My reference to "...what is" as applicable to existence as we know it.JaMDuDe wrote:
Sometimes your physical conscious state can change, but your grandma was still the same person. The body & mind work together, if she has a disease that takes her memory away then her body will not work the same way as it used to. It also can go the other way around. Do you believe you have free will if what shapes and controls our mind completely is genetics and our environment?
Evolution is not fact.
Theres plenty of evidence that the books are accurate.
You should go read 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 1:23
Im not even sure of what your asking Xietsu
Wow. JaMDuDe, you must have absolutely no knowledge about genetics.
The very basis of genetics needs evolution.
Evolution, funnily enough, explains almost all biological phenomena perfectly - save God.
The very basis of genetics needs evolution.
Evolution, funnily enough, explains almost all biological phenomena perfectly - save God.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Sorry, I just had to...topal63 wrote:
Your confusing Evolution as documented with the theory.
The part where animals change form if the DNA is modified - is a FACT - both artificial selection and by natural selection.
There is certainly more to understand - this genesis problem. That part of Evolution is theory - as the migration from polymer-like to RNA to DNA is hypothetical - and pointing that out does not serve any purpose. It is clear by any logical means that soft tissue constructs will not be fossilized - for scientific inspection. But that does not mean that the EXACT transition from inert chemical to self-replicating chemical reaction cannot be made in the future.
You are confusing evolution with the chemstry of DNA. While DNA and RNA are involved in evolution, you miss the actual concept of evolution.
Evolution is a change in a species, as favourable traits are passed through the next generations. Where genetics comes in, is in providing the different traits (both favorable and unfavorable).www.dictionary.reference.com wrote:
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species
Please, what polymer? Also, RNA did not "migtare" into DNA. They both exist independantly within a cell.polymer-like to RNA to DNA
DNA wrote:
contains the genetic instructions specifying the biological development of all cellular forms of life
RNA is the copy of DNA that is used to make proteins.RNA wrote:
RNA serves as the template for translation of genes into proteins, transferring amino acids to the ribosome to form proteins, and also translating the transcript into proteins.
Inert means unreactive. DNA and RNA are made from Oxygen, Hydrogen, Phosphate, Nitrogen and Carbon. None of these are in Group VIII of the peiodic table, and are thus not inert. The mere fact that these have bonded togeather indicate the are reactive.But that does not mean that the EXACT transition from inert chemical to self-replicating chemical reaction cannot be made in the future.
What do you mean by a "self-replicating chemical reaction"?
That's enough for one night,
Mcminty.
I know i dont need to give up my faith if i believe evolution. But evolution didnt happen.
Its based on science.
He has a literal belief in Genesis. Read his prior posts.topal63 wrote:
Based upon what are you arriving at that conclusion?JaMDuDe wrote:
I know i dont need to give up my faith if i believe evolution. But evolution didnt happen.
1.) Someone has suggested its something that you can believe or not believe in?
2.) Documented FACTS of micro & macro evolution are made up by liars who have an atheistic agenda?
3.) You have unique & special scientific knowledge no one else has - rendering all other facts as a lie?
4.) Your education level and integrity exceeds that of all known scientists?
5.) ID theory - proven to be false - but you don't care its good enough for you - even if false?
6.) A literal belief in Biblical Genesis.
What?
My science is coming from scientists
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … amp;id=660
Those are some of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … amp;id=660
Those are some of them.
Yeah so none of those 500 scientists are actually using science. There are plenty of other places, scientist and people who fully accepted evolution that now dont believe darwins theory was right. I dont got time to list them all.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-05-17 12:35:50)
Here you go JaMDuDe, a site that may open your eyes a little bit.
A site that shows you can believe in God and evolution ZOMG!!11 It even has a list like yours, Christian Scholars who believe in evolution.
A site that shows you can believe in God and evolution ZOMG!!11 It even has a list like yours, Christian Scholars who believe in evolution.
