Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 06:00 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 05:26 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  Now before you spout more ignorant claims, do a honest search into the things I have conveniently bolded for you.

Nearly all of the millions of so-called "species" consist of sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, or "the true species". Today there are many different kinds of one sub-species, such as the hummingbirds, but, orignally, there was only one. Its gene pool permitted it to produce many sub-species, hence... the close genetics... As all breeds of dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, have the same genetic make-up, they are all still dogs... same with cats/lions etc. There has not been a brake in the genetic barrier creating a New genetically separate species, and there is no example of that. The other aspect of genetic differences come in the form of mutations, however, mutations are almost always degrading, which doesn't fall in line with evolution theory. Bacteria that changes still contains the same genetic make-up, but switches within the genetic strand are turned off, altering one or another characteristic of the bacteria. As a true education student studying a Biblical aspect... just so you know, not to prove anything... we consider the genetic switches God's way to adapt species to address different aspects of life. As plants have changed into what we call weeds, though sharing a genetic make up with edible and palatable plants, they actual address different deficiencies in the soil they grow in. Mineral deficient ground will rise up thistles and other tap-rooted weeds that grow down deep into the soil drawing up minerals, that washed out of the topsoil from our improper use of it.

I'll continue addressing some of the other bolds later.... you don't have to agree... that's why I said, food for thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 06:14 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:00 PM)birdseye Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 05:26 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  Now before you spout more ignorant claims, do a honest search into the things I have conveniently bolded for you.

Nearly all of the millions of so-called "species" consist of sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, or "the true species". Today there are many different kinds of one sub-species, such as the hummingbirds, but, orignally, there was only one. Its gene pool permitted it to produce many sub-species, hence... the close genetics... As all breeds of dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, have the same genetic make-up, they are all still dogs... same with cats/lions etc. There has not been a brake in the genetic barrier creating a New genetically separate species, and there is no example of that. The other aspect of genetic differences come in the form of mutations, however, mutations are almost always degrading, which doesn't fall in line with evolution theory. Bacteria that changes still contains the same genetic make-up, but switches within the genetic strand are turned off, altering one or another characteristic of the bacteria. As a true education student studying a Biblical aspect... just so you know, not to prove anything... we consider the genetic switches God's way to adapt species to address different aspects of life. As plants have changed into what we call weeds, though sharing a genetic make up with edible and palatable plants, they actual address different deficiencies in the soil they grow in. Mineral deficient ground will rise up thistles and other tap-rooted weeds that grow down deep into the soil drawing up minerals, that washed out of the topsoil from our improper use of it.

I'll continue addressing some of the other bolds later.... you don't have to agree... that's why I said, food for thought.

Your understanding of evolution and its evidence is appallingly poor.

Please read an actual science book.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-11-2013, 06:18 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 05:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  3.6 million years. And they are not human footprints, but what is your point?

Those footprints are barefoot and were formed when volcanic ash buried them immediately.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 06:24 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:18 PM)birdseye Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 05:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  3.6 million years. And they are not human footprints, but what is your point?

Those footprints are barefoot and were formed when volcanic ash buried them immediately.

An uncaptioned, unattributed, unverified photo? Really? You are a credulous cretin.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures.

The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with.

The basis of modern science was laid by careful researchers, a majority of whom believed in the creationist view of the origin of the universe, our planet, and life. These men were brilliant, yet they believed in creation not evolution.

Someone will reply, "Well, we have brilliant men today who are discovering many things." Let me say that it is not difficult for intelligent men to go to universities with large libraries and lots of teachers, obtain doctorates, be hired by firms or educational institutions, enter multimillion-dollar laboratories endowed with private and government grants, and be given an abundance of time to make new discoveries.

But, in earlier years, It took brilliant men to pioneer the discoveries that we today use as stepping stones. They frequently had little in the way of equipment, time, or money, but they had powerful minds and depth of comprehension.

Such men were the leaders in science; we today are the followers. We are talking about such men as Newton, Agassiz, and Kelvin. And those men were generally creationists.

"Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?" Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, (1952 ed.), pp. 389-370 Newton was the father of modern science and the pioneer in optics].

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." J.L.R. Agassiz, in Methods of Study in Natural History [Agassiz was a Harvard professor and the pioneer in the study of glacial geology.

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us . . The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institutes, No. 124, p. 267 [Kelvin was the pioneer in the study of thermodynamics].

If you really want to think... and really want to have some experience in backing your atheistic beliefs in an intellectual atmosphere, hopefully free of unnecessary retaliation... comment on this... let's reason. I'm not here to make conflict, but to make you think... as the forum is called "The Thinking Atheist"... let's really do some thinking, you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.

Evolution is not real because we can't witness it. Also, The Thinking Theist made a thread on this and it already got resolved, though everyone arguing was wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 06:26 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:00 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Nearly all of the millions of so-called "species" consist of sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, or "the true species". Today there are many different kinds of one sub-species, such as the hummingbirds, but, orignally, there was only one. Its gene pool permitted it to produce many sub-species, hence... the close genetics... As all breeds of dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, have the same genetic make-up, they are all still dogs... same with cats/lions etc. There has not been a brake in the genetic barrier creating a New genetically separate species, and there is no example of that. The other aspect of genetic differences come in the form of mutations, however, mutations are almost always degrading, which doesn't fall in line with evolution theory. Bacteria that changes still contains the same genetic make-up, but switches within the genetic strand are turned off, altering one or another characteristic of the bacteria.

This again?

Dogs and cats didn't instantly appear as distinct animals. We have fossils of cat ancestors linking them to the point of divergence with lions, which you apparently accept, but we can also do the same thing with other species such as wolves, for example, and the problem for you is that the wolf ancestor and cat ancestor can also be traced in the same manner. What we find is that the cat ancestor and wolf ancestor trace back to increasingly similar ancestors until there is nothing to distinguish them at all.

To keep up with this 'kinds' nonsense you have to arbitrarily decide that one step in the chain counts as a cat ancestor and the slightly older yet nearly identical animal doesn't, or else you are stuck admitting that wolves and cats have the same ancestor.

And we don't have to stop there. We can do this for the shared ancestor of cats and dogs and the shared ancestor of deer and elk.

And farther and farther back until we have two lines of completely different animals, such as a turtle and cat, which are different kinds according to even the most ridiculous creationist, sharing a common ancestor.

To support the 'kinds' concept requires some Olympic-level mental gymnastics.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elesjei's post
16-11-2013, 06:30 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:25 PM)KillKillKilltoTheThird Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures.

The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with.

The basis of modern science was laid by careful researchers, a majority of whom believed in the creationist view of the origin of the universe, our planet, and life. These men were brilliant, yet they believed in creation not evolution.

Someone will reply, "Well, we have brilliant men today who are discovering many things." Let me say that it is not difficult for intelligent men to go to universities with large libraries and lots of teachers, obtain doctorates, be hired by firms or educational institutions, enter multimillion-dollar laboratories endowed with private and government grants, and be given an abundance of time to make new discoveries.

But, in earlier years, It took brilliant men to pioneer the discoveries that we today use as stepping stones. They frequently had little in the way of equipment, time, or money, but they had powerful minds and depth of comprehension.

Such men were the leaders in science; we today are the followers. We are talking about such men as Newton, Agassiz, and Kelvin. And those men were generally creationists.

"Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?" Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, (1952 ed.), pp. 389-370 Newton was the father of modern science and the pioneer in optics].

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." J.L.R. Agassiz, in Methods of Study in Natural History [Agassiz was a Harvard professor and the pioneer in the study of glacial geology.

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us . . The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institutes, No. 124, p. 267 [Kelvin was the pioneer in the study of thermodynamics].

If you really want to think... and really want to have some experience in backing your atheistic beliefs in an intellectual atmosphere, hopefully free of unnecessary retaliation... comment on this... let's reason. I'm not here to make conflict, but to make you think... as the forum is called "The Thinking Atheist"... let's really do some thinking, you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.

Evolution is not real because we can't witness it. Also, The Thinking Theist made a thread on this and it already got resolved, though everyone arguing was wrong.

We witness it all the time. And it is a Theory that has tremendous proven predictive power, e.g. Tiktaalik roseae.

Your ignorance and incredulity do not disprove evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 06:32 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your ignorance and incredulity do not disprove evolution.

Of course it does. If you believe hard enough that something hasn't happened, then it hasn't happened. That's why Elvis is having a show in Vegas this month.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Elesjei's post
16-11-2013, 06:41 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:00 PM)birdseye Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 05:26 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  Now before you spout more ignorant claims, do a honest search into the things I have conveniently bolded for you.

Nearly all of the millions of so-called "species" consist of sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, or "the true species". Today there are many different kinds of one sub-species, such as the hummingbirds, but, orignally, there was only one. Its gene pool permitted it to produce many sub-species, hence... the close genetics... As all breeds of dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, have the same genetic make-up, they are all still dogs... same with cats/lions etc. There has not been a brake in the genetic barrier creating a New genetically separate species, and there is no example of that. The other aspect of genetic differences come in the form of mutations, however, mutations are almost always degrading, which doesn't fall in line with evolution theory. Bacteria that changes still contains the same genetic make-up, but switches within the genetic strand are turned off, altering one or another characteristic of the bacteria. As a true education student studying a Biblical aspect... just so you know, not to prove anything... we consider the genetic switches God's way to adapt species to address different aspects of life. As plants have changed into what we call weeds, though sharing a genetic make up with edible and palatable plants, they actual address different deficiencies in the soil they grow in. Mineral deficient ground will rise up thistles and other tap-rooted weeds that grow down deep into the soil drawing up minerals, that washed out of the topsoil from our improper use of it.

I'll continue addressing some of the other bolds later.... you don't have to agree... that's why I said, food for thought.


As all breeds of dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, have the same genetic make-up, they are all still dogs... same with cats/lions etc. There has not been a brake in the genetic barrier creating a New genetically separate species, and there is no example of that.

What in the fuck are you spouting? A new genetically separate species? Please, define your definition of "genetically separate species."

The similarities in DNA give credence to 'descent with modification.'

The similarities in DNA provide evidence on ancestry, as well as divergence.


..As a true education student studying a Biblical aspect...


Um...so your credentials are what?


I could go point by point and invalidate all of your post, but I could think of things that would be more enjoyable, such as giving my eyeballs papercuts.

You are taking bits of science and bastardizing them to fit into your limited world view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 06:45 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:18 PM)birdseye Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 05:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  3.6 million years. And they are not human footprints, but what is your point?

Those footprints are barefoot and were formed when volcanic ash buried them immediately.

Chas, don't you find it interesting that this photo shows that the human footprint went to the same depth as the dino footprint?! Consider

Our ancestors must have been enourmous! And they say there's an obesity epidemic today...pssh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like jaguar3030's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: