Al Gore will be excited!!!

Pages

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

I have a question, is the human race just another form of an animal, A highly evolved form?

In a million years are we going to be different, evolve to something different?

The millions of insects out there, how did they evolve, from one source, what is the source or many sources, what is their orgin.

Do extict dinos explain evolution, How so?

serious questions, just want an uptake from the theory guys.

And if you have any questions about creation or God I can answers those as well from own belief and the bible.

Not starting anything, only a civil discussion. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers, there seems to be the "likelyhopod" you and I are "possibly" not so far apart in our personal faith based "beliefs" short of creation.

It seems that you have some sort of faith there is more out there than what is on the pages of a science white paper if you are concerned with benefiting your spirituality thru prayer.

I simply choose to have faith that a power that has the ability to answer my prayers in some form and positively affect my spirituality might also have the ability to create something more.

Time will tell I guess.

I would rather have my kids growing up believing there is something more out there to be accountable for and to rather than just you can do whatever you wish and it matters nothing once you are gone because all you are is worm shit.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Meatball Said:
I have a question, is the human race just another form of an animal, A highly evolved form?

In a million years are we going to be different, evolve to something different?

The millions of insects out there, how did they evolve, from one source, what is the source or many sources, what is their orgin.

Do extict dinos explain evolution, How so?

serious questions, just want an uptake from the theory guys.

And if you have any questions about creation or God I can answers those as well from own belief and the bible.

Not starting anything, only a civil discussion. 

hey, don;t look to me for answers, everyone knows I have more questions than answers!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Meatball Said:
I have a question, is the human race just another form of an animal, A highly evolved form?

In a million years are we going to be different, evolve to something different?

The millions of insects out there, how did they evolve, from one source, what is the source or many sources, what is their orgin.

Do extict dinos explain evolution, How so?

serious questions, just want an uptake from the theory guys.

And if you have any questions about creation or God I can answers those as well from own belief and the bible.

Not starting anything, only a civil discussion. 

Yes

Yes, in a million years, if we are not extinct we will be different than we are today, the unanswerable questin is "how different?" Maybe not as visually different as we think, but definetly different.  Our species today is different than it was just thousands of years ago.

Yes, insects share common ancestors, just like all species.  I suggest you do some of your own research here sine I don't have all day and I'm pretty sure your not absorbing any of this anyway.

Dinosaur evidence alone does not explain evolution, it is just one of many puzzle pieces that give us a whole picture of evolution.  Dinosaurs were very large reptile like species that went extinct 65 million years ago, along with most of the other species on earth at that time.  The species that survived the event adapted, diversified and evolved into the species we know today.

When you read something like "birds evolved from dinosaurs" that statement isn't very acurate, birds evolved from a small group of bipedal reptiles whose fossils exhibit feathers and hollow bones.

Go back a page and watch the video I posted, it presents both sides of this argument equally, very educational.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 since you're offering to answer questions about creationism, can you give me an example of irreducible complexity?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

huh?  you have regularly equated multi's and others (me included) "belief" in evolution to your belief in creationism?  without even looking back i will attempt to quote you verbatim... "msa, how is your faith in evolution any different than our/my faith in creation or religion?"

gst Said:
espringers where have I ever equated my faith to science?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
huh?  you have regularly equated multi's and others (me included) "belief" in evolution to your belief in creationism?  without even looking back i will attempt to quote you verbatim... "msa, how is your faith in evolution any different than our/my faith in creation or religion?"

gst Said:
espringers where have I ever equated my faith to science?

espringers you seem to be able to miss large concepts. Go back and reread post #272 and note the words that are colored red.

Then come back here and answer the question I asked if words and phrases such as these require some level of faith to "believe" the "likelyhood" or "possiblity" of something.

Then take some time to think about what you yourself wrote regarding science in post #243.

Quote
And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

I may be mistaken here but if you are being "asked to believe" something, is there not a certain degree of faith that is required???

Even if it is "faith" that the "evidence" of what you are being asked to believe is actually correct and true?

And when sceince uses words such as those in red or has changed positions such as was shown in the two links I provided is it not possible that despite all the "proof" science provides TODAY, there still is required a bit of faith to accept it knowing new science may very well prove old science wrong??

Even in your statement, your "skeptisim and further testing "  comments requires a degree of faith in that the science itself may in fact be wrong despite all the evidence and "facts" and proof, otherwise what value is there in wasting further time and energies and value on "skeptism and further testing"?????


So espringers, who exatly are you praying to when you pray? 

If you do not believe this entity has the ability to hear and answer your prayers in some form, (even if it is simple comfort of spirit) are not your efforts an exercise in futility? 

So if you make a conscienous decision to continue to pray are you not on some level having faith in a higher power?  

So if you beleive this higher power can answer YOUR  prayers or provide some benefit to you in some manner, why do you dismiss others that beleive this higher power might be able to do what they believe? 

If not why bother having these personal conversations to benefit your spirituallity?

i think there is a spiritual benefit to practicing by engaging in regular prayer or meditation and maybe taking time each week to hone your spirituality... in my case, i was raised going to church and praying regularly... so, i continue to do it.

So espringers you "believe" or have faith you receive a spiritual benefit by conversing with some higher power. Do you have any scientific fact this occurs or are you relying on YOUR faith.

Do you have any scientific evidence there is such a thing as spirituality. I mean the name itself sounds pretty unscientific.

Can you see it under a microscope?

Can they carbon date it?

Can science measure it?

What evidence do you have it exists?

I wonder what multi thinks of your conversations with a higher being regarding your spirituality.

I mean me personally I think it is great you have a faith in something science can't measure, touch, prove, or list evidence of existing but a few on here might not agree.


Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

Just sincere questions, things I always wondered about no reason to get petty.

To answer your question I believe it is how the eyeball is formed. Its been awhile since I studied this subject. how in natural selection if a certain part is gone it cant go on and form a more complex form, for it needs all parts to survive.

How is the human race different now then it was 1000 years ago?

 

Sum1's picture
Sum1
Offline
Joined: 1/12/08

Freaking athiests pushing their beliefs on me. Wheres the ACLU?

 "Play it Mr.Toot"

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Meatball Said:

Just sincere questions, things I always wondered about no reason to get petty.

To answer your question I believe it is how the eyeball is formed. Its been awhile since I studied this subject. how in natural selection if a certain part is gone it cant go on and form a more complex form, for it needs all parts to survive.

How is the human race different now then it was 1000 years ago?

 

Meatball they eye is not irruducibly complex.  There are many examples of different eyes through out the animal kingdom from very simple single celled photo sensitive "eyes" to very complex eyes (like mantis shrimps) that are capable of detecting light in wavelengths well beyond our own eye's capabilities, along with the abundance of variable eyes in between these two examples.

so to say that removing a single component of an eye means all eyes are useless is not at all accurate since there are so many different eyes with single to multiple parts that function as eyes just fine.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

ummm... where to start other than to say i am not about to equate whatever faith i have in whatever higher power i might believe in to the same "faith", as you put it, that is required to trust in the scientific process that has led to evolution being one of the most widely accepted scientific theories of all time.  period.  one has mountains and mountains of scientific evidence that has has been observed and tested by the entire scientific community worldwide for over a century now.  the other... not so much... i don't know how many times i can say the same thing over and over and over again.  but, that's it in a nutshell.  to answer any more of your questions is simply tossing logs on the never ending circle of fire known as the GST twilight zone.  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Meatball Said:

How is the human race different now then it was 1000 years ago?

 

in many ways, for example, go back even further to times before we started crossing oceans.  humans were on their way to evolving into 4 or 5 very different looking species.  the very dark skinned aboriginal people of Australia, the pail light haired light eyed people of northern Europe, Asians, and so on...

look at the average height of humans today compared to 1,000 years ago, and of course our genetics and dna collaborates with these claims that we are different today.

take 20 people and seclude them to a large island completely separate from the rest of the human population.  do you think the people of that island would look different than the rest of the humans on earth after 1,000 years?

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

Yes I agree but isnt that called breeding or inbreeding and they would have a select diet, same thing as dogs, and dont you think our diet is better now and would have an effect on us. I dont get how that would be call evolving. I believe the average height of a male in WWII was 5'7" what is the average now 5'9" that is a span of 70 years.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

Meatball Said:
 I dont get how that would be call evolving. I believe the average height of a male in WWII was 5'7" what is the average now 5'9" that is a span of 70 years.