JaMDuDe wrote:
I know i dont need to give up my faith if i believe evolution. But evolution didnt happen.
Can we close this thread now?JaMDuDe wrote:
I know i dont need to give up my faith if i believe evolution. But evolution didnt happen.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-17 13:00:24)
That list is not all christians, thats just your excuse to get by it. Thats not all the scientists in the world who believe ID, thats just the ones who know about the discovery institute. Evolution is not FACT and the evidence for it is easily explained.
if you all can make it to page 50 you are my heroes
I should start counting how many times we've circled JamDude's unrelenting arguments, despite the fact that he still doesn't get what we are telling him. (49 pages later...*sigh*)
I havent been here for 50 pages, i came at 20 or 30 sumthing. I do get what your telling me, topal is a new person who is arguing.
From an atheist, bias point of veiw thats what ID is, but heres what i think should be said.
a) An intelligent designer(s) made the physical constants during the creation of the universe perfectly so that life could happen.
b) Comets and meteors hit, placing perfect amounts of the things needed and preparing the earth for life. Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life once the conditions are right. (notice how life appeared on earth at almost the same time the conditions were good enough for it)
c) Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life in ocean or the Cambrian explosion. From my point of veiw this means "let the waters teem with living creatures". I dont believe any macro-evolution occurred. Maybe micro-evolution.
d) Then more life is created and so on.
Of course this was a lot more complicated than 4 steps but thats good enough for now.
Ive seen the evidence for Evolution and ID. ID to me is the most reasonable answer. And things like Jesus and prophecies and all that point to a creator too but thats religion.
From an atheist, bias point of veiw thats what ID is, but heres what i think should be said.
a) An intelligent designer(s) made the physical constants during the creation of the universe perfectly so that life could happen.
b) Comets and meteors hit, placing perfect amounts of the things needed and preparing the earth for life. Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life once the conditions are right. (notice how life appeared on earth at almost the same time the conditions were good enough for it)
c) Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life in ocean or the Cambrian explosion. From my point of veiw this means "let the waters teem with living creatures". I dont believe any macro-evolution occurred. Maybe micro-evolution.
d) Then more life is created and so on.
Of course this was a lot more complicated than 4 steps but thats good enough for now.
Ive seen the evidence for Evolution and ID. ID to me is the most reasonable answer. And things like Jesus and prophecies and all that point to a creator too but thats religion.
Ah? The 'intelligent designer' didn't cause the comets to hit? That seems rather opportunistic of him/her/it. I am of course splitting hairs, but I find it interesting that you don't seem to think these things through. I would also point out that your addition of the 's' at the end of designer is not compatible with your christian beliefs: The intelligent designer is either God, a single entity, or it is multiple entities and Christianity is based on a false premise. And 'maybe micro-evolution'? Did you skip every bit of scientific fact for the last 50 pages?
I'm not going to go any further. As easy as it would be to tear your argument apart limb from limb, having an intelligent discussion with you is like reading shakespeare to a monkey. I get the feeling that I could beat you over the head with the missing link and you would still tell me evolution is a load of crap, and so I will withdraw from this discussion until someone more reasonable comes along to debate the creationist/ID standpoint.
I'm not going to go any further. As easy as it would be to tear your argument apart limb from limb, having an intelligent discussion with you is like reading shakespeare to a monkey. I get the feeling that I could beat you over the head with the missing link and you would still tell me evolution is a load of crap, and so I will withdraw from this discussion until someone more reasonable comes along to debate the creationist/ID standpoint.
The problem, Jamdude, is that you have NOT YET THOUGHT OF ONE ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION ON YOUR OWN. That makes you, in most peoples eyes, an idiot to be trying to 'carry the mantle' of creationism in this debate.
You still continue to dodge my point that almost every single branch of biology is dependant on evolution - especially those proven to be TRUE.
For example: the very nature of alelles (sp?) in human reproduction (I mean, the way they line up) causes evolution.
You still continue to dodge my point that almost every single branch of biology is dependant on evolution - especially those proven to be TRUE.
For example: the very nature of alelles (sp?) in human reproduction (I mean, the way they line up) causes evolution.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
A. The multi-verse explanation (some pages back in this thread) explains one thing:JaMDuDe wrote:
I haven't been here for 50 pages, i came at 20 or 30 sumthing. I do get what your telling me, topal is a new person who is arguing.
From an atheist, bias point of view thats what ID is, but heres what i think should be said.
a) An intelligent designer(s) made the physical constants during the creation of the universe perfectly so that life could happen.
b) Comets and meteors hit, placing perfect amounts of the things needed and preparing the earth for life. Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life once the conditions are right. (notice how life appeared on earth at almost the same time the conditions were good enough for it)
c) Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life in ocean or the Cambrian explosion. From my point of view this means "let the waters teem with living creatures". I dont believe any macro-evolution occurred. Maybe micro-evolution.
d) Then more life is created and so on.
Of course this was a lot more complicated than 4 steps but thats good enough for now.
Ive seen the evidence for Evolution and ID. ID to me is the most reasonable answer. And things like Jesus and prophecies and all that point to a creator too but thats religion.
In each universe, different law of physics apply. As an infinate set of physics apply, there is a least one set of conditions perfect for us.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29 wrote:
Thus, there are an infinite number of regions of space the same size as our observable universe -- an infinite number of observable universes, that is.
C.
D.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion wrote:
A wide range of biological and geological factors have been proposed as possible triggers for the explosion. These range from ecological competition, hox genes and the breakup of Rodinia. Recently scientists have suggested major climatic changes, including a near-global glaciation, may have played a role.
The Cambrian explosion may have been precipitated by several environmental changes occurring in and just before this period. First the Varangian glaciation gave rise to a Snowball Earth in which all, or nearly all, of the oceans are covered entirely with ice. This was followed by a deglaciation and rapid global warming just before the beginning of the explosion itself. In modern Arctic environments, single-celled organisms often form mats on the underside of ice sheets in order to maximize their exposure to sunlight. It is possible that adaptations useful to the maintenance of such colonies also assisted in the formation of the first triploblastic animals estimated to be 570 million years of age (Xiao et al. 1998). In addition, the Snowball Earth environment would have given rise to relatively few ecological niches, so the subsequent deglaciation and global warming may have provided an impetus for rapid evolution to fill many new environments.
Rising levels of atmospheric oxygen during the Ediacaran may have played a role in the emergence of large metazoans which require oxygen for respiration. Recent work has linked this increase in atmospheric oxygen to changes in global soil weathering patterns following the Cryogenian and the possible emergence of a primitive terrestrial Biota (Kennedy et al. 2006).
Then more life is created and so on
Yes, the creation of more life, through diversification of current populations, is called evolution. Populations of animals would adapt to their surrounding environment. Thus evolving.Ive seen the evidence for Evolution
Clearer now?
Mcminty.
You demonstrate a failure to know what on earth the Cambrian Explosion was.JaMDuDe wrote:
I havent been here for 50 pages, i came at 20 or 30 sumthing. I do get what your telling me, topal is a new person who is arguing.
From an atheist, bias point of veiw thats what ID is, but heres what i think should be said.
a) An intelligent designer(s) made the physical constants during the creation of the universe perfectly so that life could happen.
b) Comets and meteors hit, placing perfect amounts of the things needed and preparing the earth for life. Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life once the conditions are right. (notice how life appeared on earth at almost the same time the conditions were good enough for it)
c) Then the intelligent designer(s) creates life in ocean or the Cambrian explosion. From my point of veiw this means "let the waters teem with living creatures". I dont believe any macro-evolution occurred. Maybe micro-evolution.
d) Then more life is created and so on.
Of course this was a lot more complicated than 4 steps but thats good enough for now.
Ive seen the evidence for Evolution and ID. ID to me is the most reasonable answer. And things like Jesus and prophecies and all that point to a creator too but thats religion.
After the extinction of the Ediarcian fauna, other life-forms on earth expanded massively. Don't get me? Well, after all the jellyfish-like things died off, everything else grew bigger. Simple as that. There have been no new 'designs' uncovered in the Cambrian explosion as of yet - further investigation showed that the 'designs' were bits that were parts of other bits and/or misconstructed (as with Hallucegenia)
Of course this theory is completely at odds with eveything else you've said before, the Cambrian explosion occured well over half a BILLION years ago.
The multiverse theory, as I said before, ties in very nicely with the probabilistic theories of quantum mechanics (that you can't measure anything exactly, nothing exists until it has been measured, if you don't know the past you can never know the future, you CAN'T know the past so you CAN'T know the future, etc. etc.)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Skruples, i was re-saying what topal said is intelligent design, not saying how christians think it happened.
Spark, would you like me to make up an argument? You tell me how science and everything agrees with you without showing any science. I know what the cambrian explosion was. Please show me the fossils of all the jelly-fish before they died off. Dont tell me they couldnt be fossilized because the layer under the cambrian explosion is perfect to find them. They even found a sponge embryo.
MC I know the multi-verse explains how our universe could happen. Thats why they made it up. I already know that explanation. Those are some pretty amazing event all happening in the right sequence at the right time. Single-celled organisms bursting into all different kinds of phyla at once without leaving any trace of them because of all sorts of environmental changes and certain genes is a little far out for chance and evolution isnt it? Why arent there fossils everywhere of animals through all the stages? Millions of years isnt enough time for an animal to get buried in mud? I know they have birds with claws(reptile to bird), and mud skippers (sea to land), and small fragments of a monkey skulls, and fox-horses but shouldnt there be a little more?
Spark, would you like me to make up an argument? You tell me how science and everything agrees with you without showing any science. I know what the cambrian explosion was. Please show me the fossils of all the jelly-fish before they died off. Dont tell me they couldnt be fossilized because the layer under the cambrian explosion is perfect to find them. They even found a sponge embryo.
MC I know the multi-verse explains how our universe could happen. Thats why they made it up. I already know that explanation. Those are some pretty amazing event all happening in the right sequence at the right time. Single-celled organisms bursting into all different kinds of phyla at once without leaving any trace of them because of all sorts of environmental changes and certain genes is a little far out for chance and evolution isnt it? Why arent there fossils everywhere of animals through all the stages? Millions of years isnt enough time for an animal to get buried in mud? I know they have birds with claws(reptile to bird), and mud skippers (sea to land), and small fragments of a monkey skulls, and fox-horses but shouldnt there be a little more?
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-05-18 12:53:04)
You know what a meant by chance. What i said was not meant for an encyclopedia to read.
"Then more life was created and so on" meant the rest of the animals were created.
"Topal is a new person" did not mean that. It ment that we havent been arguing about this for 30 pages.
For error 1, the intelligent designer is not unknown and alien to most people. People see his work everyday. There was a book written in 3 continents by 35-40 people over 1500 years about him that is now the best selling book on Earth.
2 - I am skeptical but the bible says we were made by the same Designer from the same materials, its not a shocker that we are similar.
I know we will find more fossils, but after billions of years of evolution i think there should be more. Not to mention the animals we find that are fully developed with no mid stage fossils or anything.
"Then more life was created and so on" meant the rest of the animals were created.
"Topal is a new person" did not mean that. It ment that we havent been arguing about this for 30 pages.
For error 1, the intelligent designer is not unknown and alien to most people. People see his work everyday. There was a book written in 3 continents by 35-40 people over 1500 years about him that is now the best selling book on Earth.
2 - I am skeptical but the bible says we were made by the same Designer from the same materials, its not a shocker that we are similar.
I know we will find more fossils, but after billions of years of evolution i think there should be more. Not to mention the animals we find that are fully developed with no mid stage fossils or anything.
I seriously hope this debate is going on in a few terms time (say, a year). We begin the evolution topic in science in a year.
Because, Jamdude, doing research would just be far too hard, wouldn't it?. Maybe I went a bit off with 'jellyfish', I was going from memory there.
To have a solution to the multiverse problem, we'll have to tie a few loose ends here:
1. We really, really, really need to find a better idea than the 'Standard model' of particle physics. It's just way too complicated.
2. We still haven't found a GUT, after 50 years of trying. 50 YEARS! (Although I won't blame Einstein for this)
I, personally, am in favour of the Level three interpretation. Don't try to understand it - even trained quantum physicists have trouble getting their heads around some of their own theories at times ('I do not even know what a matrix is!' commented its founder.)
The gist of it is, is that everytime there is a 'chance' happening, when something could go one way or another, the universe splits, proportional to the number of possibilities. So when I throw a dice, the universe would split six different ways, each one having a different outcome to the next. The only way you show this wrong would be using a quantum suicide machine - except that's no use to anyone, because its kinda hard to measure something in another universe.
And it is incredibly unwise to take the bible literally. Those who do will often find that they have a bomb strapped to their chest - of their own accord. I can't remember where, but in one of Paul's letters, he urges followers to take Cretans as lowlife. WTF?
Because, Jamdude, doing research would just be far too hard, wouldn't it?. Maybe I went a bit off with 'jellyfish', I was going from memory there.
To have a solution to the multiverse problem, we'll have to tie a few loose ends here:
1. We really, really, really need to find a better idea than the 'Standard model' of particle physics. It's just way too complicated.
2. We still haven't found a GUT, after 50 years of trying. 50 YEARS! (Although I won't blame Einstein for this)
I, personally, am in favour of the Level three interpretation. Don't try to understand it - even trained quantum physicists have trouble getting their heads around some of their own theories at times ('I do not even know what a matrix is!' commented its founder.)
The gist of it is, is that everytime there is a 'chance' happening, when something could go one way or another, the universe splits, proportional to the number of possibilities. So when I throw a dice, the universe would split six different ways, each one having a different outcome to the next. The only way you show this wrong would be using a quantum suicide machine - except that's no use to anyone, because its kinda hard to measure something in another universe.
And it is incredibly unwise to take the bible literally. Those who do will often find that they have a bomb strapped to their chest - of their own accord. I can't remember where, but in one of Paul's letters, he urges followers to take Cretans as lowlife. WTF?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
What about all the similar descriptions by various people all over the world involving near-death experiences? Coincidence or a glimpse into another realm. I rember a show about a present day middle aged women who while touring a Civil War era home at the Gettysburg Battlefield informed the tour guide that the house they were touring contained numeroused hidden stairways and passages. The guide told the lady that there is no way that could be as the house had been restored and maintained by the Park Service and that there were no such places. She then walked over to an upstairs bedrrom closet and removed some boards which revealed a hidden staircase. She proceeded to identify six other such hidden areas of the house. Intrigued by this she was put under hypnosis and went through a regression where she identified herself by name in a previous life as a little girl who lived in that house during the civil war and was killed during a cannon barrage. The name given under hypnosis was checked against the historical records and it was discovered that a little girl by that name did live in that house.
Now thats just wierd.
Now thats just wierd.
How about this fossil they just found, which seems to be of an animal that is between fish and land animals?JaMDuDe wrote:
Not to mention the animals we find that are fully developed with no mid stage fossils or anything.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/0 … alik.shtml
How about fossils that demonstrate intermediate forms of whales?
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Or human precursor fossils?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
I know you won't bother to read any of those links, but for anyone with an IQ in the triple digits it might be interesting.
Ah shit. I told myself I was going to get out of this debate...
How about the mud-skipper? That looks a lot like a fish - except it can use its fins to slide through very wet ground. Still alive and in good shape today.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman