Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
jeffbobs

Evolution

124 posts in this topic

  So, you and I are just arguing over small points. You say the fossil record is secondary because it confirms the process, but evolutionary theory is focuses more on the genetics. I say the fossil record is important because it shows the changes in morphology which proves changes occur to increase adaptability to an environment. Also, I was accustomed to using palaeontological dating of sedimentary rocks (ostracods, radiolaria, those large shelled single-cell thingies which my professor will probably magically appear and smack me for forgetting their name... and one of the masters students was doing her dissertation on those.... argh....), so morhpology was always what was most important to me.

    Macro development vs. micro development.  Or, to use that hackneyed analogy, you have the elephant's ear, I have its tail.

    I'm sorry. Truce?  blush.gif

777856[/snapback]

I wasn't aware that we had fought wink2.gif .

Essentially, yes, you summed it up perfectly. Science, of course, is contextual, and every context requires clearly defined verbage. I tend to approach from the scientific methodology standpoint, meaning that the structure of the argument and the logical format is more important to me than the actual content. Because of this, I view the Fossil record as being the 'predicted' portion of scientific methodology, meaning that it is the result of the theory that, once found, verifies the theory, as opposed to being part of the direct support for the theory itself (which, in this case, would be the genetic data we have gathered over the years). Morphology, not being part of the genetic evolutionary support, is not relevant here, but again, contextually, in the field of fossil research, the fossil record suddenly becomes the direct support of the theory, and morphology become the predicted outcome that confirms the theory's correctness.

Whew! I love science!

how does a baby being born have anything to do with survival of the fittest, cos that how evolution works

Ahh, not quite. Survival of the Fittest was a large portion of original Darwinian Evolution, however, in modern evolutionary theory, it has been replaced by Neo-Darwinism, which is a bit more genetic in nature, and involves a broader definition of 'fittest'. There are also five other theories of evolution, and few waiting in the wings for verification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"My professor's PhD thesis on Ordovician brachiopod development against the emergence of plate-toothed fish and Ordovician brachiopod taxonomy were all just made up"

He must be a very interesting person !!

tongue.gif

777936[/snapback]

Actually, all my geology professors were really cool. I greatly enjoyed all my classes. Several of the professors were well known for ending descriptions of the processes and procedures of geologic field excursions with, "And that's why any field trip over three days requires lots of alcohol. Any questions?" w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you suggesting that Brachiopods are cool

thats just plainly ridiculous

your professors personal psychology must have kept several counsellors in mortgage payments

I'm only gonna say this once and then never mention it again.

Braciopods are crap

Arthropods however, i could talk all day, the perfect symmetry, the elegant slines the streamlined shape, they're just awesome from any perspective, how anyone could favour those brachipods when you can have one of these crawling around scaring women is beyond me.

here he is in two pics i just took out for his evening paramble across the living room carpet,

isn't he cute

wub.gif

post-11421-1123458704_thumb.jpg

post-11421-1123458711_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you suggesting that Brachiopods are cool

thats just plainly ridiculous

your professors personal psychology must have kept several counsellors in mortgage payments

I'm only gonna say this once and then never mention it again.

Braciopods are crap

Arthropods however, i could talk all day, the perfect symmetry, the elegant slines the streamlined shape, they're just awesome from any perspective, how anyone could favour those brachipods when you can have one of these crawling around scaring women is beyond me.

here he is in two pics i just took out for his evening paramble across the living room carpet,

isn't he cute

wub.gif

778141[/snapback]

Yes, yes, he is cute indeed. I live in Tampa, so I've seen lots of those.

However, brachiopods have luphophores, Nature's original bed springs!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artropods have legs and a tail

evolve your way out of that one

w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feh. I could have evolved a tail if I wanted to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying for years too

tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feh.  I could have evolved a tail if I wanted to...

778838[/snapback]

I have one, but it's between my legs. tongue.gif And I have the power to wiggle it any time I want to. devil.gif

But seriously, back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is totally Chicken or the Egg question

Most people give up and say God

Edited by lex1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who understand evolution however, say "Egg", and are fully capable of supporting their answer (unlike those who claim God).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehehe

sneaky aquaatus has baited his trap and now lies in wait

whistling2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**wait for it, waaait for it...**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

curious, if we evolved, why are there still monkey's/Ape's/etc...?

wouldnt they have Evolved plenty of times by now if they were the bottom of the chain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
curious, if we evolved, why are there still monkey's/Ape's/etc...?

wouldnt they have Evolved plenty of times by now if they were the bottom of the chain?

780156[/snapback]

The whole point of evolution is that one certain thing on a species changes making it more successful.

as a result you have a divergence occour

the chimps have evolved

just not in the same direction as us

4.000.000 years ago we were very similar to chimps

but we had tails

We have the same common ancestor but have since grown up in different families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

curious, if we evolved, why are there still monkey's/Ape's/etc...?

wouldnt they have Evolved plenty of times by now if they were the bottom of the chain?

780156[/snapback]

Ahhh, that old chestnut.

They are not at the "bottom of the chain". They are successful enough to have been around for several million years of geologic time. They filled a niche. Even the bacteria, which are about as primitive as you can get, have been around for over a billion years and are being discovered in places which no other form of life can survive (bacteria in thermal vents, bacteria discovered in rock samples almost 2Km deep, Bacteria millions of years old frozen in Antarctic ice which was revived, etc).

If "Intelligent Design" created everything, why are there birth defects, diseases, parasites, and for that matter, monkeys? To go by Genesis, why did God create pigs, shrimp, and clams if they are so unclean that eating them is an abomination before God?

Perhaps you should check out primate taxonomy. There are hundreds of species, including "New World" and "Old World" monkeys.

Evolution is not something an animal just "decides to do". If so, the raptid saurians (the genus including the famous velociraptors from "The Lost World") would have simply "done it" long ago. Some cephalopods (octopi and cuttlefish) are intelligent enough to display learning and recognition, and cataceans are quite intelligent, so they'd just "give themselves some smarts". If all the primates could just "be smart" or decide to evolve, the Earth would have been a bloodbath of competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, this is all covered in length in libraries, schools, and on the web. Don't look to a forum for solutions, especially a non-academic one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good stuff here, but i'd like to point out that the saying is "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", not "ontology replicates philology" or whatever you said. and for a comprehensive look at the evolution of life on earth, check out this page, it's very good: Evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look we were planted here... think about it even genesis says so.. god created the earth, but perhaps god is an alien and the formation of the earth was already here... and he or them came down and planted some sort of geneticallly enhanced seed that contained time, water, fire all the elements and to unravel into total chaos that strives to survive..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good stuff here, but i'd like to point out that the saying is "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", not "ontology replicates philology" or whatever you said. and for a comprehensive look at the evolution of life on earth, check out this page, it's very good: Evolution

780421[/snapback]

Thanks. Yeah, I got that one wrong on my paleontology final, too. I know the concept, but the right words just never stuck in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. All very interesting, but...

Seems that the religious aspect here must accept damnation, but the "scientific" aspect does as expected: accept without question that which is academically presented.

Anyone play with particle physics?

Schroedinger's Cat? Heisenberg?

'The observer always affects the observed.'

It's like accepting the ice age as a world wide phenomena without question. And formation of huge valleys and rocky crags by glaciers: nonsense! Read all about it in your college books, but don't question some "expert" who wrote some nonsense by reading what others wrote, accepting as fact, and elaborating without any real proof.

Yup. As life has shown me, "science" is as much a religion as is religion. Take it all on faith. If it doesn't fit, don't look at it. If it does, use it. If it doesn't and you can't get rid of it, explain it away somehow.

When do we gain enough common sense to examine the whole, instead of small parts?

'Science will eventually discover an equation that explains it all.' Road apples. Answers, real answers, cannot be had until all the facts are known; we cannot possibly know all the facts; therefore, do NOT assume "science" has the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems that the religious aspect here must accept damnation, but the "scientific" aspect does as expected: accept without question that which is academically presented.

"Accept without question that which is academically presented"?

The ENTIRE process of academic presentation opens up the subject to question! The presentation of the theory, the data, and the logical argument are so essential, so utterly required that the dissemination of data through scientifc journals is a requirement of verification! You CANNOT, by definition, accept something that is academically presented without question.

Anyone play with particle physics?

Schroedinger's Cat?  Heisenberg?

'The observer always affects the observed.'

Very important if you are talking about quantum physics. Less so (much less so) when dealing with the macro world of we we are al part of. Pretty much irrelevant when dealing with the effects of forces, as opposed to the forces themselves.

It's like accepting the ice age as a world wide phenomena without question.  And formation of huge valleys and rocky crags by glaciers: nonsense!  Read all about it in your college books, but don't question some "expert" who wrote some nonsense by reading what others wrote, accepting as fact, and elaborating without any real proof.

So who told you to just shut up and accept what you are told? Who said "Nevr question what I am telling you." and more importantly, why do you, as a college student, even think this sort of thing exists? What sort of college are you at, that allows teachers to do this? The whole purpose of college is the investigation of information. The whole purpose is not the rote memorixation of facts, but the assimilation of research and verification techniques, so that you will be able to confirm your own data, and contribute to the academic world in due time.

Seriously, where the heck did you pick up this nonsense?

Yup.  As life has shown me, "science" is as much a religion as is religion.  Take it all on faith.  If it doesn't fit, don't look at it.  If it does, use it.  If it doesn't and you can't get rid of it, explain it away somehow.

You seriously need to re-evaluate your college, if this is what you are getting out of it.

When do we gain enough common sense to examine the whole, instead of small parts?

'Science will eventually discover an equation that explains it all.'  Road apples.  Answers, real answers, cannot be had until all the facts are known; we cannot possibly know all the facts; therefore, do NOT assume "science" has the answers.

781230[/snapback]

It is quite likely the facts will never all be known. Until then, we will have to settle for the best answers we can confirm with the available data. That is what science is all about. Getting the best answer we can possibly get until a better one comes along.

If you are approaching science on faith, you have completly, totally, absolutely missed the entire point of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems that the religious aspect here must accept damnation, but the "scientific" aspect does as expected: accept without question that which is academically presented.

"Accept without question that which is academically presented"?

The ENTIRE process of academic presentation opens up the subject to question! The presentation of the theory, the data, and the logical argument are so essential, so utterly required that the dissemination of data through scientifc journals is a requirement of verification! You CANNOT, by definition, accept something that is academically presented without question.

Anyone play with particle physics?

Schroedinger's Cat?  Heisenberg?

'The observer always affects the observed.'

Very important if you are talking about quantum physics. Less so (much less so) when dealing with the macro world of we we are al part of. Pretty much irrelevant when dealing with the effects of forces, as opposed to the forces themselves.

It's like accepting the ice age as a world wide phenomena without question.  And formation of huge valleys and rocky crags by glaciers: nonsense!  Read all about it in your college books, but don't question some "expert" who wrote some nonsense by reading what others wrote, accepting as fact, and elaborating without any real proof.

So who told you to just shut up and accept what you are told? Who said "Nevr question what I am telling you." and more importantly, why do you, as a college student, even think this sort of thing exists? What sort of college are you at, that allows teachers to do this? The whole purpose of college is the investigation of information. The whole purpose is not the rote memorixation of facts, but the assimilation of research and verification techniques, so that you will be able to confirm your own data, and contribute to the academic world in due time.

Seriously, where the heck did you pick up this nonsense?

Yup.  As life has shown me, "science" is as much a religion as is religion.  Take it all on faith.  If it doesn't fit, don't look at it.  If it does, use it.  If it doesn't and you can't get rid of it, explain it away somehow.

You seriously need to re-evaluate your college, if this is what you are getting out of it.

When do we gain enough common sense to examine the whole, instead of small parts?

'Science will eventually discover an equation that explains it all.'  Road apples.  Answers, real answers, cannot be had until all the facts are known; we cannot possibly know all the facts; therefore, do NOT assume "science" has the answers.

781230[/snapback]

It is quite likely the facts will never all be known. Until then, we will have to settle for the best answers we can confirm with the available data. That is what science is all about. Getting the best answer we can possibly get until a better one comes along.

If you are approaching science on faith, you have completly, totally, absolutely missed the entire point of it.

781332[/snapback]

In order:

May the Lord help you if you have no academic standing, or if you tend to go against the grain (current socially acceptable theory). EG separation of Old world and New world or warm blooded dinos. Also true if you come up with something that defies the "laws" of physics. Where did you come up with the acceptance nonsense? Let me tell you a little story. A co-worker of mine was writing a paper and needed 8 decimal places on a number instead of the academically accepted 4. So he proceeded to invent (rather than work out) those extra numbers. Within a few months, the academic world you so much love and respect had accepted these invented numbers as fact. I will not say what the numbers were in reference to or my friend's name before checking with him for obvious reasons. Why, then would I have faith in printed work from the academic world? By the way, just for your information, for a period in my career I was a member of that academic world; could be that's a large part of my cynical attitude.

Qphysics: Where do you come up with this? Are you of the opinion that if something happens on a small scale it does NOT happen on a large scale? Now, that is real logic. Think about what you said. Then, if you can, apply some math to it and say it again without laughing at yourself. Irrelevant? Hardly. That, pal, is where your macro world originates, and stating irrelevance severely limits the view of the macro world, incidentally decreasing the size of your thought box.

Accept what.... First, there are "laws", and those "laws" must be accepted. This same applies to all "sciences". By its own definition, science is adaptable, but in fact there are precious few "scientists" who are. That is not academic, it IS experiential. Second, you assume I am a student: in fact, it is true, but not as you think. I am a student of life, having completed more than one degree and holding several hundred units at various colleges and universities, and also having taught at several of those institutions while also performing duties in engineering. Lesson: Never assume anything about anyone. You have autos controlled by processors, 3 others and myself invented those; you have cell phones, the DSP used is a direct derivative of a processor invented by myself and team. You use a desktop and/or laptop whose operating lsi devices were invented by myself and two other engineers. Probably you have a wireless handset on your telephone; the first of which three others and myself developed. You listen to FM radio, now digitally demodulated, a concept I used 35 years ago. The probability is high that you have in your house a machine using a motor I developed. If you use prepared foodstuffs such as mayonaise, the likelyhood that I developed the machines to make it is quite high, along with tennis rackets, nuclear fuel pellets, high quality steel, to name some. There is no living academic I am aware of that has done either the variety or quantity of things I have accomplished. I have made my living doing those things others considered impossible, and it has made me a very good living indeed.

Rote memorization of facts. What do you suppose tests are? And don't give me nonsense about essay questions &c, because it just doesn't wash.

"Until then, we will have to settle for the best answers we can confirm with the available data. That is what science is all about. Getting the best answer we can possibly get until a better one comes along." Problem here is the available data is seldom used. To wit: DC electric motors require commutation. Take that one to your physics/electronics department and they will confirm. Truth is, DC motors do NOT need to have commutation, IF you use all the facts. Why do I say that? Because I have one in my garage, but the "science" says it doesn't exist. So screw that available data nonsense: what IS required is original thought, a quality that seems to be in very short supply in institutions.

As a sidebar, my students were faced daily with something I found few actually did, and so... Each day upon my entry into the classroom, I wrote in large letters across the white board: THINK!!! Eventually, most would.

Approach science on faith? Hardly. Not just hardly. No possible way. I made my living being a renegade, not accepting science. Fortunately, that lack of faith spilled over into all of the sciences, not just mine. As stated, that has led to a nice fat early retirement, wherein once again not accepting the standards earns me a very fat income. Which, incidentally, is contradicted by the academics in that field, also incidentally entirely different from my ex-career.

As another sidebar, I have idols too: Bucky Fuller, with whom I had several wonderful discussions most academicians couldn't begin to understand, and Nikola Tesla, who was, unfortunately, before my time.

The mind is a wonderful thing. Too bad most of us don't or won't use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May the Lord help you if you have no academic standing, or if you tend to go against the grain (current socially acceptable theory). EG separation of Old world and New world or warm blooded dinos. Also true if you come up with something that defies the "laws" of physics.

Anytime you go against the grain, you will meet resistance. Darwin had about the highest academic standing one could want, and his theory was met with disdain and erision, despite the 20 years worth of research he had. Academic standing isn't going to get everything you say accepted without question. If you make incredible claims, you can be Richard Hawkins, and you will still get questions. The only thing academic standing is going to get you is more credibility. Your theory needs to be able to stand on its own merits.

Where did you come up with the acceptance nonsense? Let me tell you a little story. A co-worker of mine was writing a paper and needed 8 decimal places on a number instead of the academically accepted 4. So he proceeded to invent (rather than work out) those extra numbers. Within a few months, the academic world you so much love and respect had accepted these invented numbers as fact.

And this is proof of what? That scientists never lie? Who made that claim? The reason verification protocols exist in the first place is because everyone, especially scientists who have devoted years to proving their pet theories, occasionally succumb to the temptation of 'fudging' the numbers, just as your co-worker did. That is precisely why dissemination of data is a requirement for verification. The more people get their hands on the data, the sooner the mistakes made by your co-worker get discovered. Nothing is taken on faith. Everything is questioned. Inevitable, the hoaxes are brought to light.

Are you of the opinion that if something happens on a small scale it does NOT happen on a large scale? Now, that is real logic.

Yes, exactly. More precisely, it is Formal Logic, which is essential in the construction of supporting arguments. This specific logical fallacy is knwon as the Fallacy of Composition, which is essentially the incorrect assumption that the properties of individual components are directly translated into the properties of the entire unit as a whole. This is obviously incorrect. Take, for instance, Sodium and Chloride. Individually, they are poisonous. Together, they are harmless table salt.

The quantum world is composed of rules and properties so completly different than those of the macro world that, for all intents and purposes, it constitutes and entirely different reality, and the rules and regs of that reality do not always (in fact, I cannot think of a single example) apply to the macro world.

Rote memorization of facts. What do you suppose tests are? And don't give me nonsense about essay questions &c, because it just doesn't wash.

Measurements. No more, no less. There are more ways to pass a class than simply through your grades. If all you have done is focus on tests, you have seriously short-changed your education.

First, there are "laws", and those "laws" must be accepted. This same applies to all "sciences". By its own definition, science is adaptable, but in fact there are precious few "scientists" who are.

The use of the word Law is no more than a vestige from a previous age. No scientist considered Laws of nature to be immutable. If you have run up against stubborn scientists as an individual, then deal with it yourself. Do not condem the entire community.

Second, you assume I am a student: in fact, it is true, but not as you think. I am a student of life, having completed more than one degree and holding several hundred units at various colleges and universities, and also having taught at several of those institutions while also performing duties in engineering. Lesson: Never assume anything about anyone.

Then you have made a very poor showing of it. You speak more like a high schooler attempting to create non-existant credentials than a member of the scientific community.

You have autos controlled by processors, 3 others and myself invented those; you have cell phones, the DSP used is a direct derivative of a processor invented by myself and team. You use a desktop and/or laptop whose operating lsi devices were invented by myself and two other engineers.

Then there is an excellent chance that I spoke to you personally not six months ago.

Truth is, DC motors do NOT need to have commutation, IF you use all the facts. Why do I say that? Because I have one in my garage, but the "science" says it doesn't exist. So screw that available data nonsense: what IS required is original thought, a quality that seems to be in very short supply in institutions.

No, what is required is extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. You say you have a non-commutation motor in your garage? Fine. Support it. Explain the principle. I will begin looking for available data.

Better yet, start a different thread on it, so that this one won't get hijacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May the Lord help you if you have no academic standing, or if you tend to go against the grain (current socially acceptable theory). EG separation of Old world and New world or warm blooded dinos. Also true if you come up with something that defies the "laws" of physics.

Anytime you go against the grain, you will meet resistance. Darwin had about the highest academic standing one could want, and his theory was met with disdain and erision, despite the 20 years worth of research he had. Academic standing isn't going to get everything you say accepted without question. If you make incredible claims, you can be Richard Hawkins, and you will still get questions. The only thing academic standing is going to get you is more credibility. Your theory needs to be able to stand on its own merits.

Where did you come up with the acceptance nonsense? Let me tell you a little story. A co-worker of mine was writing a paper and needed 8 decimal places on a number instead of the academically accepted 4. So he proceeded to invent (rather than work out) those extra numbers. Within a few months, the academic world you so much love and respect had accepted these invented numbers as fact.

And this is proof of what? That scientists never lie? Who made that claim? The reason verification protocols exist in the first place is because everyone, especially scientists who have devoted years to proving their pet theories, occasionally succumb to the temptation of 'fudging' the numbers, just as your co-worker did. That is precisely why dissemination of data is a requirement for verification. The more people get their hands on the data, the sooner the mistakes made by your co-worker get discovered. Nothing is taken on faith. Everything is questioned. Inevitable, the hoaxes are brought to light.

Are you of the opinion that if something happens on a small scale it does NOT happen on a large scale? Now, that is real logic.

Yes, exactly. More precisely, it is Formal Logic, which is essential in the construction of supporting arguments. This specific logical fallacy is knwon as the Fallacy of Composition, which is essentially the incorrect assumption that the properties of individual components are directly translated into the properties of the entire unit as a whole. This is obviously incorrect. Take, for instance, Sodium and Chloride. Individually, they are poisonous. Together, they are harmless table salt.

The quantum world is composed of rules and properties so completly different than those of the macro world that, for all intents and purposes, it constitutes and entirely different reality, and the rules and regs of that reality do not always (in fact, I cannot think of a single example) apply to the macro world.

Rote memorization of facts. What do you suppose tests are? And don't give me nonsense about essay questions &c, because it just doesn't wash.

Measurements. No more, no less. There are more ways to pass a class than simply through your grades. If all you have done is focus on tests, you have seriously short-changed your education.