I think that can be partly explained by sexual selection (women prefer a taller man generally). Sexual selection can "push" evolution one way or another. As for the diet? No. I think it was far healthier then, than it is now.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Meatball Said:
Yes I agree but isnt that called breeding or inbreeding and they would have a select diet, same thing as dogs, and dont you think our diet is better now and would have an effect on us. I dont get how that would be call evolving. I believe the average height of a male in WWII was 5'7" what is the average now 5'9" that is a span of 70 years.

The steps between a wolf and a chiuahua is evolution.  The only difference there is we selected the traits that were passed on, not nature

But remember, a wolf cannot give birth to a litter of Chihuahuas, just as a chiuahua can't have a litter of wolves.  

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

The eye is actually a perfect example of evolution or change throughput earths's history. An organ, if that's what its called, that serves many different levels of function across many different species depending on the environment of the particular organism. Isolated populations within the same species even have different types of eyes from extremely sensitive to practically useless or non existent.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers, so you are denying that one must have faith in science?

Just as there are many types of eyes espringers there are many types of faith.

Apparently you are willing to disregard the two links I posted showing that todays science contradicts yesterdays science pertaining to this theory you say is so etched in stone.

So which one do you have faith in being right espringers?

I do find it interesting that apparently you choose to believe in a higher power when praying for something and hoping your prayers are answered but yet deny this higher power can do much more than grant you some peace spiritually.

Life is so much easier when we can pick and choose things such as ones definition of morality to make things fit what we want.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

 speaking of morality... i hear alligators eat their young for moral support.  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Meelosh Said:

Meatball Said:
 I dont get how that would be call evolving. I believe the average height of a male in WWII was 5'7" what is the average now 5'9" that is a span of 70 years.

I think that can be partly explained by sexual selection (women prefer a taller man generally). Sexual selection can "push" evolution one way or another. As for the diet? No. I think it was far healthier then, than it is now.

So why so many fat chicks, dont know too many men that prefer that....

Neat

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

johnr Said:

Meelosh Said:

Meatball Said:
 I dont get how that would be call evolving. I believe the average height of a male in WWII was 5'7" what is the average now 5'9" that is a span of 70 years.

I think that can be partly explained by sexual selection (women prefer a taller man generally). Sexual selection can "push" evolution one way or another. As for the diet? No. I think it was far healthier then, than it is now.

So why so many fat chicks, dont know too many men that prefer that....

You obviously never had an african American wingman.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 to explain fat chicks in terms of evolution, most of them were thin and hot before they got married and passed on those fat genes to their children, after 2 or 3 kids and a couple hundred episodes of Oprah and real housewives they blow up.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Rolmfao

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

" I'm pretty sure your not absorbing any of this anyway."

When things get condescending is it of any use to debate further? So if that's your opinion I'll give you mine then actually drop it like you guys said you were going to. I think your to full of yourselves. I think you have damaged the integrity of science and created a lot of distrust with people who know what theory means. You can change the meaning if you like, but I prefer to keep what I learned years ago in college by professors who said over and over do not exaggerate our knowledge or you will undermine the integrity of science.

I think what some people don't understand is the difference between conviction and opinion. It isn't hard to change ones opinion, but if you have convictions and ask someone to change them your asking them to change what forms their personality and the very way they live their life. For example do you think I can simply ask any of the strong liberals to change their mind and become conservative?

The only people some impress is themselves. Reading some of these posts reminds me of that condescending guy on the Big Bang whatever tv show.

Respecting science and worshiping it are not the same thing. Usually those that are very impressed with it are those looking at it from the outside. I'm looking at it from the professional side with the full knowledge we make mistakes and some of my colleagues only know half of what they think they do.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

If nothing else, this thread accomplished one miracle that I wasn't sure even God himself could pull off... It got plainsman and gst to take the same side on an argument.

But, I am a bit curious what your guys take is on the catholic church acknowledging that evolution is real.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

IT just goes to show us that the catholic church would rather put their trust on man then God. If they claim to be christian then go around and say the Bible is a lie and God is a liar, to me it is sickening. It is no different then a church embracing queers.

Well then again it is the 21 century and the new world so who cares anymore.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

Well this thread has gone full circle.  Those that believe in science but also believe in God, and those that believe in the monkey god.  As always!

fishmahn and his lap puppy have had their say but it's all the same old thing.  Exactly what they have to say about faith in general, the same old thing.  I personally do not deny the science behind evolution but leave room for the big picture.  Macro-evolution is a whole new alien though, that is another matter. 

Now what is this about the Catholic church and their standing on evolution?  Are we talking macro-man-monkey evolution?  Enlighten me if you know, what exactly is this denominations stance?

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 alpine....macro-evolution has been observed.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

johnr Said:

Meelosh Said:

Meatball Said:
 I dont get how that would be call evolving. I believe the average height of a male in WWII was 5'7" what is the average now 5'9" that is a span of 70 years.

I think that can be partly explained by sexual selection (women prefer a taller man generally). Sexual selection can "push" evolution one way or another. As for the diet? No. I think it was far healthier then, than it is now.

So why so many fat chicks, dont know too many men that prefer that....

That brings us back to the food thing. Also, alcohol leads to bad choices.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

multi-species-angler Said:
 to explain fat chicks in terms of evolution, most of them were thin and hot before they got married and passed on those fat genes to their children, after 2 or 3 kids and a couple hundred episodes of Oprah and real housewives they blow up.

That is just ridiculous. They would pass on the fat gene regardless. You don't just develop the fat gene once you get fat.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Meelosh Said:

multi-species-angler Said:
 to explain fat chicks in terms of evolution, most of them were thin and hot before they got married and passed on those fat genes to their children, after 2 or 3 kids and a couple hundred episodes of Oprah and real housewives they blow up.

That is just ridiculous. They would pass on the fat gene regardless. You don't just develop the fat gene once you get fat.

Yes I know, but men are unaware of the fat gene until after they breed.  The genes may have never been passed on if they were fat to begin with.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

"I think that can be partly explained by sexual selection (women prefer a taller man generally). Sexual selection can "push" evolution one way or another. As for the diet? No. I think it was far healthier then, than it is now."

Meelosh I am not going to debate with people anymore, but I was given the answer for this by a geneticist and medical doctor. The gene for taller people has always been there, but a taller person on average is born taller. Our medical practices have made great advances, but in the past larger babies had much higher mortality rates. The chances of a ten pound baby (like myself) living was not good. The chances of a five or six pound baby was much better. As our prenatal care became better and our delivery of children advanced larger children survived.
Of interest is the French who at one time were taller on average. However, short little Napoleon they say admired tall people and you had to be six foot to get into his army. I don't know, I suspect he hated tall people. Anyway, in one of my college classes they hypothesis that Napoleon is responsible for the average French man being two inches shorter today.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

Plainsman Said:
"I think that can be partly explained by sexual selection (women prefer a taller man generally). Sexual selection can "push" evolution one way or another. As for the diet? No. I think it was far healthier then, than it is now."

Meelosh I am not going to debate with people anymore, but I was given the answer for this by a geneticist and medical doctor. The gene for taller people has always been there, but a taller person on average is born taller. Our medical practices have made great advances, but in the past larger babies had much higher mortality rates. The chances of a ten pound baby (like myself) living was not good. The chances of a five or six pound baby was much better. As our prenatal care became better and our delivery of children advanced larger children survived.
Of interest is the French who at one time were taller on average. However, short little Napoleon they say admired tall people and you had to be six foot to get into his army. I don't know, I suspect he hated tall people. Anyway, in one of my college classes they hypothesis that Napoleon is responsible for the average French man being two inches shorter today.

Of course it's always been there. The reason why it is more prevalent today is at least partly due to sexual selection.


Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

multi-species-angler Said:
 

Meelosh Said:

multi-species-angler Said:
 to explain fat chicks in terms of evolution, most of them were thin and hot before they got married and passed on those fat genes to their children, after 2 or 3 kids and a couple hundred episodes of Oprah and real housewives they blow up.

That is just ridiculous. They would pass on the fat gene regardless. You don't just develop the fat gene once you get fat.

Yes I know, but men are terrified of the fat gene after they breed.

Fixed it for you.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

 i ain't positive... i just briefly read into a week or so ago when someone else mentioned it in this thread.  but, i think they have come out saying they recognize that evolution is real and is occurring.  but, they dispute that it is completely random and assert is the product of divine influence or intervention.  for the purposes of this thread, i was more concerned with the former rather than the latter.  

Alpine Said:

Now what is this about the Catholic church and their standing on evolution?  Are we talking macro-man-monkey evolution?  Enlighten me if you know, what exactly is this denominations stance?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

My understanding is that the Catholic church has long held a theistic view point in terms of evolution.

"....macro-evolution has been observed."

Gravity has been observed!

We still have some in science (with many blind sheep followers) who claim the debate is over on GLOBAL WARMING!   With now 13 years of no advancing warming and a 60 year low in tornado and severe storm activity (when we were once told by bow we would be setting records by the typical Algorian).
Man caused global warming was being OBSERVED!

Evolution is a theory.  Macro a far fetched theory.  But, the monkey god must be served.  Fed on a silver platter by the non-believer.   For some dolts, the smarter and more educated they perceive themselves as becoming the less need they have of God.  They have outgrown their need for Him, they are smarter than He is.   What a shallow existence they have chosen.  Their dead end is waiting for them.

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 I think alpine needs to take the blue pill and come back to reality.  Ok so gravity has been observed but it isn't real?  So observations of evolution is not real?  Do you have any evidence or alternative observations to support your statements?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

I think multi needs to reread the last paragraph of alpines post!

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

I think fishmahn needs to get off the pills and take a class in ego management.

"Ok so gravity has been observed but it isn't real?   Do you have any evidence ...."

Of course gravity is real, gravity at the same time is just a word we made up.  The fact that it exists in a form we do not understand, for reasons we do not understand,  is demonstration of how illiterate man and our understanding (we call that understanding "science") of the universe is.  Evolution in scope and tunnel vision is another example. 
Do you have any evidence?!   Yes, science is full of evidence that is flawed and later proved wrong!  Politics, emotion, and simply bad science that come to conclusions that prove far from fact.  Your evidence is trivial!  The dumb blind sheep grabs a bit of tunnel vision "science" and claims the debate is over!   Classic!

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Alpine Said:

My understanding is that the Catholic church has long held a theistic view point in terms of evolution.

"....macro-evolution has been observed."

Gravity has been observed!

We still have some in science (with many blind sheep followers) who claim the debate is over on GLOBAL WARMING!   With now 13 years of no advancing warming and a 60 year low in tornado and severe storm activity (when we were once told by bow we would be setting records by the typical Algorian).
Man caused global warming was being OBSERVED!

Evolution is a theory.  Macro a far fetched theory.  But, the monkey god must be served.  Fed on a silver platter by the non-believer.   For some dolts, the smarter and more educated they perceive themselves as becoming the less need they have of God.  They have outgrown their need for Him, they are smarter than He is.   What a shallow existence they have chosen.  Their dead end is waiting for them.

Made it easy.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

For the evolution naysayers.... Rather than providing your own evidence to refute evolution, how's about you just scour the internet and come up w something that has been peer reviewed and hasn't been ripped to shreds to make the case against one of the most widely accepted theories of all time. Then go present it to the world and get ur pic on the cover of Time. Don't u see the flaw in "science has been wrong before" or. "Evolution might be found out later to be wrong"...until that actually happens...especially, when its survived 100 years of scrutiny? And use religion to make your argument? When one of the biggest churches in the world even admits its real?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

And comparing it to global warming in regards to the evidence and acceptance is a bad comparison imho.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Alpine Said:
I think fishmahn needs to get off the pills and take a class in ego management.

"Ok so gravity has been observed but it isn't real?   Do you have any evidence ...."

Of course gravity is real, gravity at the same time is just a word we made up.  The fact that it exists in a form we do not understand, for reasons we do not understand,  is demonstration of how illiterate man and our understanding (we call that understanding "science") of the universe is.  Evolution in scope and tunnel vision is another example. 
Do you have any evidence?!   Yes, science is full of evidence that is flawed and later proved wrong!  Politics, emotion, and simply bad science that come to conclusions that prove far from fact.  Your evidence is trivial!  The dumb blind sheep grabs a bit of tunnel vision "science" and claims the debate is over!   Classic!

ok so evolution is real, but just a word we made up? 

which evidence that I have provided so far is trivial?

until one of you brings contradicting evidence to the table, the debate is over.

