lawdog,
A good reference site for an objective view of the evolution vs creationist debate is -
www.talkorigins.org
A good reference site for an objective view of the evolution vs creationist debate is -
www.talkorigins.org
Do you feel Violated?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Lawdog said:
WOAH WOAH WOAH ... you came in here and claimed Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct... when you havnt even researched the former but know good well of the latter? Talk about Bias! You might as well go up to a Muslim and say his religion is wrong and bad without even knowing what he believes... Oh wait... nevermind.
lawdog and others.
For all those complete imbecile's who think evolution never happened,
educate yourselves or try to explain these?
Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)
10, The Wings on Flightless Birds
9, Hind Leg Bones in Whales
8, Erector Pili and Body Hair
7, The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
6, The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus
5, Wisdom Teeth in Humans
4, The Sexual Organs of Dandelion
3, Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)
2, Male Breast Tissue and Nipples
1, The Human Appendix
I looking forward to some of the answers.
there's actually eighty-six vestigial organs.
source: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/rudimentary_organs.html
For all those complete imbecile's who think evolution never happened,
educate yourselves or try to explain these?
Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)
10, The Wings on Flightless Birds
9, Hind Leg Bones in Whales
8, Erector Pili and Body Hair
7, The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
6, The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus
5, Wisdom Teeth in Humans
4, The Sexual Organs of Dandelion
3, Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)
2, Male Breast Tissue and Nipples
1, The Human Appendix
I looking forward to some of the answers.
there's actually eighty-six vestigial organs.
source: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/rudimentary_organs.html
the preacher said:
Compare the motorcycle and wheat harvester - both of them are different applications of a similar design(combustion powered locomotive) to suit a purpose - its not like the motorcycle went through gradual changes of evolution to become a wheat harvester or vice versa. The motorcycle appears similar in some ways but it never had the capacity to harvest wheat. Similarly a wheat harvester never had the capacity to overtake freeway traffic. They both share the same "blue prints" and have borrowed elements of design but they remain constantly fixed in their design applications (its not like a wheat farmer will ever consider a motorbike suitable for harvesting)
Similarly when designing the bodies of animals the blue print is "tweaked" by the designer to suit the different applications - if there are 8 400 000 different applications in this world (ie different species of flaura and fauna) why should a designer wrack their brains to produce 8 400 000 different designs? Its sufficient just to come up with one or two dozen different designs and tweak them a little this way and that way, just like automotive technology (which is just one single design) is tweaked to produce a myriad of design applications from motorcycles to wheat harvesters to armoured tanks
Wrong.
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.
You've got nothing to say.
Of course, unless you're saying that an elephant wont wake up one morning as a giraffe, in which case you're totally right.
--------
To light:
Seems I need to repeat myself:
"Hey, you ignored my post! You said all it took was one piece of evidence. The facts have been laid before you. Where you gone?"
Wrack their brains? If these designers are considered omnipotent, (which they most often are), then there is no wracking of brains, merely clicking of fingers. Three nanoseconds and the blink of the eyelids and you have several billion different designs that aren't quite as messed up as they are in reality.
-------
So it would seem.
lightgigantic said:
Or try another analogy, computer programs.
If I need a program to perform a particular task the chances are that I start off by finding one that does something similar, in order to adapt it to suit my purpose.
The result is then likely to be replete with recognisably vestigial characteristcs derived from the original, the same variables or sub routines or whatever, but would this then prove that one "evolved" from the other?
I would rather get some credit for the design work, and the same would go for DNA. If a boffin in a laboratory knows how to modify the genetics to suit a particular purpose, then a notional God could just as well attempt the same.
--- Ron.
bad analogy, on your part, of course one evolved from the other, as you started with one that does something similar. hence why we have vestigial organs we've all evolved from something, that does something similar.perplexity said:
computers used to be written, in machine code and basic was the interpreter, now we have menu driven programs, we now have no need for a interpreter, it evolved, ok with the help of the programer, we adapt to our surroundings, I have programs on my computer that remove any vestigial, characters, if there was a god would he not have done the same.
I really dont understand what theists are trying to refute. If they refute the biological fact of evolution, then they aren't coming up with any alternatives. Why?
Obviously they have an issue with the apparent natural basis for life and its evolution... But what I want to ask is what they wish God's role to be? Do they wish God to create each species individually rather than allowing them to evolve? Basically I just want a theist to describe the emotional basis for their argument against evolution... However, that would require a theist to be honest, which is something that won't happen.
It sounds to me theists refute evolution for the same reasons they refuted Earth not being the centre of the universe in the 17th century. Ignorance and unwillingness to reduce the role God plays in Human affairs.
Obviously they have an issue with the apparent natural basis for life and its evolution... But what I want to ask is what they wish God's role to be? Do they wish God to create each species individually rather than allowing them to evolve? Basically I just want a theist to describe the emotional basis for their argument against evolution... However, that would require a theist to be honest, which is something that won't happen.
It sounds to me theists refute evolution for the same reasons they refuted Earth not being the centre of the universe in the 17th century. Ignorance and unwillingness to reduce the role God plays in Human affairs.
The leader of the Theology Department of my school once gave a speech on Evolutionism vs Creationism... it was a great speech, but alas, i have forgotten most of it. He described how Evolution was God's Revelation to us... revealing his plan for all the creatures, animals and plants, little crawling things (as the bible calls bugs ) etc. to us slowly. He said it a lot better, and it was a great speech. My point is Evolution = does not disprove God. Now, we know that Evolution DOES disprove the Creation Stories in the Bible... along with all others written in mythological and theological books.
But, you literalist Theists (btw, I am a Theist... not an Athiest... a Theist) have a chance! You have another way to back away from defeat! Claim you are not a rigid literalist but instead a loose literalist, and claim that the 6-Day Creation story describes that the world was created in 6 stages... although im sure THAt could easily be disproven, but still, back yourself into another corner
Evolution = pretty much proven, we have given examples of large plants evolving, insects evolving, fossils showing the possibility of ANIMALS evolving, we have leftover vestigial parts, seemingly to have a purpose at one point in time, we have seen that genetic mutations arent always bad (but usually), we have seen that not everything evolves the same, look at small islands separated from the main World. We have carbon-dated soil and rock and have discovered the world to be MUCH MUCH older than 10,000 years, the supposed time when Genesis was first written.
Along with the fact that even if Evolution is not proven in your eyes, what proves Genesis > all other stories? AND DONT DARE SAY "because it is the word of God" ! Prove it then! You cannot! Jeeze, stop trying to prevent science and technology from progressing.
I am disgusted that for years I was taught that a man and a woman, the woman lower than the man, were made out of clay (and a rib for the woman) and somehow hid from God.... didnt know how u can hide from GOD... and were banished from a garden never found ... wouldnt it be there still? After, it is being guarded by a flaming sword and a cherubim (cherubim is acctually a word stolen from another religion, cant remember which tho, sorry, and it is supposedly some monster-looking thing, kindof like a Minitoar, but for some reason over the millennia it was confused with a baby angel...)
) etc. to us slowly. He said it a lot better, and it was a great speech. My point is Evolution = does not disprove God. Now, we know that Evolution DOES disprove the Creation Stories in the Bible... along with all others written in mythological and theological books. But, you literalist Theists (btw, I am a Theist... not an Athiest... a Theist) have a chance! You have another way to back away from defeat! Claim you are not a rigid literalist but instead a loose literalist, and claim that the 6-Day Creation story describes that the world was created in 6 stages... although im sure THAt could easily be disproven, but still, back yourself into another corner
Evolution = pretty much proven, we have given examples of large plants evolving, insects evolving, fossils showing the possibility of ANIMALS evolving, we have leftover vestigial parts, seemingly to have a purpose at one point in time, we have seen that genetic mutations arent always bad (but usually), we have seen that not everything evolves the same, look at small islands separated from the main World. We have carbon-dated soil and rock and have discovered the world to be MUCH MUCH older than 10,000 years, the supposed time when Genesis was first written.
Along with the fact that even if Evolution is not proven in your eyes, what proves Genesis > all other stories? AND DONT DARE SAY "because it is the word of God" ! Prove it then! You cannot! Jeeze, stop trying to prevent science and technology from progressing.
