Getting closer to the answer

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:25 pm

Isn't this amazing?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6522090/

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:23 pm

It sure is. How they can find out what the thing looked like, how it moved, breathed, ate, acted, its social status, et al like from an artist's render of an ape's face, some half-broken ribs, a tooth, 1/16th of a pelvis, a half-eaten-away skull and some shards of miscillaneous decayed bone is completely beyond me. In fact, it's so amazing, i'm inclined to disbelieve it.

article wrote:But this ape didnâ??t swing through trees with the curved fingers of an orangutan. Nor did it knuckle walk on four limbs with the horizontal trunk posture of a chimp.

Uhh... excuse me? I don't recall seeing any bones in there that had structures that let you identify how it moved, other than possibly the FULLY DEVELOPED HUMAN FOOT BONES.

â??Itâ??s a different type of animal,â?

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:42 pm

Stryker wrote:Also keep in mind that there should be millions of these "indisputable" fossils laying around if evolution is true. It has, after all, had "4.6 billion years" to fossilize stuff.

I have heard of no scientific theories that hypothesize that life on earth involves a four billion year evolutionary span. If you have a point to make, you aren't going to make it with straw men.

- Sirian

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:59 pm

Ok, I did a little digging, and I can't find anywhere that even claims to give an official estimate at when the first cell "came into being." Can anyone clue me in? I'm guessing that evolution should still have had AT LEAST 1 billion years to create fossiles. That's a danged LONG TIME. Still long enough to form hundreds of thousands of missing link fossils.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:37 pm

Do you even know what "the missing link" means? You are not giving me that impression.

If you are uninformed about the science, how do you expect to argue successfully against its questions, projections, and conclusions?

- Sirian

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:40 pm

As a Student, I'm both awestruck and bewildered that people find it so challenging to see fossils and artifacts in museums decrypting the origins of man, but easily "see" what is written in a book. Maybe someday, I will have the wisdom of knowledge, but right now Iâ??m still learning.

This is another link that is similar to what I learned. I really love this stuff.

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/man/evnman3.html

Bettina

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:08 pm

Bettina, I love this stuff too!

Stryker, you're ignorant - but thank goodness that doesn't necessary mean stupid! That skeleton, in fossil terms is an AMAZING find because it is mostly complete. YES, the things they can tell from this fossil are most likely correct.

Point 1: There is NO SUCH THING as a missing link. At one stage there *might* have been, but no longer. The proof of man's evolution from lower animals is a fact. Ignoring the fact, is simply close-minded.

Here's the thing about people who deny evolution: They say "Show me a transitional fossil" - for example, a short necked giraffe used to be one of the major fossils sought. The idea being "If there's no short necked giraffe fossils, then giraffes were made with loing necks". OK, so several years ago, a short necked giraffe fossil shows up! So, hey, you'd think this would satisfy the evolution denyers - BUT NO!!

Instead of having a single "missing link" in giraffe evolution, now you have TWO! Now they want to see a giraffe with a slightly shorter neck , and one with a slightly longer neck to fill in the "missing links".

You can go on like this ad infinitum, providing transitional fossils, and every time you find another one, the denyers simply add ANOTHER missing link...

As to the emergence of life? I believe that the oldest fossils we have are around 1.4 billion years (in Australia - ancient Stromatolites - which still grow there today!) old (But I may be wrong here) and that scientists theorise that life might have emerged (or landed here - panspermia) as little as 400 million years after the Earth developed a solid crust and liquid water - which was about 3.5 billion years ago - from memory.