Remember, my stance on evolution is not absolute, but until at least half as much evidence, facts, and observations that support evolution is found to contradict it or give us an even possible alternative, my stance remains the same.

so I'll ask again...do any of you have any evidence to contradict evolution that has not yet been refuted by the overwhelming evidence that supports it?

so far the responses to my requests for evidence are summarized as "I don't need evidence, I have faith"  ok, good for you, but I need more than faith to be convinced of your view of the topic when I have so much evidence and facts supporting my side of the debate.

if your a prosecutor in a courtroom you can't just tell the jury you have faith that the person on trial is guilty without any evidence, rest your case, and expect to win. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
For the evolution naysayers.... Rather than providing your own evidence to refute evolution, how's about you just scour the internet and come up w something that has been peer reviewed and hasn't been ripped to shreds to make the case against one of the most widely accepted theories of all time. Then go present it to the world and get ur pic on the cover of Time. Don't u see the flaw in "science has been wrong before" or. "Evolution might be found out later to be wrong"...until that actually happens...especially, when its survived 100 years of scrutiny? And use religion to make your argument? When one of the biggest churches in the world even admits its real?

Espringers once again how many opeople are completely "\naysaying" evolution occurs?

What is being "naysayed" is the claim mankind crawled out of the swamp on his belly as a singlecell organism. (you know that claim that was made a couple of threads ago)

I mean I thought you were the one that welcomed "scrutiny" of these scientific theories?

Did you even look at the two links I provided wereby TODAYS SCIENCE itself is contradicting YESTERDAYS SCIENCE regarding claims made about this subject?

As far as I know those were not Bible thumping radicals that were being quoted in those links espringers.

So if  new "evidence" changes what was once beleived to be true in one aspect of the evolutionary evidence chain, why should we then not "believe" in the "possibility" of the "likelyhood" that other new technologies will find other contradictions as we move forward??

Or was that the only one?

Espringers how long has the chimpanze DNA been completely mapped?
Quite abit shorter time frame than 100 years.

Try this "scientists" ideas on for size.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/09/05/chimp-genome-sequence

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/05/31/chimp-human-hybridization

I mean it is starting to look like YOU guys are the ones not trusting todays and tommorrows science and you simply want to rest your "faith" on what you reference as "100 year" old science.

Espringers why do you bother to pray?

And espringers........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

 Today, the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,[2] stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, guided by God.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Not quite as cut and dried as you would like people to blieve there espringers.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

espringers Said:
And comparing it to global warming in regards to the evidence and acceptance is a bad comparison imho.

yes, global warming has waayyy too many agendas surrounding it and is a huge cash cow with the whole "green" movement going on right now to trust what anyone says.

the climate does change, that is a fact.

can we affect this planet's climate, yes I believe we can

is it to the extent portrayed by the media, I doubt it

I don't foresee the icecaps melting and the oceans rising wiping out the planets coastal cities anytime soon, and if it does, I think it will be from an event greater than ford and chevy not being green enough.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Holy schneikes GST, you're posting links to "answers in genesis" for something referring to science!!!  HAHAHAHAHA!

You really believe that stuff?  You believe the garbage that comes out of ken hams mouth?  really?....no....really?

so, before I continue talking about Mr. Ham....lets be clear...is this the evidence I have been asking for all this time?  this is what you're presenting to refute evolution? 

really? Ken Ham?

By the way I get everything I know about space from this guy

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

Alpine Said:
I think fishmahn needs to get off the pills and take a class in ego management.

"Ok so gravity has been observed but it isn't real?   Do you have any evidence ...."

Of course gravity is real, gravity at the same time is just a word we made up.  The fact that it exists in a form we do not understand, for reasons we do not understand,  is demonstration of how illiterate man and our understanding (we call that understanding "science") of the universe is.  Evolution in scope and tunnel vision is another example. 
Do you have any evidence?!   Yes, science is full of evidence that is flawed and later proved wrong!  Politics, emotion, and simply bad science that come to conclusions that prove far from fact.  Your evidence is trivial!  The dumb blind sheep grabs a bit of tunnel vision "science" and claims the debate is over!   Classic!

ok so evolution is real, but just a word we made up? 

which evidence that I have provided so far is trivial?

until one of you brings contradicting evidence to the table, the debate is over.