I am disgusted that for years I was taught that a man and a woman, the woman lower than the man, were made out of clay (and a rib for the woman) and somehow hid from God.... didnt know how u can hide from GOD... and were banished from a garden never found ... wouldnt it be there still? After, it is being guarded by a flaming sword and a cherubim (cherubim is acctually a word stolen from another religion, cant remember which tho, sorry, and it is supposedly some monster-looking thing, kindof like a Minitoar, but for some reason over the millennia it was confused with a baby angel...)
I think perplexity is talking about the applications though.
The point is that the vestigal parts are just the remnants of a design brief that is applied differently
The point about evolution is that it is heavily steeped in deductive reasoning and the wider application of the principles of this deductive reasoning is speculation (eg - a butterfly develops grey wings therefore man evolved from a micro- organism). And it is the wider and unfounded conclusions of evolution that are used as evidence to lessen the credibility of such preliminary truths of religion, such as sentient design in the universe - I guess part of the problem is that religion is characterised by christiainity, which is plagued by a few historical inebrities - Like for instance not all religions held that the earth was the centre of the universe (and even that view held within christianity was more of a social phenomena than an idea clearly elaborated in the bible).
The point is that the vestigal parts are just the remnants of a design brief that is applied differently
The point about evolution is that it is heavily steeped in deductive reasoning and the wider application of the principles of this deductive reasoning is speculation (eg - a butterfly develops grey wings therefore man evolved from a micro- organism). And it is the wider and unfounded conclusions of evolution that are used as evidence to lessen the credibility of such preliminary truths of religion, such as sentient design in the universe - I guess part of the problem is that religion is characterised by christiainity, which is plagued by a few historical inebrities - Like for instance not all religions held that the earth was the centre of the universe (and even that view held within christianity was more of a social phenomena than an idea clearly elaborated in the bible).
Ah, that old chestnut. "Evolution has been observed in flies but you haven't seen a man born from a monkey or a giraffe born from a garden mouse, so evolution is false!"
Bad bad bad lack of education. 'Tis all it is.
Ah, that old chestnut. Pretend that evolution is concerned with or gives a solitary droplet of rat piss about creator entities - and then undoubtedly claim evolution false because it does so, (even though it actually doesn't).
I believe it is the perogative of parents or legal guardians to bring their child up in their own faith, or non-faith, as the case may be. However, it is not the perogative of others to attempt to usurp parental authority in this matter. That is why the public schools need to mind their own business and leave the religious training of children to the parents.
Nehushta said:
In parts of the world not every kid has living parents. !0 year olds are given a religious upbringing by surrogate parents who then strap a bomb on their back. Not sure if any school curriculum anywhere contains such a course. I would hope like hell that a kid's real parents aren't following suit but nothing surprises me any more.
PsychoticEpisode said:
Really? what curriculum are you exactly examining here psychotic episode?
PsychoticEpisode said:
Yes it does sound a bit sensational
Kind of raises the question what you are doing talking about kids being trained to strap bombs to themselvesPsychoticEpisode said:
lightgigantic said:
Oh sorry. Do you mean its better for a kid to learn about violence and how to kill from a respected religious establishment? Pardon my ignorance.
PsychoticEpisode said:
No I didn't say that - I am just trying to source what you are actually referencing - its not clear what you are even talking about, which is something we should clear up before we examine the general principles you are applying to come to your conclusions
Provita said:
If only it was that simple - obviously you don't much experience with raising children - I think that if children automatically were obedient to their parents in religious affairs more parents would be religious just for the sake of bearing influence - most cut up atheists come from staunch religious backgrounds - seems that to further the cause of atheism more stauch religiousity is needed -lol
Provita said:WOAH WOAH WOAH ... you came in here and claimed Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct... when you havnt even researched the former but know good well of the latter? Talk about Bias! You might as well go up to a Muslim and say his religion is wrong and bad without even knowing what he believes... Oh wait... nevermind.
Who says I never researched Evolution? I am only committing to review the material, and perhaps perusing the writings of a few wacky scientists.
As a youth I was very much an Evolutionist. One of My favorite film's was Quest for Fire. I undertook a geology major in college and wanted to be a paleontologist. That was one of my favorite classes.