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.


- - - - -

Transitional evolutionary forms


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 20 November 2004 - 03:06 AM

We have apes, we have men, but we have no ape-men.

We have reptiles, we have birds, but we have no reptile birds.

We have land mammals, sea mammals, yet only ONE TYPE of air mammal.

We have apples, we have figs, but we have no apple-figs.

We have cats, we have dogs, we have no cat-dogs.

If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs.

Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?

We have reptiles, we have mammals, but we have no reptile-mammals.

Does it sound like I am repeating myself here? Because I am.

Explain the absence of transitional forms.

And one last thing, if every law of thermodynamics states that energy flows from a high state to a low state, and that organized matter decays into unorganized matter, then why would these laws which can be applied to everything imaginable, single out the progression of living materials to an organized fashion, regardless of the time that has passed over them?

Thoughts, comments, theories?

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#2    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 20 November 2004 - 03:08 AM

PS Does Thermodynamics mean that we are DE-evolving over time?

If not, then what does it me in regards to this?

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#3    koenig212003

koenig212003

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 131 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2004

  • Wo bekomme ich einen?

Posted 20 November 2004 - 03:28 AM

Insight, you seem to be misunderstanding the process of evolution.  The extant species of apes and humans, as well as all the extinct species of apes evolved from a common ancestor.  I cannot explain the whole process to you for lack of time and space but all of these species of apes that have lived over time could be interpreted as the transitional forms you are referring to.  When mutations happen, most of the time they are deleterious but sometimes they give a selected advantage to the individual and they in turn have better reproductive success. This is evolution in a nutshell.   Perhaps sitting in an a college level course on biology or anthropology could help you understand the process better.  And to address your statement of:"Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?"  Well you see not all dinosaurs evolved into birds.  One or perhaps a few species evolved into birds and to what evidence are you referring to about your statement "If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs."?




#4    firefemme1202

firefemme1202

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 762 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2004
  • Location:Fort Worth, TEXAS

  • It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. --Aristotle

Posted 20 November 2004 - 05:02 AM

And, there were flying dinosaurs as well.  Teradactyls.  So they evolve because they have to adjust more to their environment.  They were large bird dinosaurs.  A large wing span.  But we also have large birds (albatross, eagles, etc) with similarly large wing spans.  Just because one specie of dinosaurs evolves into something that survived the dinosaur era doens't mean all of the dinosaurs would have evolved to survive as well.

To suppose that earth is the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to believe that in an entire field sown with millet, only one grain will grow.  --Metrodorus of Chios, 4th century BCE

We adore chaos because we love to produce order.

#5    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 20 November 2004 - 05:22 AM


And, there were flying dinosaurs as well.  Teradactyls.  

Yes, flying DINOSAURS. They were reptilian, not avian. Completely different classes. Why didn't the flying reptiles survive along with the birds?

So you say they evolve because they have to adjust more to their environment.

Do not confuse evolution (The changing of one species into another) with adaptation (Certain genetic traits if a species becoming more or less prevalent.). The peppered moth comes in two varieties, one of which nearly died out from predaters during the undustrial revolution due to the fact that the white moths were more visible on the soot covered trees and were picked off.

For a species to evolve, it must get new, original genetic information, add it to it's code by replacing and loosing old bits of data.

Mutation is not evolution, because it is the error of already existing genetic code, not the accumulation of NEW code.

Adaptation is not evolution, because it is dormant traits in already existing code becoming more or less prevalent.

Chickens actually contain a gene that if tunred "on", will cause them to grow teeth in their beeks. This code is not coming from outside the chicken's code (evolution), but from inside (adaptation)

They were large bird dinosaurs.  

This sentences is faulty. You cannot group two species as one. Bird-LIKE dinosaurs, yes. Do we classify bats as bird mammals? No. They are mammals. Do we classify whales as mammal fish? No, they are also classified as mammals.

While humans DNA most closely resembles primates, our RNA most closely resebles that of a chicken. And out Mammary enzymes that of a donkey. That's right, our Mammary enzymes are much closer to that of a donkeys than to that as a Primate. And our RNA is so far from that of a monkey it's not even funny.


A large wing span.  But we also have large birds (albatross, eagles, etc) with similarly large wing spans.

Similar. yes.  Not identical. Much as a dolphin has similar appendages to a human. And a slug, similar optical organs to that of a human. All things have similarities, ecspecially those things which share their plane (Ie land, water, or air)

Just because one specie of dinosaurs evolves into something that survived the dinosaur era doens't mean all of the dinosaurs would have evolved to survive as well.

But where do the NEW genetic codes come from that enables the dinosaurs to aquire new genes, and lose old ones, becoming a completely new species?

DNA is the most complex single molecule in the universe. Quite litterally millions of times more complex than any non-living matter. How would a species have a new piece of code put into them, and old pieces removed? Further more, how would this new code exist seperately from a living being and then become part of one, kicking out the old code?



When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#6    kikuchiyo

kikuchiyo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2004
  • Location:montreal

  • I have an answer to everything

Posted 20 November 2004 - 06:13 AM

I think she was talking about the south american "terror Birds"  
***  
to answer to your "new" genetic codes question: It's started off as a mutation, ( like gaining a bigger frontal lobe for modern man) then that "positive" mutation will give to the mutant an edge over it's predecessors. This edge gave it an "natural" superiority giving it the right to mate, that in term permitted the mutant gene to go forward to the other generation and so on.

+++
Also the rarety of "transitional" beings is due to the fact that they are "transitional", therefore a product not completely evolved to survive in X environment...it's a question of time and climate.
(look for neanderthal man)

Edited by kikuchiyo, 20 November 2004 - 06:17 AM.

Carpe Diem People!
***
want a mighty supa fly avatar ask for Universal "Mad skills" Absurdity
***
http://www.unexplain...pe=post&id=9407
Uber Foolish Funk Shaolin Monk "tonk" of the Skeptical Non Believers of Uppity Annoyance

#7    firefemme1202

firefemme1202

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 762 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2004
  • Location:Fort Worth, TEXAS

  • It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. --Aristotle

Posted 20 November 2004 - 08:14 AM

Insight, all you did was make me look ignorant (which yes it's been a few years since my biology classes) in my knowledge of DNA, RNA and other ways of the body.  

However you did not disprove that the flying dinosaurs, whether it was mutation or evolution or whatever you would like to call it, was not the original "blueprint" or "design" for our birds we have today.  

There is no proof to prove that I'm wrong, same as there is no evidence to prove evolutionism or creationalism either way.  When there is no evidence, you must be open to the theories presented.  Humanity can't even get to the deepest trenches in our own oceans.  We can't exactly date the age of the Sphinx.  Humanity can't even prove or disprove whether an ancient city (Atlantis) existed.  So when you talk about the differences of mutation or evolution...whether we're more closely related to donkeys, monkeys or slugs, I know that CHANGES happen daily to humanity, and that is something that is easily proven.  If we can see noticeable changes in the last couple hundred years, don't you think the changes on a longer time scale would be noticeably larger?  A lot of people use the analogy that a few hundred years ago, people were CERTAIN the world was flat, well, in another few hundred years, the things we feel certain about could be proven wrong, and obviously you're a very intelligent person.  There is a reason you believe in what you do, but why?  There must be plenty of credible sources you learned this information, what are they?  What makes you so certain, but not the science world?  

Is it my understanding you lean more towards creationalism?  If so, what evidence do you have that causes you to lean more in that direction than evolution?  Provide sources if you don't mind, credible ones, it would truly be informative.

To suppose that earth is the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to believe that in an entire field sown with millet, only one grain will grow.  --Metrodorus of Chios, 4th century BCE

We adore chaos because we love to produce order.

#8    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,786 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 November 2004 - 02:06 PM

I have to disagree most strongly about the lack of evidence concerning evolution.  I have discussed, at length, many of the things mentioned in this thread in my "Scientific Methodology" thread and in the "Creationism Vs. Evolution" debate.  I would strongly recommend reading those to anybody with a desire to find detailed answers to mosts of the points in this thread.

"We have apes, we have men, but we have no ape-men."

Define "ape-men".  We have a large assortment of creatures along both the ape and human evolutionary line (no, we do not descend from apes) that share similar characteristics.

"We have reptiles, we have birds, but we have no reptile birds."

Why would we?  Reptiles and birds are two disctinct species, seperately evolved.

"We have land mammals, sea mammals, yet only ONE TYPE of air mammal."

"Type"?  What does "type" mean?  Species?  There is more than one species of flying mammal.  Does it mean Genus?  Are we talking the entire Chiroptera family?

Incidentally, what difference would it make if we had one or a hundred of either?

"We have apples, we have figs, but we have no apple-figs."

Again, what is your point here?  Are you suggesting that the apple is evolutionarily descended from the fig?

"We have cats, we have dogs, we have no cat-dogs."

I believe the earliest common ancestor of cats and dogs was the Miacid.  They went extinct quite a while ago.

"If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs."

