Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

horrible thought on evolution


  • Please log in to reply
216 replies to this topic

#211    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,826 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:38 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 05 November 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Yes, you are.


Yes, it does.


Every scientist on the planet. Every human being who has even a most basic grasp of scientific principles and the Scientific Method. But since you wanted support for this view I link you to Exhibit A -  

http://www.livescien...-of-theory.html

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.


There's more in the link but this, particularly the highlighted area, shows how a scientific theory is not just unsupported guesswork, as you are implying it to be.

Flippancy won't get you very far, Larry. Especially when you haven't put forward any information of your own and routinely ignore 99% of points made to you.


My physical father was a great man, immigrated to Australia from Latvia in the late 40's/early 50's, and raised me and my brother in total love, unfortunately passing away in December last year. My spiritual father is God, the creator of heaven and earth who loved us so much that he gave his only son to death, so that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.

I don't have any fatherly emotions to Charles Darwin, so I can only assume this statement is an attempt to dismiss the view without considering it in detail.


Thinking, thinking, thinking. Now linking

http://rationalwiki....nsitional_forms

There are transitional fossils!

There are fish that live at that never set fin on land that ûse their fins for walking.  Some catfish are able to walk on land without lung or limbs. The lung fish has both lungs and gills and ribs.    They don't walk on land.  

As for the half flatfish, all flatfish start life off with eyes on oppisite sides of their body and end with eyes on the same side. So all this fish shows is a baby becoming an adult.

Seals and sea lions.

The human ancester to modern human is easy to explain.  For one thing it looked like us not like a chimp.  The rest is micro-evolution not macro-evolution.  The only reason to call this macro-evolution is to take god out of it.


The dawn horse to todays horse I can buy but that is micro-evolution not macro-evolution.

As I have said before it isn't a ,mammal until it produces milk for its young.  Which means in a single generation said mammal has. To go from taking care of jts self at birth to taking care of its young at birth.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#212    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:49 PM

View Postdanielost, on 05 November 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

The human ancester to modern human is easy to explain.  For one thing it looked like us not like a chimp.  

You are correct! This is exactly what scientists have discovered! It supports evolution, the one you give the "macro" label since even Creationists can't deny all of the evidence any more.


#213    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:48 PM

View Postdanielost, on 05 November 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

The human ancester to modern human is easy to explain.  For one thing it looked like us not like a chimp.  The rest is micro-evolution not macro-evolution.  The only reason to call this macro-evolution is to take god out of it.
Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a larger scale. And since I believe in God (similar to yours, even) and also in "macro"-evolution, I think you have your statement backwards - the only reason to deny the macro-evolution is to put God into it and then decree that God created the world in a certain creationist way. In other words, you put the cart before the horse by starting with the conclusion and then working backwards from there. A very unscientific approach, wouldn't you say?

Edited by Paranoid Android, 06 November 2013 - 12:12 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#214    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,254 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 06 November 2013 - 12:10 AM

Posted Image

My sentiments, exactly.


#215    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 06 November 2013 - 01:52 AM

View Postdanielost, on 05 November 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

There are fish that live at that never set fin on land that ûse their fins for walking.  Some catfish are able to walk on land without lung or limbs. The lung fish has both lungs and gills and ribs. They don't walk on land.  

As for the half flatfish, all flatfish start life off with eyes on oppisite sides of their body and end with eyes on the same side. So all this fish shows is a baby becoming an adult.

Seals and sea lions.

I'm not sure what the point of all those factoids was but I'll just say the obvious:  "I know it!  Isn't evolution amazing?".  It's so amazing, and logical, empirical and rational, that a lot of Christians are actually buttressed in their faith by the wonder of evolution, the study of science enriches their faith.  God just poofing the ever-vague 'kinds' of life into existence, meh, neat but pretty boring for God.  But God creating a reality where just based on (at a super-high level) a combination of the rules of natural selection and genetics,  a process simple and understandable at a high level, ultimately produced all life on this planet, microbes to plants to animals.  It makes my jaw drop, it's incredible, and for a Christian it seems like it could be that much deeper; did God program into it that humans themselves would emerge, or just an intelligent being, why the huge time spans, who knows, but I would think it would be interesting.  Or, yea, abracadabra, poof, all kinds of life instantly exists, wow...

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#216    AtlantisRises

AtlantisRises

    Oderint dum metuant

  • Member
  • 2,449 posts
  • Joined:08 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • My time has not yet come either, Some are born post humously

    Ecce homo
    Nietszche

Posted 06 November 2013 - 06:12 AM

Macro and Micro evolution are just degrees of the same thing. There is no real difference between the two. Personally I think that trying to differentiate the two is poor science. Given the incredibly large amount of time and number of generations that these changes occur over it is naive to think that Micro-evolution won't eventually become Macro-evolution.

Posted Image

#217    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:46 AM

View Postdanielost, on 05 November 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

As for the half flatfish, all flatfish start life off with eyes on oppisite sides of their body and end with eyes on the same side

This kind of proves my point - creationists are completely stuck constantly repeating the same pointless, out-dated arguments.

Evolution doesn't talk about "half this, half that" animals. If that's what you expect from evolution, you're always going to be in the dark.

Science isn’t about truth and falsity, it’s about reducing uncertainty ~ Brian Nosek




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users