If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

[Flores]

Flores

Do you actually understand what you read? Evolution:1 - Allah:zero

And don't you understand the difference between facts and speculations.

The million year old human skull is very real. How evolutionists want to conceal their big goofups in saying that humans generated around 100,000 years in Africa by stating that any contrary facts can be lumped in a huge margin of error that they call a transition period is rationalization.

I'm sorry people, but I'm used to real science. Mathematical proof. Evolution is a nice peace of art at best. I wouldn't even graduate evolution to the status of vodoo science...It's a pretty picture, that's all it is.

 

[Michael]

So why don't you show us some of the courage that Raithere's have shown us by admitting that evolution does not explain creation? I have shown enough courage around here supporting a flawed poorly presented evolution problem that you guys can't even give me one damn figure on it's reliability.

Yes, science (and certainly not evolution) doesn’t have an answer for “how did life begin”. There's equally as much “scientific” evidence for all of the following

* Life started by spontaneously walking out, on it's own, of the mud.
* Life started by a God that created everything
* Life started by a group of 17 Gods that created everything
* Life started by a Buddha that created everything
* Life started by aliens seeding the planet
* Life started by a meteor bringing it from another planet that was smashed up
* Life started by Venusians migrating after Venus exited the suns habitable zone
* Life started by all of the above, some of the above, none of the above.
* Life didn’t start and this is a dream of a computer.

However, evolution isn’t concerned with that question. Just as atomic orbital theory isn’t concerned with that question. And although the notion of “survival of the fittest” in terms of replicability may be borrowed from evolution and used to theorize about abiogenesis – it’s still an entirely different question. The thing is, no one here on the board appears to have a problem with electromagnetic theory or molecular orbital theory (as they are never brought up). Evolution makes it here on the board every month or so (which is fine) but each and every time the discussion diverges into “how did life begin”. Which is a question along the lines of “why am I here”? And the processes theorized to explain how evolution occurs are not meant to answer those questions. In much the same way as atomic orbital theory isn’t going answer “how did life begin” either.

The big rub with people is evolution offers a process of answering the question “how did I get here” without the need of the notion of a god. And hence anyone who believes in a god is hell bent on discrediting any theory that offers an alternate explanation. Nevertheless, the truth is that evolution is itself (a changes in allelic frequency in a population) a fact that says nothing about how life began. And it wasn’t intended to. So in that sense it is not a 50% theory. It’s a 100% fact. Saying evolution is only 50% because it doesn’t “address” abiogenesis is no different than saying atomic orbital theory is 50% because it doesn’t answer a thing about abiogenesis either.

Sorry for the rambling I’m a little sick . . . anyway, does that make sense…

Excuse my bluntness, but we female engineers are more interested in reliability than we are in scientific farts.

scientific farts Haa I like it!


It's true, some of the academics have no idea about the real world. Not all, but some, are totally on another planet! It's one of the things I like about Uni.

On anther topic I was thinking about this set of verse last night. I hope my initial response wasn't abrasive but I am interested in your take on the set of verse you posted.

[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!
[109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
[109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.4] Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
[109.5] Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

To me it seems to be intolerant of other religions in a number of places.

1) Unbelievers are incorrect in that they do not believe as the writer. I mean being an “unbeliever” suggests that they (the unbeliever) haven’t yet been convinced of the “truth” and we must assume that the writer is a believer and is writing about the “truth”.

2) The deity that an “unbeliever” worships is different than that which a believer worships. So in the case of Christians, Buddhists, Shinto’s, Taoists, Aztecs, Ancient Greeks, etc... – all of their beliefs in god are not the same as the god of the writer. And unbelievers by fact of being “unbelievers” are wrong in their worship of their "different God" as we can assume that for the writer there is only one god and not to beleive in it is to believe in another “incorrect” God/Him.

3) “Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve” again this appears to mean that if you remain an unbeliever you will never know truth and no matter who, what, where, or how you worship you will still not know the truth. That is assuming the writer only believes in one "true" belief.

4) “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion” I like this one as it seems to me to say you can go your way and I will go mine.

 

[Michael]

A problem with trying to explain the process of evolution using fossils.

Lets suppose that there were a Lion-ish creature with Long-Teeth in India. The date is 30,000 BC. One day the Himalayas have a warm spell and a small pride migrate over the Himalayas into China. The Himalayas then snow over as they usually do trapping this Pride in China. These Long Teethed Lions that are now in China find themselves in a slightly different environment. The selective pressures are a little different in China compared with India. Over 10,000 years they change such that Lions that grow small front teeth are more successful than ones with long front teeth. 10 thousand years following the first warm spell there’s another warm period in the Himalayas and the newly evolved Small-Teethed “Chinese” Lions are now able to migrate back to India. The date is 20,000BC. In India the Long-Teethed Indian Lions are out competed and out bred by their Chinese Small Teethed cousins. Over in China a Flu epidemic arises and kills off all of the Lions in China. Now there are only Small-Teethed Lions in India.

Summary.
30000BC
1) Long Teethed Lions in India.
2) Snow melts in Himalayas and the Long-Teethed Lions in India migrate to China.
3) There is a population of Long Teethed Lions in both India and China.
3) Long-Teethed Lions in China evolve into Small-Teethed Lions over 10,000 years.
4) Snow melts in the Himalayas and the newly evolved Small-Teethed Lions in China migrate back to India.
5) In one generation the Small-Teethed Chinese Lions that migrated back to India out compete ALL of the Long-Teethed Indian Lions.
20000BC.
6)Back in China a Flu completely kills off all Lions.
7) There are only Small-Teethed Lions left in India and no Lions left in China.
2004AD
8) Archeologist begin dig.

An Archeologist is digging in a mound in India. He finds Lions with Long-Teeth in a series of strata. These he dates at about 30,000, 29,000, 25,000, 22,000 and 20,000BC. In the next strata he finds Lions with Small teeth. He dates these Lions at 20,000, 15,000, 8000, and Present day.

There have never been any Lions found in any archeological digs in China.

He then formulates a theory. His theory is that Evolution occurs very rapidly because it appears that Long Teethed Lions evolved to Small Teethed Lions almost instantaneously – in a few thousand years.

But we know different. We know that, because of the story, the Small Teeth Lions he has found were really a migrant group that evolved in China over 10,000 years and then returned to replace their India cousins. So evolution takes some time and is not so quick.

A bout 10 years after the Quick Evolution Theory, another archeologist finds Lions in China. These have Long Teeth and are dated at 28,000 BC. His theory is that Lions must have migrated to China and evolved slowly and then migrated back to India. He formulates a Slow Evolution Theory. There haven’t been any Small Teethed Lions found in China. And maybe there never will be. Not everything is fossilized.

So there appears to be a disagreement on HOW the process of evolution takes place. Fast or Slow. There is NO DISSAGREEMENT in the mainstream Scientific Communities about Evolution occurring. The PROCESS of evolution is still a hot topic. As it should be – THAT is called SCIENCE!

What Creationists do is present this disagreement in the HOW of evolution in such a light as to present the Lay Public with a view that there is a disagreement in Evolution itself. THAT is just not true. There is no disagreement that evolution occurs because there is nothing to disagree with - Evolution is a fact. You see, Creationists can not stand that there is an alternative to the “How did Humans Get here” question. Creation Science (as the Title Suggests) deals with the Creation of life. Evolution does not. Evolution talks about change in life. That’s a big difference. So to compare Evolution with Creation is the same as comparing Orangutans with Apples. And by the posts here we can see that the Creationists are doing a good job of fooling the lay Public. Many of whom want to have some sort of scientific something to back up their belief in God or to give it a little more credibility than just strength of belief alone. Well I’m sorry, but Creationists have absolutely NO evidence for Creationism. So faith will have to be good enough for you. Again, they swindle the lay-public further by tricking them into believing that evolution is wrong (which it’s not) and that Creation is the ONLY alternative. Which isn’t the case. As a matter of Fact as I said the two can not be compared. However if evolution were to be tossed out on its arse – that would still not give ANY credence to Creation Science. Creation Science will have to have it’s own scientific data – which as of today it has none.

 

[davewhite04]

Dave,

Carbon dating is only accurate to a few thousands years.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html

Hiya Flores,

Thanks for this.

Dave

 

[davewhite04]

Just a general idea of how confident you are with the methods on dating an animal for example. I guess by you questioning my question that you may not be so confident about some dating methods used on specific fossil types, is this true?

I'm just curious as to your opinion that's all.

Thanks

Dave

James,

The reason I asked for your score from 1-10(sorry if this puts you on the spot) is that I think you're an agnostic(correct me if I'm wrong) and a knowledgeable person, being an agnostic I assume you would be the least biased.

Thanks

Dave

 

[James R]

Flores:

James, watch out for the hilium levels in your house, I think your head is about to explode..

Oh, I doubt it, but thanks for caring.

Challenged???? what do you know about a challenge to dare question me on whether I have been challenged before. I was born to be challenged buddy, from age 2 ... to age 21 when I graduated top of my class to age 24 when I graduated from the best civil engineering graduate school in the nation, to now when I hold a great position, manage a successfull marriage, raise two beautifull kids.

I congratulate you on your accomplishments, but I actually asked about whether your beliefs had ever been challenged.

And how dare you even insenuate that you know what my closely-helf belief is? Have you been peeking into my bedroom and spying on my beliefs that I have been keeping so close to myself?

No, you've been posting them in this thread for all to see. You're a Creationist, and you don't believe in evolution. That's the topic we're discussing. I'm very happy to be corrected if I have formed the wrong impression, but I don't think I have.

Me: It would show much more integrity if you simply admitted that you don't know much more about evolution than what you learned in your religion classes.

You: Integrity??? Keep living the illusion that you know first thing about integrity...cause flash news, you are the one that is admitting that you know all about evolution, which makes you the one void of integrity...

How does knowing about evolution make somebody devoid of integrity? You're not making sense here. Maybe you should calm down and start thinking.

...now let's preview what I have wrote about evolution, shall we?

Oh, if we must.

What you are describing is an incomplete science. A 50% effort

This point has been dealt with in replies by other people above.

We are 100% sure that we were created by god and we have no knowledge whatsoever on how god created us

Which part of "no knowledge whatsoever" don't you understand?

The part of "no knowledge whatsoever" which, at the same time, totally rules out the possibility of evolution. If you don't know how we came to be, how can you say we didn't evolve?

The least they should have done is to atleast ask the bigger question, instead of dragging us all to a powerless unconscious atom then resting their scientific case.

What part of "at least ask the bigger question" don't you understand?

Which part of my previous response to this point didn't you understand?

Which part of me drawing the line in stating that I have no problem looking at evolution within the context of study and attesting that Atheists are objective thinker that similarly look at evolution as merely a science...DON't YOU UNDERSTAND.

The part about you claiming that evolution is false, despite all evidence to the contrary. Sure, evolution is a science. It is the science which completely refutes the fundamentalist Creationism you believe in.

Not only that you don't understand, you're quite blind. You grouped me with PM which only tells of your poor personal assessment skills. But again, no surprises, you like Lucysnow style.

Lucysnow strings together a very good argument. She can defend her beliefs with logic. What's not to like about her style?

I really feel sorry for you, cause my sixth female sense is telling me that you'll fall flat on your face one day when you decide to marry.

What makes you think I'm not already married?

Your expectation in regards to experience implies that you have a clue in regards to experiece assessment? Flash news, expertise and experience is a function of the one recieving the experience and the environment being experienced, I'm sorry to inform you that people's expertise doesn't remotely involve you nor your misplaced unwelcomed expectations.

In fact, I have a long experience in teaching people, so I do have a certain set of skills and experience in this area.

So why don't you show us some of the courage that Raithere's have shown us by admitting that evolution does not explain creation?

I admit it freely. The two things are fundamentally incompatible.

If, on the other hand, by "creation" you mean "abiogenesis", I freely admit that evolution does not even attempt to explain abiogenesis. If you read my earlier posts, you'll see I admitted that much earlier in the thread.

I have shown enough courage around here supporting a flawed poorly presented evolution problem that you guys can't even give me one damn figure on it's reliability. Excuse my bluntness, but we female engineers are more interested in reliablity than we are in scientific farts.

Which problem are you referring to? Snakelord has kindly provided you with all the references to comments about the Chad skull by the experts. Didn't you read them?

Carbon dating is only accurate to a few thousands years. ... What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?
The answer would be a few thousands of years.

You make my point for me. Your knowledge of dating methods is lacking, along with your general knowledge of the theory of evolution. For an explanation of where you went wrong here, see the posts above.

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

No. There are many entirely separate types of evidence which establish that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. You need to read more widely.

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

Yes. The Chad skull is a great example of that. The skull is a fact - an apparent humen much older than humans are supposed to be under the "old" theory of human evolution. This might mean that our ideas of human evolution need revision (see, we're revising the theory to fit the facts).

What it <b>doesn't</b> mean is that the whole theory of evolution must be tossed out the window. All the experts agree on that.

Here's how it goes:

An evolutionist will find a freak accident skull of an ape man and will claim that humans originated from apes.

There are no "freak accident" skulls. There are limits on the development of every skull, set by genetic and other factors, which are, in turn, largely determined by the past history of the evolutionary lineage of which the skull-owner is a part.

The claim that modern chimpanzees (for example) and modern humans share a common ancestor is based on observed similarities between chimps and humans, and is supported by the existence of fossils which show features common to both chimps and humans. It's an obvious deduction which even a child could make when presented with the evidence.

Once you accept that you are different from your parents, you must realise that the difference between you and your parents is no different in kind from the difference between you and a chimpanzee; it is only a difference in degree.

The million year old human skull is very real. How evolutionists want to conceal their big goofups in saying that humans generated around 100,000 years in Africa by stating that any contrary facts can be lumped in a huge margin of error that they call a transition period is rationalization.

You didn't read those articles, did you? Wake up, Flores, and apply your superior female engineer's brain to this problem.

Some things to note:

1. The nasty evolutionists are the ones who brought this skull to the attention of the world in the first place - not the creationists.
2. It is the evolutionists who are saying that the theorised human lineage may need to be revised in light of this discovery.
3. Nobody has "goofed up" here. This is science. Old theories are replaced by new theories in the light of new evidence.
4. None of the experts is questioning the theory of evolution itself because of this discovery.
5. Nobody is making arguments about "margin of error" here.

I'm sorry people, but I'm used to real science. Mathematical proof. Evolution is a nice peace of art at best. I wouldn't even graduate evolution to the status of vodoo science...It's a pretty picture, that's all it is.

You seek to judge something you obviously know nothing about. It is not surprising that evolution seems like voodoo to you, who has no real knowledge of it. You're like the caveman who sees a television set and thinks it is magical.

 

[James R]

Hi Dave,

Methods such as radioactive dating are scientific. As such, they have clearly defined confidence limits. You will never read a proper scientific article which says "This fossil skull is 7.5 million years old." Instead, it will always say "This skull is 7.5 million years old, plus or minus 200,000 years", or something along those lines. At the very least, scientists are well aware of the inaccuracies in various dating methods.

So, if you ask me how confident I am in dating methods, I say I am confident within the known limits of those methods.

If you ask me a slightly different question such as "How confident are you that fossil X is really 7.5 million years old?" then my answer will depend on many factors, such as:

1. The number of independent methods were used to determine the age.
2. The accuracy of each method used.
3. scientists' confidence in each method, based on past accuracy.

Does that answer your question?

 

[davewhite04]

Hi Dave,

Methods such as radioactive dating are scientific. As such, they have clearly defined confidence limits. You will never read a proper scientific article which says "This fossil skull is 7.5 million years old." Instead, it will always say "This skull is 7.5 million years old, plus or minus 200,000 years", or something along those lines. At the very least, scientists are well aware of the inaccuracies in various dating methods.

So, if you ask me how confident I am in dating methods, I say I am confident within the known limits of those methods.

If you ask me a slightly different question such as "How confident are you that fossil X is really 7.5 million years old?" then my answer will depend on many factors, such as:

1. The number of independent methods were used to determine the age.
2. The accuracy of each method used.
3. scientists' confidence in each method, based on past accuracy.

Does that answer your question?

Hiya James,

Yes it does answer my question somewhat. Do you think it's possible that their dating methods could be grossly inaccurate? as in millions of years...

Thanks

Dave

Note: Just to be more specific and less vague can you base your answer on radioactive dating.

 

[Flores]

Yes, science (and certainly not evolution) doesn’t have an answer for “how did life begin”. There's equally as much “scientific” evidence for all of the following

Thank you for starting out by stating this point. I think that James must set up some rules for discussing evolution, like for example, we must agree on the definition of evolution before we venue to credit or discredit it.

* Life started by spontaneously walking out, on it's own, of the mud.

No religion have ever claimed that. The Quran simple states that we were created from mud, water, ect...in stages. Please review James points to PM on the Quranic view. Noone knows the time frame it took for god to start the process of mud/water shaping to the development/insertion of spirit/to awakening/to consciousness/to walking, ect...

* Life started by a God that created everything

If you actually look at your statement, you'll find it to be 100% true. The only thing you need to do is to view God as a black box...A box of unknowns. Muslims say that the nature of god is unknown to us, and thus we are stating that an exterior unique force of unknown nature has created everything. I don't see any problem with such a model.

* Life started by a group of 17 Gods that created everything

I believe in the singularity, oneness, and intelligence behind the creation. 2, 3, 17, 100 all have the same logic problem and don't work for me.

* Life started by a Buddha that created everything

I don't even think that Buddhists believe that. For all I'm concerned, Buddha was a person just like everyone else who was a philosopher. He strived to answer many questions about life and I think he has succeded with himself. I wouldn't say that his way is successfull though.

However, evolution isn’t concerned with that question. Just as atomic orbital theory isn’t concerned with that question.

You know what Michael, I want to believe you, but I smell a rat on that one. Let me tell you a story that I experienced first hand.

There is a scientist who is very dear to me named Dave Rosgen, he is a hydrologist. He spend thirty years of his life pretty much camped on various streams and rivers trying to study the evolution of streams. He wanted to know why rivers always start as high energy mountain streams, that seem to evolve downhill to low energy valley type meandering system, that all dumps eventually in the big ocean. He thought that streams sings a tune that is He collected so much valuable data and became an expert in stream prediction, sediment transport, ect.... He pioneered a new classification system, that classified all the different streams into several categories based on observed features, like depth, width, velocity, slopes, ect... He was a genious, I used his classification criteria and they were right on the money on every occasion. He started teaching courses about his classification system, but people were more interested in solving their problems. They started asking him about what should they do to stop the stream from eating their agriculture land, or from eroding, ect...and he started giving them answers that he experimented with during his long hours watching the stream. They took the answers literally and placed them in their stream at home. The solution failed miserably and then they all pointed the finger to Rosgen and said that Rosgen failed.

The example I give you above shows how good things can easily go bad. A classification system should be understood for what it is. A classification system will never be a reliable predictive model. Any prediction on a classification system is merely empirical and highly inaccurate. Don't get me wrong though, classification in any decipline is a great, but the only good I see out of evolution studies is the creation of a biology classification system. The role of the system should be understood as one that will only help us increase our resolving powers or sensitivity to biological survey so that we can detect impairment by partitioning variation within selected environmental parameters or among sites.

The word evolution is dead wrong and is very disturbing to me. Evolution implies an ability to predict the origin and development of a species, while all we might have here is really a classification system that highlight the variations between species.

Do I make myself clear....At least, are we clear as mud?

I'm going to stop here, and unless you all tell me whether you all view evolution as a predictive model or merely a classification system intended to highlight the variation between species, I see no point to continue.

 

[Bells]

Ok let me get this straight now. Flores, at the start of this thread, you believed in evolution yet now you seem to have flipped to the other side?

Evolution is not a prediction Flores, but a way of understanding what was and what has been. It is through a study of what has been found that one can try to trace the first paths taken by early hominids and how we are as we are today. That is the study of evolution. There can be no predictions of how the human species came to be as all such belief has been wrought from the discovery of thousands of fossils.

People go on and on about how the discovery of one skeleton cannot make one believe in evolution, as one freak cannot imply that all were the same. What amazes me with such comments is that it is the skeletons of those 'one off freaks' who set the ball rolling, that it is the ones who were born slightly different which allows evolution to take place. We are born with traits and characteristics inherited from our parents, but we are also different and our children will be even more different, and so on. That is evolution in itself. One difference, however tiny, can change so much for future generations. Evolution cannot be a prediction as to predict something, one has to have a fair idea of the outcome, that it could go either way. It can't be a prediction as we have no idea what will happen from today. We can't know what the human species will be like in the future. Maybe one day a child will be born without his or her appendice (as an example) and they will have a child that also does not have their appendice, from there humans have evolved from what we are today. Who really knows? Such changes, however minute, allow for a slight difference in the species and such changes have been occuring over millions of years, resulting in what we see today when we look at all forms of life on this planet. That is why evolution is not a prediction Flores, but merely a study of the past. I see 'evolution' to be more a determination instead of prediction.

 

[Flores]

People go on and on about how the discovery of one skeleton cannot make one believe in evolution, as one freak cannot imply that all were the same. What amazes me with such comments is that it is the skeletons of those 'one off freaks' who set the ball rolling, that it is the ones who were born slightly different which allows evolution to take place. We are born with traits and characteristics inherited from our parents, but we are also different and our children will be even more different, and so on. That is evolution in itself. One difference, however tiny, can change so much for future generations. Evolution cannot be a prediction as to predict something, one has to have a fair idea of the outcome, that it could go either way. It can't be a prediction as we have no idea what will happen from today. We can't know what the human species will be like in the future. Maybe one day a child will be born without his or her appendice (as an example) and they will have a child that also does not have their appendice, from there humans have evolved from what we are today. Who really knows? Such changes, however minute, allow for a slight difference in the species and such changes have been occuring over millions of years, resulting in what we see today when we look at all forms of life on this planet. That is why evolution is not a prediction Flores, but merely a study of the past. I see 'evolution' to be more a determination instead of prediction.

You are wrong Bell. I'm very sorry, but ignorance about biology, genes, ect...is making you commit the ultimate mistake of correlating normal reproduction with evolution.

Consider this, how do you get all your traits? From your parents, who gets them from their grandparents, ect, ect.....This is all nice, but consider the gene pool for a second.

A pool full of traits. One gene for how tall you will be, one for what color eyes you'll have, one for you hair, ect. You didn't evolve Bell, you merely borrowed from the existing pool of Gene. Nothing new created here, only mixing up of a diverse background that resulted in YOU.


If all the numbers already exist, then how can we call the number 2.37863 an evolution. It's a CHANCE OF OCCURANCE.....just a chance...that's all.

 

[Flores]

Evolution is not a prediction Flores, but a way of understanding what was and what has been. It is through a study of what has been found that one can try to trace the first paths taken by early hominids and how we are as we are today. That is the study of evolution. There can be no predictions of how the human species came to be as all such belief has been wrought from the discovery of thousands of fossils.

My dear Bell,
How the hell can we determine something that has went, gone, with nothing but very few traces. You completely don't understand the meaning of the term deterministic. Deterministic science is an exact science with no room for assumptions, variations, instabilities, ect...Evolution is trying to be a predictive science, a science that tries to connect the dots, without having any dots, starting point, or finishing point. I repeat, it's an ART, a fine picture, nothing else.

 

[Bells]

Errmmm Flores, what I was saying about the changes that occur in future generations of our children, I didn't mean that was evolution per se, but more that the chance of a change no matter how small in such future generations (not in looks wise etc, but more in physiology wise) could be fundamental. Such changes are what shaped 'evolution' to what we are today and to what all animal life is today. That's what I meant. Hence why I mentioned the possiblity of a child being born without an appendice one day and that child has children without appendices, and so on and so on. Who knows, it could happen one day. Anything is possible.

That is why evolution is so amazing, to think that so much happened and that so much can happen still, that it is constantly moving and never still... that life is constantly moving and nothing will ever be the same. That one change no matter how small can have such impacts later on. That is evolution Flores.

 

[SnakeLord]

Consider this, how do you get all your traits? From your parents, who gets them from their grandparents, ect, ect.....This is all nice, but consider the gene pool for a second.

A pool full of traits. One gene for how tall you will be, one for what color eyes you'll have, one for you hair, ect. You didn't evolve Bell, you merely borrowed from the existing pool of Gene. Nothing new created here, only mixing up of a diverse background that resulted in YOU.


If all the numbers already exist, then how can we call the number 2.37863 an evolution. It's a CHANCE OF OCCURANCE.....just a chance...that's all.

Have you heard of or seen mutation?

To be honest, I'll have to agree with James here, Flores. You will never learn anything about evolution unless you study it. I could not argue the koran with you unless I read it first, and the same applies to you. It is overwhelmingly apparent you have very little understanding of that which you try so hard to refute, or class as "art". Frankly, I would have considered you smarter than that. Activities like that should be left to the "no-hopers" like PM, but why you've now taken the whole thing over for him, I have no idea. We then need to ask why you started off in this thread stating evolution as real, and now are trying your hardest to debunk it. I somewhat expect you to start shouting:

ILLUSION!

sometime soon.

However, I hereby give you the opportunity to list some evidence against evolution. I eagerly await your response.

 

[Bells]

I'm curious as to what brought on such a change as well Flores. Earlier on in this thread you were one of the many voices against the creationists and against PM in particular. And then without word or warning you appear to agree with PM and his argument, so much so that he's gone from calling you a non muslim and accusing you of not having any understanding of Islam to he passing the torch of the creationist argument onto you in his abscence. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one a tad confused as to what bought about this change.

 

[(Q)]

Flores sez:

I'm sorry people, but I'm used to real science. Mathematical proof.

That is a lie and you know it. You’re entire life revolves around imaginary gods and other such nonsense. You wouldn’t know science and math if it stepped all over you.

Evolution is a nice peace of art at best. I wouldn't even graduate evolution to the status of vodoo science...It's a pretty picture, that's all it is.

So, you consider evolution as a pretty picture not worthy of voodoo status?

I can understand that since evolution does not agree with your imaginary gods, so it makes sense that you would place blinders on your eyes so as not to see the mountains of evidence and facts that contradict your beliefs.

Your words suggest that you fear the concept of evolution; hence you know nothing about it. At this point, you would be better to keep your ridiculous comments to yourself in order to save a shred of dignity.

 

[Flores]

That is why evolution is so amazing, to think that so much happened and that so much can happen still, that it is constantly moving and never still... that life is constantly moving and nothing will ever be the same. That one change no matter how small can have such impacts later on. That is evolution Flores.

Your definition of evolution is so simplistic that my 4 year old can do much better that. I'm sorry to come off that way, but what the hell? You are again, trying to paint a picture, it aint as pretty as Darwins, and your picture lacks any vision, philosophy, or proper theory.

I'm sorry, if I'm coming off too arrogant, that's not my intentions, but we must speak in the same language, if we are to have a decent intelligent conversation and are trying to paint a picture that is not an eye sore. Let's start by looking at the data availalbe to each of us that is making us arrive at our obviously different conclusion.

First, you need to define your first template. This template should involve the human's basic physical characteristics as defined by the gene pool. We will call this the human morphology.

Second, you need to define your influencing factors template, those being what we eat, who we procreate with, our environment, biological, chemical, ect..

Overlay both templates inorder to futher describe the existing human condition or "state" or "operation". For example, our lungs is such and such size, because our circulatory system need an X amount of air flow based on the current oxygen levels in the atmosphere. Do you get what I'm trying to do...and so on to describe every little physical characteristic, by establishing a dependance on it's external influencing factors in your second template.

Next, we have to assume a hypothesis. I would like to use the term Optimum stable condition to guage the direction of evolution.
My hypothesis will go as follows: An existing system will always move toward stability. A system is stable if it is operating at it's full potential. Thus, the major issue in understanding humans condition and departure is to detemine how well their current condition (template 1) matches with their operational potential (the overlayed templates).

Based on the above, humans will undergo change if their "potential to change" is large, meaning if they are deviated from their stable form. Your potential to change becomes the gradient that establishes how much and how fast will you change.

I'm not even near done, but this is a good place for me to stop and listen to you defining your position toward evolution again. If you agree so far, we can continue.

 

[Flores]

Your words suggest that you fear the concept of evolution; hence you know nothing about it. At this point, you would be better to keep your ridiculous comments to yourself in order to save a shred of dignity.

Q,
First you were cute, then you started being annoying, now you are outright unacceptable. For you to still be stuck at the imaginary god concept is a great resemblance to my 4 year old thinking that it's cute to coo like her infant cousin does and get praised for it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Your definition of evolution is so simplistic that my 4 year old can do much better that.

All I can say is: you should start getting some lessons off her, or just let her take over your seat in this thread.

 

[Flores]

I'm curious as to what brought on such a change as well Flores. Earlier on in this thread you were one of the many voices against the creationists and against PM in particular. And then without word or warning you appear to agree with PM and his argument

Bells dear, I have never agreed with PM...Only that you and other came to a realization that you are distinctly on two opposite teams and that I may be your ball. I'll take a pass on joining any of the teams or being the passing ball at the time being...and I'm sorry if that dissapoints you.

Now, on a side note, if you are joinging the Snakelord James band wagon for fearing that they'll terrorize you and make fun of you, then I completely understand your position. Staying in the middle is a tough position to take, and I don't expect many people to even attempt to take it. Tiassa tried the middle ground earlier, and as we all saw, Mr. Snake was ready with both the hole and shovel.