First, there are "laws", and those "laws" must be accepted. This same applies to all "sciences". By its own definition, science is adaptable, but in fact there are precious few "scientists" who are.

The use of the word Law is no more than a vestige from a previous age. No scientist considered Laws of nature to be immutable. If you have run up against stubborn scientists as an individual, then deal with it yourself. Do not condem the entire community.

Second, you assume I am a student: in fact, it is true, but not as you think. I am a student of life, having completed more than one degree and holding several hundred units at various colleges and universities, and also having taught at several of those institutions while also performing duties in engineering. Lesson: Never assume anything about anyone.

Then you have made a very poor showing of it. You speak more like a high schooler attempting to create non-existant credentials than a member of the scientific community.

You have autos controlled by processors, 3 others and myself invented those; you have cell phones, the DSP used is a direct derivative of a processor invented by myself and team. You use a desktop and/or laptop whose operating lsi devices were invented by myself and two other engineers.

Then there is an excellent chance that I spoke to you personally not six months ago.

Truth is, DC motors do NOT need to have commutation, IF you use all the facts. Why do I say that? Because I have one in my garage, but the "science" says it doesn't exist. So screw that available data nonsense: what IS required is original thought, a quality that seems to be in very short supply in institutions.

No, what is required is extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. You say you have a non-commutation motor in your garage? Fine. Support it. Explain the principle. I will begin looking for available data.

Better yet, start a different thread on it, so that this one won't get hijacked.

781584[/snapback]

FROM BASIC PHYSICS: A CONDUCTOR IMMERSED IN A MAGNETIC FIELD EXHIBITS A TORQUE DEPENDENT ON THE POLARITY OF THE FIELD AND DIRECTION OF RELATIVE CURRENT FLOW.

Any more questions? Or is it necessary to fully explain something that should be obvious? I don't consider it an extraordinary claim, just something that has escaped observation, as Faraday's wheel has escaped observation. Tesla said it well, that this wheel needs to be examined as to what, why when where, but nobody seems to want to do that.

Those numbers were simply a statement that there are "facts" in the scientific community that are not facts. Period. And no, I doubt that will ever be discovered.

"The quantum world is composed of rules and properties so completly different than those of the macro world that, for all intents and purposes, it constitutes and entirely different reality, and the rules and regs of that reality do not always (in fact, I cannot think of a single example) apply to the macro world." Ever heard of fractals? Besides, reality is a variable.

"Then there is an excellent chance that I spoke to you personally not six months ago" No you didn't. I quit the nonsense about five years ago. Car computers were first delivered in 1980 and integrated by intel shortly thereafter.

"Then you have made a very poor showing of it. You speak more like a high schooler attempting to create non-existant credentials than a member of the scientific community." Nah. My showing lived for more than 30 years. And it was a very good showing. At this point in my life, I don't need anyone's approval, including yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing people need to realize when it comes to determining origins is that it is not based on science. True science is based on observation. As a creationist I do not disagree with anything an evolutionist observes, what I do disagree with is their story of history and their assumptions. We all have the same facts, the same plants, the same rocks, the animals, the same fossils, the same earth etc…the difference is in how we interpret the facts. Facts do not speak for themselves. We interpret them based on our presuppositions and bias. To an evolutionist, God isn’t even an option.

lex1

“This is totally Chicken or the Egg question

Most people give up and say God”

Why is God the last resort answer? Is it any less scientific if it is the truth? Why is it that people aren’t even willing to admit that the reason the fossil record is so void of transitional forms is that evolution isn’t the answer?

Hey aquatus how’s it going? Remember me? We had several debates about evolution about a year and a half ago on the mythbusters forum. I hope all is going well with you.

But anyway time for your trap, you said,

“People who understand evolution however, say "Egg", and are fully capable of supporting their answer (unlike those who claim God).”

Ok you say the egg came first, and you say you can support your answer, well I am all ears. Tell me how you know the egg came first and show me your support for your answer.

Rakarin02

“To go by Genesis, why did God create pigs, shrimp, and clams if they are so unclean that eating them is an abomination before God?”

Rakarin, people were not even given permission to eat meat until after the flood. When God created the world there was no death, disiese, thorns, suffering, bloodshed, extinction none of that, everything was perfect. All people ate were plants. But when Adam and Eve sinned everything changed. The Bible says in Romans 5:12,

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned”

and in,

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Oh...BTW… I hope all you guys know that the idea of embryonic recapitulation is based on a total fraud that has long since been exposed. yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.