Fossils can form in as little as 1-2 million years, depending on the location. The bones have to be replaced with minerals in the soil, by a process called Ion Migration (The same process which makes Concretions). Often even some soft tissues are fossilised along with the boney material. (Feathers, internal organs etc)

The specific requirements for fossilisation are very tight indeed: it is AMAZINGLY unlikely that a dead individual will end up being fossilised. For example, only 14 (or 16?) examples of T. Rex have EVER been found, and yet, over the 60 million years that the Tyrannosaur family lived, there must have been MILLIONS of them - and we have found 14 to date! This gives you some idea of how rare fossilisation truly is.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:21 pm

Just because things are fossilized doesn't mean they'll stay completely intact until we find them. Stuff gets destroyed by tectonic activity as well as volcanic activity. Not to mention most organic material will not fossilize. You have to meet the proper conditions for that to happen. In most cases dead bodies and other organic material simply dissolve due to decay. You have to also keep in mind the world is a really big place for us, we can't cover every square inch and dig at every depth all at the same time.

Some of what we're looking for might be buried deep below major cities. Half the time this stuff just turns up because of erosion and we find it by accident. Despite what the Bible claims, our ancestors were smaller then us. We're actually getting taller as a species, gradually. You can just go over to Europe and find that out first hand when you visit old buildings. Average height has increased pretty quickly even just over the last century.

My point is, it is easy to conclude that all primates would have a similar history. That being they've gradually become larger over a period of time. Anyways, they didn't come out and say "This is the missing link". Some reporter got one of them to say that because the media knows if they bill it as a 'missing link' they'll get people like you to go ape-★■◆● (no pun intended) over it and give it more attention then it really deserves at this point.

I'm surprised nobody has talked about that new species of man they found in Indonesia . They nicknamed it the hobbit

National Geographic: Hobbit

Granted hes going to be short. He lived in asia

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:23 pm

I see absolutely no evidence in here except hear-say. They can most certainly NOT tell the exact formation of an ape's chest from shards of bone found THAT THEY PLACE AS LOWER RIBS.

It looks to me like they have a fair bit of skeleton to work with. Enough for a knowledgeable scientist to draw reasonably accurate conclusions about the shape and behavior of this creature. Keep in mind, they have a far better understanding of bone structure than you do.

Regardless, this is an MSNBC news story, not a report in a science journal. The facts presented here are no doubt.. "abridged". Furthermore, while I'm sure the scientist in question are being rather cautious about what conclusions they draw from their findings, I doubt the reporters are. Either way, you can't really judge the validity of any conclusions presented in that article based on what you read on that page.

Can anyone clue me in? I'm guessing that evolution should still have had AT LEAST 1 billion years to create fossiles. That's a danged LONG TIME. Still long enough to form hundreds of thousands of missing link fossils.

You seem to be implying that the lack of "missing link" fossils is evidence that there was no such link. You are aware, are you not, that not all bones become fossils? In fact, very few do. It takes special circumstances to create fossils. If all bones lasted 13 million years, my back yard would be covered in squirrel bones.

edit: Heh. Mobius beat me to the punch.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:31 pm

Damn, got a threepeat going. Mobi must have pounded out his post while I was still working on mine as well, lol.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:40 pm

Someone in school argued with me that if we came from apes, how come there are still apes? I tried to explain to her that we are "one" mutation from that ape that started along another path.
Neanderthal was one that started and died out. Cro-magon man was successful leading to Sapiens.
Like it or not though, without the ape, we wouldn't be here today.
Bettina

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:55 pm

bet51987 wrote:Like it or not though, without the ape, we wouldn't be here today.
Bettina

Just to clarify -- w/o the ape linage the homo and modern ape linages branched from we wouldn't be here. We're not descendants of modern apes.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:11 pm

Ok, this is getting really, REALLY tiring.

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4377&start=0

I'm not going to make any more 10-page posts over this. If you're too lazy to read, too bad.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:52 pm

You're responses are too far-fetched to interpret!

No rain? Where was Genesis written? Wasn't it written in a desert? Ancient Egyptians never saw rain for a few thousand years. When they finally made ships that could go up the nile (south) they wrote about the 'Nile from the sky' 'cause they didn't know what to call it.

Noah's ark? What about the animals on the American continent? What about insects? I don't recall hearing anything about mosquitoes. Do you really think that? DINOSAUR EGGS?! You can't possibly be serious.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:53 pm

Stryker...
This thread wasn't about "God".
Bettina

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:33 pm

Stryker wrote:I'm not going to make any more 10-page posts over this. If you're too lazy to read, too bad.

Reading is one thing, understanding is another. It seems you failed to do either in this instance and totally jumped the gun because you felt your whole belief system being threatened. It's understandable, and nobody is attacking you or your religion. Bet's title is misleading because this stuff substantiates things she already believes in. This doesn't prove anything in the long run though. It's just more stuff to try and peice the whole puzzle together. You know as well as I do that solving the puzzle has only just started.

Nobody is expecting you to cast aside your bible or whatever holy book you find solace in. Some of us believe in one thing, which is why we find this stuff interesting, and others believe in something else. Thats fine, calm down man. It's just information.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:36 pm

Tyranny wrote: I'm surprised nobody has talked about that new species of man they found in Indonesia . They nicknamed it the hobbit
National Geographic: Hobbit

Granted hes going to be short. He lived in asia

Me blips Ty for being unobservant:

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4373

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:03 pm

Ok, so I missed one while I was away from the DBB for a while. So sue me.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:33 am

Testiculese wrote:You're responses are too far-fetched to interpret!

No rain? Where was Genesis written? Wasn't it written in a desert? Ancient Egyptians never saw rain for a few thousand years. When they finally made ships that could go up the nile (south) they wrote about the 'Nile from the sky' 'cause they didn't know what to call it.

Noah's ark? What about the animals on the American continent? What about insects? I don't recall hearing anything about mosquitoes. Do you really think that? DINOSAUR EGGS?! You can't possibly be serious.

Let me rehash this AGAIN. according to the tectonic plate theory, all continents were stuck together in the beginning. Plus, if water levels were considerably lower than they are now, even as it is these animals would have had a land bridge between the Americas and Asia.

I recognize your right to be interested in the information, such as it is. I do believe I also have the right to disagree with that information, especially when it is heralded as something to finally "refute" Christianity.

Another thing, I am calm. It may seem strange to you, but since 9/11 I seem to have lost a very critical part of myself. Before 9/11, I was a happy kid, very emotional. Since then I haven't really felt any emotion. I just don't feel much of anything. I rationalize, I think, but I do not feel. If my parents ground me for doing something wrong, I accept the punishment. I don't feel anger, disappointment, any of the normal emotions common to the rest of humanity. Everyone seems to think I'm very strange because of this, and I've had more than one public schooled kid look at me like I'm from Jupiter because I don't seem to be impacted by anything they say. I've learned to laugh at what most people consider funny, I've learned to interact at least somewhat normally with other people--but that doesn't mean I really feel any of the emotions that lead to these actions. In case you haven't noticed, I don't tend to use many smilies on here. This is part of the reason.

Anyhow, back to the debate. Testiculese, I do believe this. It can be shown to be true, at least more so than evolution, by an experienced debater. I am not an experienced debater.

Also, we don't really know much about the Egyptian language. Their written heiroglyphs were interpreted using part of a rock found by the French. No one living has ever heard Egyptian spoken. We don't know their idioms, what phrases they may have had to say common things--we just don't know that much about them, other than they liked big rock objects. We can only figure out so much from their language and translations of it. There's just too much hysteresis.

As for insects, do you not think that plenty of insects would have been brought into the ark just by animals walking in? I mean, you could have fleas by the millions, flies and mosquitos coming in in droves, to get to all of these animals.

Where Genesis was written has no impact whatsoever. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that there was no rain until the Flood. That is an idea modern scientists have come up with.

Dinosaur eggs? Why not? If Genesis is true, dinosaurs would have been vegetarian. Ever done a detailed analysis of a T-Rex's teeth? They'd be perfect for crushing and chewing a whole watermelon.

At any rate, since Bettina doesn't seem to want me to post in this thread, I will be refraining from posting here anymore. If you want to debate, PM me.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:07 pm

Testi,
It's simply a question of faith: either you have it, or you don't. There's no need to deride those who do. If you refrain from doing so, perhaps you'll be shown the same consideration.

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Stryker, FWIW, not everything that lives and dies gets fossilized, so you wouldn't find "millions" of these fossils. Most things decay and do not leave direct evidence of having existed. A unique set of circumstances has to be met for something to be fossilized instead of being degraded by bacteria, fungi, weather, etc.

As for cells (you mentioned something about cells), I know little about archaeology, but I can tell you that a cell probably wouldn't leave much of a fossil. The cell membrane is comprised mostly of lipids (fats), and as you can hopefully imagine, a microscopic drop of fat wouldn't leave much of a permanent trace.

Just thought I'd chime in. Cheers Stryk

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:47 pm

Stryker.

Please don't get upset, because your OK with me and have always been in my good guy book.

I didn't intend this to be a God discussion. I'm very interested in evolution and Cosmology and I love the subjects, but if you remember the other thread about "Jive Jesus", Drakona became irritated at me saying "Somehow you can't talk about religion for five minutes without talking about creation & evolution--as though that's all there is to it!". She was right, but see? it's happening here but only reversed this time. I can't point to evolutionary material without religion coming in to defend.

To me, for all practical form of discussion, religion and creationism are linked tightly and It's hard to talk about evolution here without upsetting the creationists. My subject line wasn't intended to pit the two, but about finding more pieces to add to the puzzle of where I came from.

My beliefs are very different than yours, but I like to read your posts.

Bettina

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:33 pm

Stryker wrote:I do believe I also have the right to disagree with that information, especially when it is heralded as something to finally "refute" Christianity.

WRONG. You are the one who believes it's meant to refute christianity. The rest of us here who have posted who believe in evolution already have refuted christianity based on other things. So what does it matter if someone found just one more thing that might 'help' explain where we came from.

Like I said, it's just information to the rest of us. Your defense was unnecessary. Personally it just shows how threatened you are of accepting new information.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:48 am

"Dinosaur eggs? Why not? If Genesis is true, dinosaurs would have been vegetarian. Ever done a detailed analysis of a T-Rex's teeth? They'd be perfect for crushing and chewing a whole watermelon."

This is quite possibly the most asinine statement I have heard yet. Teeth such as T-rex sprouted are the same as crocidilians...all fang and no molars. Any animal living or dead that is equiped with such a mouth is designed to do one thing...prey on other animals.
Does anyone know of a croc eating watermelons? Or a snake eating ears of corn? If a animal is a omnivore such as a bear, they have both frontal canines and rear molars.
Secondarily a herbivore animal population will collapse if there are no predators to control its growth. Nor will the health of that population be maintained without predation.
Science is the art of learning how things function.
I would suggest Stryker, you learn this art from science teachers instead of idiots that want to teach fantasy to bolster their religion.
(Gee whiz Syrian, there I go again

)

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:14 am

you "ASS"ume that man came from the apes maybe apes came from man maybe its de-evolution. scientists have really no idea what happened, they are guessing, granted there is "some" evidence but mostly they like to "fill in the gaps" thats why its called the Theory of evolution

theÂ·oÂ·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thÃ®r)
n. pl. theÂ·oÂ·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

this is my favorite parts of the definition:
1.Abstract reasoning; speculation:
2.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

and Mobi just because we dont belive in the "THEORY of evolution doesnt mean that we are close minded. so dont try to be high and mighty and belittle someone because they have a differnt idea than you do. because that is truly the definition of being closed minded

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:27 pm

CUDA wrote:you "***"ume that man came from the apes maybe apes came from man maybe its de-evolution. scientists have really no idea what happened, they are guessing, granted there is "some" evidence but mostly they like to "fill in the gaps" thats why its called the Theory of evolution

Cuda....Your explanation is way way off base from what I've studied. Do you believe that Neanderthral and Cro-magnon man existed? Do you believe what I see in museums is true? Have you ever been to a museum?

Bettina

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:30 pm

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

bold type mine
Which is where the THEORY of creationism falls flat on it's face.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:49 pm

CUDA wrote:theÂ·oÂ·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thÃ®r)
n. pl. theÂ·oÂ·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I'm not sure you know how to use a dictionary. When a dictionary provides a series of definitions for a word, it means that the meaning of the word depends on its context. It does NOT mean that every time a word is used, all of the listed definitions apply.

The scientific definition of theory is the context for the theory of evolution. It is the first in your list:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

The two defintions you picked have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I'm afraid you can't just pick and choose whichever definitions suit your purposes.

The definition of "theory" in theory of evolution is the same as in theory of relativity. Or do you have a problem with relativity as well? By the way, both the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity encompass a number of scientific laws. The word theory here is used to describe the big picture; specifics covered by the theory include things like laws and principles.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:17 pm

Another thing I should mention. When I or another member of this board engages a creationist in conversation, we are trying to correct misconceptions or incomplete understandings. We are not, however, debating the issue of evolution. That is because there is no debate about the theory of evolution.

That's correct; there is no great debate going on between scientists and creationists regarding the theory of evolution. Instead, there is an IMAGINED debate going on in the minds of creationists. This fantasy is unfortunately perpetuated by well-intentioned people who try to correct the errors in facts and deductions made by creationists.

That is not to say that there are not debates going on among scientists. There are. Scientists will debate the finer points of evolutionary theory, such as uniformitarianism vs. punctuated equilibrium. These scientists are debating the details of evolution, but neither side has any doubt of the overall validity of the big picture. Unfortunately, these internal debates are often naively or intentionally misinterpreted by creationists as evidence that evolutionary theory is somehow in question.

Finally, it must be pointed out that the theory of evolution has thus far not been disproven. This is the nature of science; the moment someone provides incontrovertible evidence that blows apart the theory, it will crumble. This has not happened. Instead, every piece of evidence that has been provided, either for or against evolutionary theory, has actually fit into the theory, making it stronger than ever.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:36 pm

woodchip wrote:Gee whiz Syrian, there I go again

I will thank you not to misspell my internet name.

And yes, your point would be more effective if you edited it to clean out the self-indulgences.

- Sirian

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:00 pm

Genghis wrote:Instead, every piece of evidence that has been provided, either for or against evolutionary theory, has actually fit into the theory, making it stronger than ever.

Thanks Genghis, I hope someday to explain things as good as you.

Bettina

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:20 pm

Genghis wrote:Another thing I should mention. When I or another member of this board engages a creationist in conversation, we are trying to correct misconceptions or incomplete understandings. We are not, however, debating the issue of evolution. That is because there is no debate about the theory of evolution.

That's correct; there is no great debate going on between scientists and creationists regarding the theory of evolution. Instead, there is an IMAGINED debate going on in the minds of creationists. This fantasy is unfortunately perpetuated by well-intentioned people who try to correct the errors in facts and deductions made by creationists.

That is not to say that there are not debates going on among scientists. There are. Scientists will debate the finer points of evolutionary theory, such as uniformitarianism vs. punctuated equilibrium. These scientists are debating the details of evolution, but neither side has any doubt of the overall validity of the big picture. Unfortunately, these internal debates are often naively or intentionally misinterpreted by creationists as evidence that evolutionary theory is somehow in question.

Finally, it must be pointed out that the theory of evolution has thus far not been disproven. This is the nature of science; the moment someone provides incontrovertible evidence that blows apart the theory, it will crumble. This has not happened. Instead, every piece of evidence that has been provided, either for or against evolutionary theory, has actually fit into the theory, making it stronger than ever.

ok to use the first example of the word theory

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

deÂ·vise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-vz)
tr.v. deÂ·vised, deÂ·visÂ·ing, deÂ·visÂ·es
To form, plan, or arrange in the mind; design or contrive: devised a new system for handling mail orders.
Law. To transmit or give (real property) by will.
Archaic. To suppose; imagine.

IE to make something up.

so back to your "theory" thing again. Creation has not been disproven either so here we are at ground zero again. also your being just a bit arrogant thinking that creation is a "MISCONCEPTION" arent you? and that your trying to inform me of what?
yes I have been to museum Bett and I've seen the exhibits. my main problem with evolution is that there are just too many LARGE holes in it. and with every new discovery they modify the theory.
just a side note for centuries scholars made light of the Bible and for the purposes of my point in specific the Kingdom of David, saying it never existed and used it as 1 point to say the bible was a myth. the low and behold they found proof that there was a kingdom of David. hrm imagine that. it seems to me that the more that archiologists try to Disprove the Bible the more they prove it to be correct. ( sounds like your explaination for evolution )see it doent matter what I try to "prove" to most of you because you choose not to believe it. so I will not even attempt, because as you call me you are close minded, you refuse to see beyond what you can touch.

I do not totally disagree with evolution, but I do not agree with it to the extent that most of you do. going clear back to the big bang theory. explain to me how your can have nothing, then POOF as if by magic then there is something. ( creation maybe ? )

here's and example and we'll keep it VERY simple much simpler than the workings of the human body, take a flash light dissassemble it and put it in a box, i want you tha start shaking the box and call me when you have a fully assembled functioning flash light. how long do yu think it will take? evolution is the same kind of thinking. so lets try to think out side the box

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:40 pm

Ah, so you do understand! All of science is indeed simply a bunch of models of our environment made up by human minds. As these models mature they become incredibly accurate at describing and predicting the natural world. These made up models are in fact so good that they have resulted in the computers on our desks and the medicines sustaining our loved ones.

As for misconceptions, while I may believe that creationism falls into that category, that's not what I meant in my post. I meant provably wrong misconceptions like "no transitional fossils have ever been found" or "if we descended from apes, why are there still apes around?" or "evolution is just a theory, so it's still open to question."

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:31 pm

this is true BUT!!! any formula OR hypothsis that is set forth without accurate or COMPLETE information is flawed. that is my main problem with Evolution there are too many hole in it and there-for it is a flawed theory. as for the transitional fossils. without the SO CALLED missing link there is no evolution. the theory isnt just shot full of holes it was hit by the proverbial nuke. as of yet scientists cannot connect the apes with the homosapiens because of that missing link. thats why they call it the missing link. without it there is no evolution as they describe. maybe someday they "MAY" find it ( which I doubt ) but as of today they have not. if they do then I will need to evaluate it then. but as of now Evolution the way they portray it, is SERIOUSLY flawed

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:33 pm

Cuda wrote:take a flash light dissassemble it and put it in a box, i want you tha start shaking the box and call me when you have a fully assembled functioning flash light. how long do yu think it will take? evolution is the same kind of thinking.

Interesting analogy, but it has problems.

* Earth's moon creates a large gravimetric disturbance, leading to the twice-daily rise and fall of the tides. This interplay between land and shore, when also combined with that of precipitation, rivers, and erosion, when also combined with volcanic activity, when also combined with the tilt of the earth's axis and its orbit about the sun creating the seasons, when also combined with atmospheric forces arising from the sun shining on only half the planet at a time, when also combined with the rare but real phenomenon of solar radiation penetrating the atmosphere and by sheer chance a single particle striking a strand of a cell's DNA, causing a radiation mutation BUT at a low enough rate as not to threaten species but only to affect an individual living thing here or there... These numerous vectors create a push and pull on matter that is considerably more sophisticated than "shaking a box".

* To be fair, let's take all the parts necessary to create a human being: sperm cell, egg cell, uterine lining, nutrition of sufficient quantity, and put THOSE into a box and shake it, and tell me how long it takes to make a baby. That process would carry as much meaning as your analogy: namely, zero.

* Take a fully grown human being apart: limbs, head, torso, and put those parts in a box and shake it, and tell me how long it takes for a living and whole human being to emerge from the box.

False analogy is a logical error. When you forward such a comparison, you damage your point of view.

For analogies to carry weight, the items being compared must not be significantly different. If differences would affect the viability of the comparison, the analogy will not stand up to scrutiny.

- Sirian

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:10 pm

Sirian you TOTALLY missed my point. my point was that if you take the human body apart and its more than arms and legs and egg and sperm cells.
its a VERY VERY complex DNA mixture. now taking the evolution theory back to the begining. what are the chances of all those atoms coming together BY CHANCE to form what is now know as a homosapien, you cannot seperate the evolutions. you cannot have evolution up to a point. then another evolution after that. it must be all one theory or again there is another hole in it. I am talking evolution at its core, not the interbreeding of a dog to come up with another dog breed. none the less its still a dog. it has not changed into a cat or an elephant or a fish. calulate the odds of the human body forming out of nothing. because if you go back in evolution far enough thats what you are saying. we have crossbreeded different types of cats tigers and lions to come with with ligers. but first off its a cat STILL and second everyone they have breeded has been sterile, if that stays consistent with other species I would venture to say that it would be kind of hard to propigate the species if they were all sterile. again I say at this time evolution is a seriously flawed GUESS

For analogies to carry weight, the items being compared must not be significantly different. If differences would affect the viability of the comparison, the analogy will not stand up to scrutiny.

thats my point with evolution

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:16 pm

this is true BUT!!! any formula OR hypothsis that is set forth without accurate or COMPLETE information is flawed.

A hypothesis does not require "complete" information. Heck, even a theory doesn't require "complete" information. We never have *all* the information. For a valid hypothesis one need only have some supporting evidence, and a lack of contradictory evidence.

that is my main problem with Evolution there are too many hole in it and there-for it is a flawed theory.

Evolution is not a flawed theory. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be. It is in fact well supported. There is an abundance of evidence supporting evolution, and as yet there has been no evidence discovered to disprove it.

without the SO CALLED missing link there is no evolution.

Wrong. Whether you like it or not, there is enough evidence to support the theory of evolution, even without an example of every "link" in the chain.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:28 pm

so you have chosen to believe blindly in evolution even with all the errors and holes in it. first off I never said it was disproven stop skimming.
second to say that it does not have errors in it you are lying to yourself. are there facts to support evolution? yes, but there is also a lack of facts that make me question it. most evolutionists chastize the religous for believeing in something that you say is flawed. but you do EXACTLY the same thing. it has in effect become your religion.we will agree to disagree on this subject. I will not believe in evolution till the 100% prove it. just as most of you will not believe in creation till you see Christ riding in on a Great White Stallion

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:30 pm

Sirian wrote:
woodchip wrote:Gee whiz Syrian, there I go again
I will thank you not to misspell my internet name.

For that I beg your forgiveness

Sirian wrote:And yes, your point would be more effective if you edited it to clean out the self-indulgences.- Sirian

And become bland? Emotionless? Nah.

"as of yet scientists cannot connect the apes with the homosapiens because of that missing link. thats why they call it the missing link. without it there is no evolution as they describe." Cuda

Cuda, evolution is far more than just find homo sapiens missing link. It is all the other facts that bear out the theory of evolution.

Such as geologic formations and continental drift that give clear indications of the time span involved in earths formation and development.

Such as paleontology that discovers fossils in different rock strata that geology has given a time period for that stratas formation.

Such as anatomy that shows a clear progression of animal fossils found in early rock to modern day animals.

It is the combination of all these and other sciences
that give the term evolution a science nomenclature instead of just being considered a hypothesis.

To tie in religion would be simply acknowledging that God set certain things in motion with the end plan resulting in a intelligent organism that would perceive His existance. As the bible explains it, time has an entirely different meaning to God than it does to us. Perhaps the unimaginably long time span that evolution took to produce us was just a way to get it "right". So Cuda and you others that have a hard time understanding evolution, evolution may simply be Gods plan afterall.

Sleep well my friends.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:33 pm

GD will you ppl quit skimming the topic and read what I said. I never ssaid that I did not believe in evolution. I said that to a point evolution does happen. only to a point