The first creature we could classify as having modern-day feathers was the Archeopteryx, which was indeed a contemporary of some dinosaurs.

"Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?"

Same reason anything else evolves.  Random chance.

"We have reptiles, we have mammals, but we have no reptile-mammals."

That is because, again, they are not in each others lines of descent, and no one that I know of has ever claimed the to be.

"Does it sound like I am repeating myself here? Because I am."

No, actually.  It sounds like you are repeating the same simplistic arguments all creationists use.  You could read the two topics I mentioned above and find answers to many more of the arguments you are going to put forth.


#9    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 21 November 2004 - 02:28 AM


to answer to your "new" genetic codes question: It's started off as a mutation, ( like gaining a bigger frontal lobe for modern man) then that "positive" mutation will give to the mutant an edge over it's predecessors. This edge gave it an "natural" superiority giving it the right to mate, that in term permitted the mutant gene to go forward to the other generation and so on.

No no, you misunderstood. Mutation does NOT create new genetic code. Mutation scrambles the existing code to produce random effects. If a man growes a third foot, and ends up breeding and creating more three footed people, and they end up being able to run and jump higher, this is the creation of a race, not a new specie. The man gained no new genetic code at all. What he did gain is change in instruction about how to use already existing code. No matter how many feet he grew, or how big or small they were, they weould never be anything more than feet.

Mutation does allow for diversity within a species, but it is not counted as the gain of new, seperate coding (Such as the code to grow gills, or wings)


+++
Also the rarety of "transitional" beings is due to the fact that they are "transitional", therefore a product not completely evolved to survive in X environment...it's a question of time and climate.
(look for neanderthal man)


There is not proof that neanderthal man was anything more of less than modern day man. Maybe he was hunched, had a thicker skull, or smaller brain cavity, but this does not mean he contained genes that humans do not contain. Hitler thought Germans were genetically superior than blacks, even though Hitler contained all the genes that he needed to become fully black. (And please do not think I am comparing hitler to any of you people right now. Nor am I comparing what he thought to what you think. I'm trying to make a similarity into ANY person or race thinking they are "more" or "Better" than any other race.

Though Neanderthal man may have been simple, primitive, and stooping, I believe these are a result of his culture, and evironment, and society, and not because of his inferior genetic code.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#10    kikuchiyo

kikuchiyo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2004
  • Location:montreal

  • I have an answer to everything

Posted 21 November 2004 - 02:50 AM

Insight, first i used the " " arround new, because it's not new it's a nuace of a existing gene. Second, Neanderthal man was a subspecie of Homo sapian, they weren't hunched and had a bigger brain then modern man...Infirior genetics, what's this? Climate made them into what they were, when the climat changed the Neanderthals were taken over by it's southern "version".

Carpe Diem People!
***
want a mighty supa fly avatar ask for Universal "Mad skills" Absurdity
***
http://www.unexplain...pe=post&id=9407
Uber Foolish Funk Shaolin Monk "tonk" of the Skeptical Non Believers of Uppity Annoyance

#11    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 21 November 2004 - 02:54 AM


Insight, all you did was make me look ignorant

I apologize for this, as it was not my intent. I was merely trying to bring as much information to the subject at hand as possible.


However you did not disprove that the flying dinosaurs, whether it was mutation or evolution or whatever you would like to call it, was not the original "blueprint" or "design" for our birds we have today.  

Actually I did. But you didn't understand it.

You still do not seem to understand the difference between evolution, mutation, and adaptation. The "blue print" for a house accounts for every material needed in it's construction. You can use those materials in different ways that don't follow the blue print exactly, and end up with a different house depending on your preference (Adaptation) or with somting completely different build from the house materials (Mutation), but to end up with a bigger, better, more advanced house, you would need to bring in outside meterials that were not in the original blue print, and then incorporate them into the new blue print (evolution).

There is no proof to prove that I'm wrong,

Are you 100%percent positive? In my mind, the logic path and matter interaction laws I have stated here prove to my mind beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. I am open to new ideas and suggestion, and will incorporate everything into my logic line, but you have not given me any new tools to do so, nor any curves that force me to re-evaluate.

same as there is no evidence to prove evolutionism or creationalism either way.  

Whoa whoa whoa! You admit that there is not evidence proving evolution? I can honestly admit that this is the very first time a believer of evolutuionary theory admitting to the fact that there is no proof of evolutions credibility.

And as I said, never say never. You limit your mind for both sides. If you say there is no proof either way, you will never see any proof, ever, of either way. Read my above post for more on this.

Humanity can't even get to the deepest trenches in our own oceans.

How do you know that? What if somebody lied to us about the fact for some unknown reason? (Unlikely, but consider it)

We can't exactly date the age of the Sphinx.

Nor can we exactly date anything.


Humanity can't even prove or disprove whether an ancient city (Atlantis) existed.

We can't? What if we already did, but th epowers that had done so decided to keep it a secret for our best interests, or to keep the power of it to themselves?

Besides, there is much evidence a city existed. Even the fact that we know it's name is reason to believe that "Something" existed.


So when you talk about the differences of mutation or evolution...whether we're more closely related to donkeys, monkeys or slugs, I know that CHANGES happen daily to humanity, and that is something that is easily proven.  If we can see noticeable changes in the last couple hundred years, don't you think the changes on a longer time scale would be noticeably larger?

Of course they would. But CHANGE and EVOLUTION are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There is a reason you believe in what you do, but why?  There must be plenty of credible sources you learned this information, what are they?  What makes you so certain, but not the science world?  

I am part of the science world. Infact, I know many professor level scientists who share my beliefs. There is an increasing number of scientists who are coming to bvelieve what I do. In time, perhaps all of science will. But the better asnwer to this is the fact that humable are fallable, matter and energy are fallable, and therefore, if left to their own devices, the human masses are MORE LIKELY tolean toward inproper theory, because we are corruptable, more than we are incorruptable. That's why with out law ENFORCEMENT, society would degrade. It's not enough that we simply know the laws. This is why I am so certain, because the only way for me to persue incorruptability, is for me to persue something TRUELY incorruptable by nature:God. Does thgis logic line make sense?

You must learn about the secrets of the earth. The secret societies. The natures  of becoming powerful. The human natures. The natures of matter. You much learns into all of these to believe what I believe. You must lose trust in autority.



When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#12    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 21 November 2004 - 02:59 AM


Insight, first i used the " " arround new, because it's not new it's a nuace of a existing gene.


You should have said, "Different existing", not new. That would have fit.

Second, Neanderthal man was a subspecie of Homo sapian, they weren't hunched and had a bigger brain then modern man...Infirior genetics, what's this?

I apologize. My intent was to convey a mainstream conception of what a primitive man was. An "ape-man" if you will.

Climate made them into what they were, when the climat changed the Neanderthals were taken over by it's southern "version".

Yes, and this is called adaptation and/or mutation. But not evolution. Creationism completely allows and accounts for adaptation and mutaion. But not for evolution.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#13    kikuchiyo

kikuchiyo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2004
  • Location:montreal

  • I have an answer to everything

Posted 21 November 2004 - 03:22 AM

so mutation and adaptation isn't allowed by evolution eh?.

So even though the evolution is the modification of a specie, it's not a mutation nor an adaptation. If we follow that logic, this means that evolutionary steps are gifts form the sky and the unique creations of god can re-create them selfs and modify there bodies to live in harmony with there environment (even though only god can create).

fuzzy math...

I will leave you these words from Douglas J. Futuyma Ph.D. of the University of Michigan:

QUOTE
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


Carpe Diem People!
***
want a mighty supa fly avatar ask for Universal "Mad skills" Absurdity
***
http://www.unexplain...pe=post&id=9407
Uber Foolish Funk Shaolin Monk "tonk" of the Skeptical Non Believers of Uppity Annoyance

#14    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,786 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 November 2004 - 03:44 AM

Insight, as I feared, you are simply going over very well trod creationist arguments.  Since I have already gone over these at length in the above sources, I will ask you outright:  What exactly would it take for you to believe in evolution?

I ask this because your arguments do not display a knowledge of evolutionary biology.  They do not show an understanding of genetics.  Nor do you show any formal logical structure in your deduction.  In and of itself, none of this is inherently bad.  It is simply a lack of experience.  

Creationists arguments sound very convincing and scientific to the layman mind, however when they are met with the unwielding brutality of objective evidence, logical deduction, and scientific methodology, they invariably crumble.  I have absolutely no fear whatsoever that you can pose a question concerning evolution that I cannot answer in as excrutiating detail as you wish (trust me, many here will vouch that my posts can sometimes be excrutiating).

Currently, the points that you have made are very basic ones that can be easily answered by any first year biology student, let alone a student of evolutionary biology, and your arguments reflect the basic strategy of amorpheus definitions and straw man arguments that creationists like so much.  I have no need to defend evolutionary theory; it has withstood much harsher attacks than any arising within this forum.  I am, however, interested in convincing you of the scientific validity of it.  Whether you choose to believe it or not is then up to you.

So, my question to you is quite simply this:  What will it take for you, Insight, to believe in the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?


#15    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 22 November 2004 - 03:57 AM

Insight, as I feared, you are simply going over very well trod creationist arguments.  Since I have already gone over these at length in the above sources, I will ask you outright:  What exactly would it take for you to believe in evolution?


This caused you fear?


I ask this because your arguments do not display a knowledge of evolutionary biology.

Would you have me be an experienced pupil of a following I feel is faulty? Would I myself consider your arguments to display a knowledge of creationist biology?

They do not show an understanding of genetics.

Define "understanding".

Nor do you show any formal logical structure in your deduction.

Define "formal logical structure".

In and of itself, none of this is inherently bad.  It is simply a lack of experience.
  

Nor would I consider any lacking of knowledge by you in regards to creationist theory a bad thing. Unknown ignorence is innocence. Knowful ignorance is is almost a crime of sorts.


Creationists arguments sound very convincing and scientific to the layman mind,

Layman?? I do not believe that term would apply to a friend of my mother's who is a creationist quantum physicist, at such a level he has very high clearing military codes given to him.

however when they are met with the unwielding brutality of objective evidence,

Objective? But I though you believed Truth was subjective, not objective?

logical deduction, and scientific methodology, they invariably crumble.
As do the cities of man, and the hills of the ants. All theories put in place by man pose threat of decy. Which is why I seek truths from an incorruptable source. This comes mainly by faith in God, which to a non believer could only seem faulty at best. But to say the bible contains no scientiffic information is ignorant. The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.


I have absolutely no fear whatsoever that you can pose a question concerning evolution that I cannot answer in as excrutiating detail as you wish

Details behind a lie can often be greater than those of a truth. Of course I do not believe you are knowingly lying about anything you believe in, I am by no means making that accusation at all.

(trust me, many here will vouch that my posts can sometimes be excrutiating).

I wouldn't have it any other way. How else is my faith to be challenged?

Currently, the points that you have made are very basic ones that can be easily answered by any first year biology student,

You seem the first to think so. Also, what leads you believe I have not studied past first year biology? Perhaps my school teaches different truths that do not coincide with yours?

let alone a student of evolutionary biology,

A course I was unwilling to take. However I believe in my arguments of late, it would be valuable to have under my belt. However, I would find it difficult to devote to, for obvious reasons. Though devotion of such is not outside my realm of ability.

and your arguments reflect the basic strategy of amorpheus definitions and straw man arguments that creationists like so much.  

Do you expect me to type a thesis on this page in regards to my beliefs? Obviously the form of written communication which this page allwos has it's limits. As does my time concerning recreational activities.



I have no need to defend evolutionary theory; it has withstood much harsher attacks than any arising within this forum.
  

As had the creationist theory of my subscription.




So, my question to you is quite simply this:  What will it take for you, Insight, to believe in the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?

First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)

Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.

I have seen malignent cacers mysteriously curced after prayer. I have seen crippled men walk after prayer. I have seen a man deaf in one ear hear from it, after prayer. I have had countless times in my life where a "sure thing" was comprimised, and later learned of intense interventional prayer on my behalf. I have withnessed supernatural events in my life, and all of them are tied directly into the prayer and following of the Living, loving God.

Upon my decisions to follow Him, I began to see things that were impossible become possible. But it was only after these decisions to follow him. Would God reveal his concrete actions to a person who would indefinately regect them? No, because it would be a waste of time. Like peeing into the wind for him I suppose. I have even heard reports from bretheren about powerful movements, in which 3 people were raised from the dead (Unfortunately I was not able to withness this myself, so it of course will be subject to more speculation that things I have seen with my own eyes.).


So, I guess what I'm saying, is that you would need to prove to me that these things I have witnessed were all coincidence. You would need to scientiffically explain how a persons belief in something that doesn't exist can open the world of the impossible, and enrich your life beyond words.

You would also have to convince me that scientiffic validity can ever be truely valid. That our collective observations of purposed fact are free from collective error.  

But what would probably do it for me, is if you proved evolutionism AND creationism collectively wrong, and began a new theory which sweeps the nation in a way neither could.

Are there more creationists than evolutionists? Is the majority wrong, or the minority wrong? Does majority ever matter? I don't know.

Lets say that you were able to provide to me evolutionary evidence that swayed my beliefs of God. Then if he were truely real, he would reveal to me any error in such, and allow me to believe in him once more.

Let the games begin??

*chuckles*

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users