Remember, my stance on evolution is not absolute, but until at least half as much evidence, facts, and observations that support evolution is found to contradict it or give us an even possible alternative, my stance remains the same.

so I'll ask again...do any of you have any evidence to contradict evolution that has not yet been refuted by the overwhelming evidence that supports it?

so far the responses to my requests for evidence are summarized as "I don't need evidence, I have faith"  ok, good for you, but I need more than faith to be convinced of your view of the topic when I have so much evidence and facts supporting my side of the debate.

if your a prosecutor in a courtroom you can't just tell the jury you have faith that the person on trial is guilty without any evidence, rest your case, and expect to win. 

Why not?

Was it not you in earlier threads that spoke of mankind "evolving" over billions of years from swamp ooze?

Just going by recollection here so my apologizes if I am wrong.

If you are going to use the courtroom analogy, you also can not tell the jury one thing while the defense provides other facts that contradict your "facts" and expect them to support your case "beyond a reasonable doubt"!!!!

http://www.history.com/news/did-neanderthals-die-out-much-earlier-than-we-thought

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-science-brief/69270-did-neanderthals-die-out-before-modern-humans-arrived-in-europe

But maybe they would indeed accept the prosecutions "alternative explanation" after his "evidence was shown to be incorrect.

So once again multi why is your stance on evolution not absolute, after all it is based on a 100 year old "widely accepted scientific theory" complete with "alternative explanations" when todays science proves an innacuracy in yesterdays sciences findings.

Sounds like your "faith" is wavering abit!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Multi it seems you overlooked who authored the piece in the link I provided.  But hey what ever fits your agenda here right!

Dr. David Dewitt, PhD.

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/healthsciences/biology-chemistry/?PID=6627

Dr. DeWitt is the director of the Center for Creation Studies and an associate professor of biology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA. His Ph.D. is in neurosciences from Case Western Reserve University and the focus of his research is the cell biology of Alzheimer's disease.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

that's the great thing about science gst, it can change with new evidence, something your faith seems incapable of.  the problem with your links there is they support my side of evolution.  you just posting examples of new data changing hypothesis and theories, not changing evolution as a whole.

just as our stance on the story of Neanderthals changed with new evidence, my stance on evolution would change with compelling amounts of evidence and new data.  but you are really gonna have to do better than Ken Ham....I know you're to bright to follow Ken Ham.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

gst Said:
Multi it seems you overlooked who authored the piece in the link I provided.  But hey what ever fits your agenda here right!

Dr. David Dewitt, PhD.

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/healthsciences/biology-chemistry/?PID=6627

Dr. DeWitt is the director of the Center for Creation Studies and an associate professor of biology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA. His Ph.D. is in neurosciences from Case Western Reserve University and the focus of his research is the cell biology of Alzheimer's disease.

your buddy DeWitt (in that article) was referring to "Haldane's dilemma" which has been refuted by much much more compelling evidence to explain his dilemas and discrepancies he has found in the genomes and refused to research any further.

for one example: DeWitt never took into concideration the near extinction of our species from the Tolba volcanic event that bottlenecked our species eliminating the mutations he couldn't account for.

dude, you really gotta avoid anything that Ken Ham guy puts out there.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
that's the great thing about science gst, it can change with new evidence, something your faith seems incapable of.  the problem with your links there is they support my side of evolution.  you just posting examples of new data changing hypothesis and theories, not changing evolution as a whole.

just as our stance on the story of Neanderthals changed with new evidence, my stance on evolution would change with compelling amounts of evidence and new data.  but you are really gonna have to do better than Ken Ham....I know you're to bright to follow Ken Ham.

So I thought this "theory" was so unrefutable it could not be changed in any way at all as you now seem to admit the science of today has done. Remember they are your words emboldened above.

Once again multi, look to the author of the article if you want to talk credentials.

Perhaps you can post yours here? Out of curiousity multi what is your background in understanding the complexities of mapping a species genome. 
 
It appears you are changing your position multi to one that now supports a possible "alternative explanation".

If you recall, I have mentioned a time or two that I simply am not so arrogant to beleive TODAYS science knows it all and argue as you have up till now that it does.

It seems suddenly you are now making exceptions not seen before in previous threads.

Pages