.
Originally posted by Halevi

The actual mechanisms and processes involved in macro-level genetic change, however, are still quite ill understood, and this is what scientists are now working at.
That statement of course is accurate. This article makes a broad, incredible statement! Now to Abulocetus which is given as an example of a "transitional link" for whales. Here is an article that supports the "belief" that ambulocetus is the ancestor of the whale. I want you to be aware of the words used regarding this supposed "link." The quote is from www.pbs.org/wbgh/evolution
Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades.
If the "details" remain "fuzzy," how can one "know for certain." This evidence would not stand up in a court of law. Here is another quote from the same article.
By 40 million years ago, Basilosaurus -- clearly an animal fully adapted to an aquatic environment -- was swimming the ancient seas, propelled by its sturdy flippers and long, flexible body. Yet Basilosaurus still retained small, weak hind legs -- baggage from its evolutionary past -- even though it could not walk on land.
The problem here is Basilosaurus is 48 feet longer then Abulocetus! Thus we have a leap of "faith!" Thus if whale evolution is so strong, why are there "no transitional links" between Basilosaurus and Abulocetus? Clearly lots of speculation here, my friend Search. Here is another quotation from the article above I have been citing from.
None of these animals is necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales we know today; they may be side branches of the family tree. But the important thing is that each fossil whale shares new, whale-like features with the whales we know today, and in the fossil record, we can observe the gradual accumulation of these aquatic adaptations in the lineage that led to modern whales.
Now the article says that "none of these animals is necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales!" Can any more speculation occur? How can such conclusions be reliable? This is a statement one would expect to hear in a "religious" setting. The statement from the article sounds like "dogma" or blind belief. Trust me is all you have to do the article says! Is that "evidence?"

 

 

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Hey you may have a point there. DNA studies are so new, and they may answer your question when they are done on hominids! One question has been answered by DNA studies, your incorrect Neanderthal is "NOT" a human ancestor. Here is a quote for you, Here is a quote,

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You'll have to forgive me if I didn't make it exactly clear, but I said Human species, but not our ancestor. They are Human too, they just aren't Homo Spaiens like us.

We share two common ancestors with Neandthals: Homo Erectus, which then had a off shoot of four different Human species, the fourth one went on and is the second species that we shar a ancestor with. Homo Antecessor, which was found in May of 1997. Before it was found it was believed that both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandthalensis evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis, but now we know it's only the Anecestor of the Neanderthal. So Homo Antecessor gave way to two more human species like said about, Homo Sapien, and Homo Heidelbergensis:Which moved to Europe and was isolated to evolve to Neanderthal. Homo Sapiens:Evolved subspecies, us being Homo Sapien Sapien.

No problem, Search, thank you for clarifying the point. Thus we both agree that Neanderthal is "not" an ancestor of humanity. The current theory does say "we" are ancestors of Homo Erectus, however that theory is based on "resemblence" to humanity, as a result of skeletal remains and an artists rendition of the finds. Remember Search, such artists renditions before DNA studies also put Neanderthal as an ancestor of humanity on the same basis of resemblence, due to skull and cranial size as a result of skeletal remains! One awaits DNA studies on those you mentioned above to establish whether or not they are in the linage of humanity.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search, with this qoute, you still have not answered me. Do you understand the point made about insect evolution? I will say it to you again, if macro evolution is happening, it should be in the insect world, however the darwinist Dobzhansky shows "micro changes" only occured in his fruit fly studies.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

No where in the Theory of Evolution does it say that life spans matter. If anything it shows the opposite, especially with with insects in general. The only difference between the scorpion of today and the Sea Scorpion of the past is size and the organ that allowed Sea Scorpions to breath in water that is gone in today's scorpions. Dragon Flys were around when Dinosaurs were and used to be huge, now they are small but look the same as they always did. Ants came from wasp, but lost their wings. Wasp became bees and other hornets and evolved to what we have today. We see stick bugs gaining back wings that were lost in evolution, we observed one sub-species changing into a second. It's all change, and it's all evolution.
Search, again with your statement above, you have not dealt with the point made with the experiments on "fruit flies," by the Darwinian scientist, Dobzhansky. Micro Evolution or changes "only" occured in the Dobzhansky experiments on fruit flies! As far as Sea Scorpians are concerned, again you are proving "Intelligent Design!" Sea Scorpians is a "Micro Change or evolution! Let me give you a parrelel, the water iguana in the Galopagos is a relative of the South American iguana which does not dive for food! As you have pointed out with the "sea scorpian" both iguanas resemble each other. Search again you are supporting Intelligent Design with the Dragon Fly. The small "dragon fly" of today is a "Micro change" or evolution within kinds, just as it is in scorpians and iguanas. Search you say "time or life spans" do not matter in "Darwinian Macro Evolution." I am surprised you are not aware of the "importance of time" in the Darwinian Macro Evolution theory. It appeared to me that in your earlier posts to me in another thread, you were making reference to "time." Here is a quote from Wikepedia,
In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years. The phylogenetic tree at right represents these relationships for the three major domains of life.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Search I am beginning to wonder how much your aware of the theories of darwinian evolution regarding humanity. Most who have studied science, recognise that contributions of human developement came from separate populations in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Recent studies put the change from our ancestors to modern man at 200,000 years ago, which makes it to early for the multiregional hypothesis. Here's what this website says,

Quote:

Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis."

Search this has been my point all along as you now know, regarding the most popular theory before the DNA studies were done, that the "multi-regional" hypothesis we have been discussing. The DNA studies startled the scientific world and discredited this theory that humanity was a result of "different groups" from different parts of the world. I am glad you now see the point I was making Search. Thus it seems we are in agreement on this issue now.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I understand one horse was the Equus, which is the ancestor of modern horse, Zebra, and Donkeys, what was the other?
Search the "horse evolution series" has been discredited, it is "FALSE." Even though the horse evolution series has been discredited it is still being taught in high schools and universities, where you learned about it. It makes me wonder and I think you too now, could darwinian macro evolutionist be misleading us by continuing to teach the "horse evolution series?" Here is the quote I gave you earlier,

Quote:

Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the

one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74

Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You'll have to forgive me, I did read it wrong thinking you said the Adam and Eve came along 12,000 years ago. But now I understand you said it was a distance of time between the two. Sorry again, my mistake. But I do have to ask, how does this period between the two prove Gensis in the last thread if it's said that the Mitochondrial Eve came before Adam? Atleast thats how it's accepted through studies.
Hey Search, no problem as I understand such can happen when one is reading. I would not take advantage as this is an intellectual discussion and appreciate us reasoning together, my friend. I think discussing such issues should be done with respect and in a cordial manner. Too often such discussions become emotional where people are misrepresented or call names. I really appreciate your post here. The point I was making was the fact that one study had Adam and Eve, 12,000 years apart and that is a "second in time" and thus virtually places them together. I am not saying that the Hammer study, which gives that time difference, is the absolute authority regarding "time" however it makes my point that the times, that the DNA studies have arrived at are all over the place. Some DNA studies places then any number of hundreds of thousands of years apart and others closer. However since these times are all over the place, maybe, they were together! When these DNA studies get more exact as far as time, this may be the case, and thats what we may discover.



Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
Aydin View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
  Quote Aydin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 15:59
Originally posted by Halevi

Originally posted by mamikon

Originally posted by Aydin

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

 

I'm not against evolution, either. Both can coexist.



I think so too, I think there is a lot of evidence to prove that Evolution does exist, but I also believe that the Universe is created by God.
 


Im pretty sure you're both deluding yourselves, only it would scare you tremendously to truly investigate why you practice such self-delusion.

All in all, your delusion makes you happier, and it is shared by the majority of people around you, which gives you an added bonus of feeling you belong. Since that's all good for your mental, and thus physical, health, all the best to you.


 

I dont see anything wrong with believing something greater exists. Certainly gives greater purpose to life.

It's all part of the belief system. Either you do believe in it or you dont. You cant explain it in scientific terms.

 

At some point you have to reach a matter which isnt created by something else, and was there from the very begining and philosphers argue that such a thing can only be God.


Edited by Aydin
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.578 seconds.