• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

Dancing David said:
So from just looking at Creation perhaps you should stop and consider the motives of the Creator. Why so many bugs, bacteria and so much empty space?
Click to expand...


The Creator has "an inordinate fondness for beetles", as JBS Haldane reminded us. :)

cj x
 
154 said:
The evidence is what the evidence is. Men state. If God Created, a plurality of men's votes will not override.
Click to expand...
exactly. So why do you deny the evidence such as
Human chromosome 2?
Nylonase?
phylogenic tree that is corroborated with the genetic trees no matter which gene you look at..

edge said:
The mission of Jesus Christ was not Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Click to expand...
Jesus could have saved countless lives if he had mentioned germ theory. You may think this unimportant, but I think it exposes either a god who doesn't care about people dying from disease* or a person who simply didn't know any better.

*kind of sheds new light on his "healing the sick miracles" don't you think?

edge said:
Although the case can and has been made, even though I'm not going to make it so don't bother, that much if not most of our technological advancement has come because of the societal and cultural changes produced as a result of the advent of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wouldn't make that argument. It's simply not supported by history.

edge said:
You repeatedly make it all or nothing. I don't. I don't believe most scientists concerning their philosophy of Origins. That doesn't mean I don't trust the chemists at Bayer.
Click to expand...
I'm not making it all or nothing. I simply asked for an example of a technology derived from religion. Simple.

I'm simply exposing your views. You clearly believe science to be superior to religion. it is why you attempted to call evolution a religion. You were trying to bring it down to the level of Christianity. I suggest you think about your beliefs and why you have such little faith in your religion.
 
154 said:
Catholic.
Click to expand...
Ah, so it's the fake Christians who were holding science back. I'd still like to know who made the argument you cited. If you know of it then you must have seen it somewhere.

No, I believe some scientists concerning some things and not concerning others.
That's all.
Click to expand...
And the scientists that you disagree with are the ones who's work contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible.
 
sphenisc said:
Simon39759 said:
For example, bats are a small rodent,...
Click to expand...
No they're not.
Click to expand...

Hurm, it appears that you are right... I imagined them much more closely related...

Well, I apologize for my mistake and thank you for correcting it... I am little less dumb now than ten minutes ago...



Dancing David said:
Nope, you don't get it do you, dogs did not come from fish, by any stretch of the imagination. The precursors of fish are separate from the precursors of mammals, the alleged creature which crawled from the ocean was not a 'fish'. Just as humans did not evolve from monkeys.
Click to expand...

Thing is that, in modern taxonomy, groups are defined as monophyletic... The first species to 'fit the bill' and all its descendant... (that is the reason why birds are now classified as dinosaurs).

The problem is that fish is a paraphyletic group. It is a very broad description that includes multiple classes of aquatic vertebrates and yet exclude their terrestrial descendants...
So, from a taxonomy point of view, it is an outdated term...

Nonetheless, let's be clear, our finned ancestor, Tiktaalik grand-pa, was quite clearly fish like. It'd probably not have looked out of place on a fish market and you'd not have thought twice before turning him into sashimi... The term is a colloquial rather than a scientific one, nonetheless, our ancestors were fish...
 
Ah, so it's the fake Christians who were holding science back.
Click to expand...
Like that Jesuit priest I mentioned earlier. Of course the PRIESTS aren't going to be REAL Christians! :rolleyes:

154 said:
You repeatedly make it all or nothing. I don't. I don't believe most scientists concerning their philosophy of Origins.
Click to expand...
That's because 1) evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life or the origins of the universe, 2) it takes a lot of knowledge to discuss such things intelligently, and 3) most of the problems that are really interesting happened after the beginning (not that the beginning isn't interesting, but there's something like 14.5 billion years of astronomy and physics, and 3.9 billion years of life after the beginning of each--a long time, by any standards). Besides, scientists don't deal with "the philosophy of Origins". We deal with cosmology, abiogenesis, and the like. Subtle, but vital, difference.

Simon39759 said:
The problem is that fish is a paraphyletic group. It is a very broad description that includes multiple classes of aquatic vertebrates and yet exclude their terrestrial descendants...
So, from a taxonomy point of view, it is an outdated term...
Click to expand...
Not entirely. In modern biology this is the case, but in paleontology paraphyletic groups still have support. The issue is that paleontology has to deal with the time component to a far greater extent than biology does, meaning that at some point we have to be able to say "This is no longer Homarus americanus; it has become Homarus dinwarus". The species level is a bit fine-scale, and I used it more for humor than anything else, but the point remains that, by the strictest definition of the terms, once H. dinwarus splits from H. americanus H. americanus becomes a paraphyletic group--it includes the ancestor, but only some of the decedents. It's more an issue with, say, genera or families (and don't get me started on phyla....)--as soon as a new family splits off an old one, the old one becomes paraphyletic.

In paleo, the general rule of thumb is to acknowledge that you're creating a paraphyletic group, and to make your case. Some people will object on principle, but it's generally considered acceptable due to necessity.

POLYphyletic groups, on the other hand, will earn you a beating with socks filled with brachiopods.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
Not entirely. In modern biology this is the case, but in paleontology paraphyletic groups still have support. The issue is that paleontology has to deal with the time component to a far greater extent than biology does, meaning that at some point we have to be able to say "This is no longer Homarus americanus; it has become Homarus dinwarus". The species level is a bit fine-scale, and I used it more for humor than anything else, but the point remains that, by the strictest definition of the terms, once H. dinwarus splits from H. americanus H. americanus becomes a paraphyletic group--it includes the ancestor, but only some of the decedents. It's more an issue with, say, genera or families (and don't get me started on phyla....)--as soon as a new family splits off an old one, the old one becomes paraphyletic.

In paleo, the general rule of thumb is to acknowledge that you're creating a paraphyletic group, and to make your case. Some people will object on principle, but it's generally considered acceptable due to necessity.

POLYphyletic groups, on the other hand, will earn you a beating with socks filled with brachiopods.
Click to expand...

I can see the usefulness of it, especially at the species level, I never thought about it this way...
I can also see that marine invertebrates are on your mind...

Anyway, I found that the thread just got much more interesting in the last page or so...
 
Dancing David said:
Since you seem to have a short attention span and memory problem:
Click to expand...
Why do you keep repeating that? I know what I said. I know what you said. We disagree. So what?
Dancing David said:
Nope, you don't get it do you...<snip>
Animals seem to have come from the precursors of fungi.
Click to expand...
Okay, you go to the church of Uncle Fungus then...
Dancing David said:
So no dogs and fish did not come from a dogfish, they came from something else that was not a combination of the two but a proto animals that led to both separate lines.
We can call it uncle bob is you wish, but it had neither the traits of dogs or fish.
Click to expand...
Yeah, got it, Uncle Fungus. Thanks professor. That was quite a profession of faith.
Dancing David said:
If God created...

That is a lot of stars, planets and stuff for the Creator to have Created, and he cares to design animals on one little thing a hundredth of the size of a grain of sand? Out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of sand?

Then consider this God sure made a lot of bugs, there are more kinds of bugs then there are mammals, and bacteria, lots and lots of different kinds of bacteria.

So from just looking at Creation perhaps you should stop and consider the motives of the Creator. Why so many bugs, bacteria and so much empty space?
Click to expand...
Of course I've considered such things. Big questions. Always.
Then I consider my speck of sand and your speck of sand before an Almighty Creator
and can stand in nothing but reverential awe.

"Wisdom begins with the reverential awe of God."
 
154 said:
"Wisdom begins with the reverential awe of God."
Click to expand...
No
thats fear,
The biblical fear of God runs the gamut from a mild respect through a deep, abiding, and reverential awe to sheer terror—a terror that causes the skin to crawl, the hair to stand on end, the throat to release a scream, the bowels to move, or the body to faint or collapse, groveling on the ground in a vain attempt to disappear
Click to expand...
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1490/Reverential-Awe.htm
Wisdom begins with knowledge, obviously though, you didn't know that
:p
 
joobz said:
I'm simply exposing your views.
Click to expand...
You can't expose me, I'm naked.
You clearly believe science to be superior to religion. it is why you attempted to call evolution a religion. You were trying to bring it down to the level of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Clearly... no.

And you goofed with "edge" as my quotes somehow. He might not like that or want that and I could understand..
I suggest you think about your beliefs and why you have such little faith in your religion.
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A
 
154 said:
Then I consider my speck of sand and your speck of sand before an Almighty Creator
and can stand in nothing but reverential awe.
Click to expand...
who seemed to know nothing of germ theory or deemed it unimportant to share with us.

BTW, do you have any actual criticism of the evidence?
 
Dinwar said:
Besides, scientists don't deal with "the philosophy of Origins". We deal with cosmology, abiogenesis, and the like. Subtle, but vital, difference.
Click to expand...
And that vital difference is exactly why I said what I said as I said it, because that is exactly what some scientists do in the name of science.

Marduk said:
No
thats fear,
Click to expand...
No, that was the point. The meaning of that "fear" is more fairly, precisely and accurately translated contemporarily as "reverential awe" in every way. The very point is the infinite of God.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom