View Full Version : Was Darwin Right ???
John Mackay from Creation Research is speaking on Tuesday night, 17th March, at 7.30pm at Wick Baptist Church.
Having heard him last night he is an very entertaining speaker who presents facts which certainly make you question Darwin's "Origin of Species". It is refreshing to hear a different point of view compared to that expounded by Charles Darwin, David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins.
An encouraging feature is that John Mackay actively encourages questions on any aspect of evolution compared to creation which should lead to a lively session on Tuesday night.
This is a rare opportunity to hear and question an international speaker here in Wick and should not be missed,
It is right that the Theory of Evolution should be criticised rigorously, but I do wish that creationists reserve the same level of critical approach to Creationism. Fact is, they don't.
I've questioned both and I've found that the theory of evolution is the only explanation that stands up to honest criticism. The theory is extremely simple and is observable in realtime.
Think I will stick with the evolution team myself. When you get the ridiculous propositions of the creationists being turned into a museum where they depict children playing with dinosaurs and claim the Earth is only 10,000 years old!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6216788.stm
I guess all the evidence locked up in the rocks is just all lies to these people...
Everyone knows it was all the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The term that comes to mind rhymes with the devices that you rest your oars on...
Kevin Milkins
16-Mar-09, 14:23
I made my mind up many years ago having worked thousands of meter's underground in a seam of coal that was once a forest milions of years ago.
I would not knock anyone for what they believe in, but some of the fossils I have seen underground is strong enough evidence for me.
riggerboy
16-Mar-09, 15:21
i believe god made me, then broke the mould for the horrible mistake he made unleashing me upon his garden, telling the angels that no man or woman is ever to be made from the same perfect mould lol,
or something like that,
i dont believe in the whole we came from the apes thing,
i believe we came from other beings not from this world,
we are the saviour of another long forgotton race of beings,
David Banks
16-Mar-09, 16:21
In the "Big History" lecture series from The Teaching Company, you can hear from the work of physists, cosmologists, astronomers, chemists, geologists, biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, modern historians and more.
Although their work is not complete, their combined research holds together. Do we want to consider that each and every researcher and theoretician over the preceding hundreds of years have been in an enormous conspiracy?
Creation "Research" is going to deny the findings from all these disciplines? That would be worth hearing - please keep the laughing down to a polite level.
By the way:
The lecture series is on Sale! (as all series are, once a year).
The lecturer is Professor David Christian, San Diego State University.
What does it matter whether you believe in creationism or subscribe to Darwin's theory of evoultion? We'll never have a definitive answer-end off. Though I'll tell you this for free-someone, somewhere is making money out of all this malarkey. They may give the talks for free but you can bet your rose-tinted specs that they have books or pamphlets for sale-all in aid of a good cause you understand!
So save your time and money and find something more productive to do.
Like counting the bicycles in Beijing?.....
Like counting the bicycles in Beijing?.....
Exactly. A total waste of time. ;)
David Banks
16-Mar-09, 17:55
"Someone is making money out of all this malarkey."
Ask John McCain - he spent a lot of it in the last US presidential election.
oldmarine
16-Mar-09, 21:13
I am a member of INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH and receive their publications regularly. Last month was the celebration of Darwin's birthday and I received a publication DARWIN'S DANGEROUS DOCTRINE. The controversy has been going on for 200 years with both sides argueing the points of an old earth vs a new earth. I'm a graduate engineer. Scientists & engineers have been accused of supporting Darwin's theories. I am one who questions them. So be it.
We live in a fallen world. That is a religious statement.
We live in an evolving world. That is a scientific statement.
Let's not confuse the one with the other.
What does it matter whether you believe in creationism or subscribe to Darwin's theory of evoultion?
I had a similar attitude until I was about 40 and then I got the buzz. I discovered there were deeper questions I needed to ask. I don't know if everyone gets that buzz at some time in their life but I got it. It was great. Learning about Gods and science.
It's unfortunate that creationists deny Darwins genuis to reinforce their faith. For goodness sake you only have to look at mownkeys to see the family connection. :eek:
We live in a fallen world. That is a religious statement.
We live in an evolving world. That is a scientific statement.
Let's not confuse the one with the other.
"We live on a REVOLVING World". That is a scientific FACT.
"We live in a Fallen World" Can never be a Religious FACT.
If we were to imagine the scenario of a murder being committed and then picture the investigation of the crime scene. Using science, we MAY be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt who committed the crime. In some cases, science will be an inadequate tool in providing the solution to the crime. However, it has to be a way better option than having the Faith, based on ancient writings, that Big Eddie, from The Bronx, did it!!
I had a similar attitude until I was about 40 and then I got the buzz. I discovered there were deeper questions I needed to ask. I don't know if everyone gets that buzz at some time in their life but I got it. It was great. Learning about Gods and science.
It's unfortunate that creationists deny Darwins genuis to reinforce their faith. For goodness sake you only have to look at mownkeys to see the family connection. :eek:
That's not "The Buzz" gleeber. It is the realisation that you're getting old and you want to know whether there is "Extra Time" after the Ref blows the Final Whistle. I believe that scientists who turn to religion late in life are fearties who are hedging their bets ;)
That's not "The Buzz" gleeber. It is the realisation that you're getting old and you want to know whether there is "Extra Time" after the Ref blows the Final Whistle. I believe that scientists who turn to religion late in life are fearties who are hedging their bets ;)
Ye canna be that owld then scorrie. :D
Revolving door?
Please explain.
Boozeburglar
17-Mar-09, 02:27
The theory is extremely simple and is observable in realtime.
In realtime aye?
Well, some of us have more important things to do....
:)
riggerboy
17-Mar-09, 08:39
"We live on a REVOLVING World". That is a scientific FACT.
"We live in a Fallen World" Can never be a Religious FACT.
If we were to imagine the scenario of a murder being committed and then picture the investigation of the crime scene. Using science, we MAY be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt who committed the crime. In some cases, science will be an inadequate tool in providing the solution to the crime. However, it has to be a way better option than having the Faith, based on ancient writings, that Big Eddie, from The Bronx, did it!!
have you been out there and watch it revolve or are you just taking the word of others ??? we have all seen it spin on the telly, but then again i've seen giant apes climb skyscrapers on the telly doesnt make it real lol
In realtime aye?
Well, some of us have more important things to do....
:)
Yes in realtime.
Viruses are notorious at developing immunity to drugs and developing new forms at being transmitted from one host to another. This is evolution being observed in realtime.
It's obvious we all have our own ideas on both 'points of view' - usually formulated during (but not always) our formative years. Bearing in mind the Org guidelines, mentioned below don't want to get done, but mention am avid reader of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens....
General Content Guidelines
It should also be taken into consideration that certain topics like football or religion can very easily be misread and cause offence, so great care should be taken when dealing with these types of issues.
Melancholy Man
17-Mar-09, 12:48
Yes he was.
Let's go to the pub.
Yes in realtime.
Viruses are notorious at developing immunity to drugs and developing new forms at being transmitted from one host to another. This is evolution being observed in realtime.
You say it is evolution being observed in realtime but what do they evolve into? They remain viruses.
Interestingly a quick Google produces pages of articles discussing whether or not viruses are actually alive. Fascinating reading. My head will be spinning soon. :)
Revolving door?
Please explain.
Glad to help out:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door
Melancholy Man
17-Mar-09, 14:22
Darwinism is a damn good creation myth. In fact the development of scientific theory in general, and Darwinism specifically, were the driving forces behind what we know now as Creationism. When Ussher opined that the world was just over 5,600 years old, this was a phenomenal amount of time to the human imagination and, for all intents, as we now imagine five billions.
Then came the Enlightenment and articulation of natural events and processes as deducible and repeatable experiments. Where previously the creation myth of Genesis had been seen as allegory, now every learnéd man... okay, and woman... knew that to be real something had to be provable. Rather than ditch the Bible, those who wished to continue believing it applied the same reasoning... it's represents the truth, ergo it must be demonstrable fact.
The rest is hilarious history. Such as when E. Nesbitt wrote Five Children and It, fossils... which were known to be fact... were presented as wishes which had turned into stone at nightfall, so fitted in with the truth of the Bible.
In short, Creationism has as much to do with Genesis as the notion that we descend from chimpanzees does with Darwinism.
THIS JUST IN:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
Melancholy Man
17-Mar-09, 14:51
Not far off, Rich. Darwin has to be presented as a fundamentally good man, even being kind to his children.
[QUOTE=rich;519433]THIS JUST IN:
I would be wary of the link you posted rich. It can bring up some rather robust language with it on occasions!!
Hey, Guys - It's the Onion!
Hey, Guys - It's the Onion!
Onion or no Onion, I assumed that links to pages containing profanities were not allowed on the org? I have seen people suspended before for said offence. The words in question do not come up every time the link is clicked but if someone takes offence when it does, you can't say I didn't point it out.
Welcomefamily
17-Mar-09, 17:45
Perhaps someone could show me the missing link? not following either at the moment.
Look at the Hummingbird, they feed on insects by plunging their necks into plants, sliping nectar at 13 sips a second. In evolution did these birds once have short beaks and they grew long over many millions of years?
Did flowers grow longer at the same rate?(why? when they did not need to) other wise the birds would have not been able to feed. Is there not an easier way for birds to feed? why dont chickens feed that way?
The Piltdowm Man, on display at the British Museum for 40 years as the missing link found in 1912 was discover in 1953 to be the head of a man and the jaw of an orang-utan filed down to fit.
Orce Man presented as the oldest european has since been found (1993) to be a skull of a Donkey. :lol:
Toumain Man (2002) DNA of a female gorilla.:lol:
Lucy (Austrlopithecus afarensis) now shown to be a pigmy chimpanzee.
Nebraska Mans Tooth, DNA shown teeth to be those of a pig.
Modern day genetics is distroying Darwin, it is perhaps an odd irony.
Welcomefamily
17-Mar-09, 17:50
In the "Big History" lecture series from The Teaching Company, you can hear from the work of physists, cosmologists, astronomers, chemists, geologists, biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, modern historians and more.
Although their work is not complete, their combined research holds together. Do we want to consider that each and every researcher and theoretician over the preceding hundreds of years have been in an enormous conspiracy?
Creation "Research" is going to deny the findings from all these disciplines? That would be worth hearing - please keep the laughing down to a polite level.
By the way:
The lecture series is on Sale! (as all series are, once a year).
The lecturer is Professor David Christian, San Diego State University.
I could quote you many hundreds of professors who would totally disagree with your view. Perhaps you can explain where all of the missing links are, one will do.
Welcomefamily
17-Mar-09, 18:00
Yes in realtime.
Viruses are notorious at developing immunity to drugs and developing new forms at being transmitted from one host to another. This is evolution being observed in realtime.
The life of a virus system can be followed over many generations and yet they are still viruses.
It is interesting to observe that those who believe in creationism, mock Darwin. I (imo) find it very difficult to simply ignore such things as fossils - I also cannot believe the earth is just 12,000 years old. To simply say "well I don't understand, so must be some supreme being" - Seems to me a cop-out.
As an aside; do those on the Org accept the earth is this age?
I think anyone who cares to use their brain will see that the creationist theory is the biggest con of all time. Having ventured to read sections of the bible from time to time it is obvious that it was written as a set of rules to tame the growing mass of population. funny though I dont remember clear references to the dinosaurs etc perhaps I missed something. As a set of early rules it served its purpose how ever time has moved on and although i agree with the general sentiment in some of whats said in the bible the fact remains it is a fantasy of a thinking animal homo sapien and the the use of a greater being to keep us all in check.
The creationists just cant face up to it !! I like the coment by David Attenbourgh who when questioned why he doesn't give reference to the creator of this wonderful natural world he say what they mean is the humming birds or butterfly's not the parasite worm that can only live by burrowing inside a child's eye in Africa who's only way of surviving is by this method strange thing for any good creator to do !!
It is interesting to observe that those who believe in creationism, mock Darwin. I (imo) find it very difficult to simply ignore such things as fossils - I also cannot believe the earth is just 12,000 years old. To simply say "well I don't understand, so must be some supreme being" - Seems to me a cop-out.
As an aside; do those on the Org accept the earth is this age?
I think there are some on the org that age so Earth must be older. [lol]
I like the coment by David Attenbourgh who when questioned why he doesn't give reference to the creator of this wonderful natural world he say what they mean is the humming birds or butterfly's not the parasite worm that can only live by burrowing inside a child's eye in Africa who's only way of surviving is by this method strange thing for any good creator to do !!
I remember him making that comment and understand the point entirely. However there could be a simple answer. Humans may not be the parasite's natural host. From what I have read parasites are generally only a real problem when they are not in their proper host so maybe humans are not where they are meant to be and hence they cause serious health problems. Perhaps the parasite's natural host has died out or been made extinct.
Don't know if the programme is on up there, but in Lancs on BBC2 right now (between 7 and 8pm) called: 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' with Andrew Marr..
Melancholy Man
17-Mar-09, 20:28
Perhaps someone could show me the missing link? not following either at the moment.
Perhaps not. It's missing, innit? Furthermore, it's maybe not surprising that Creationists and believers in literal truths of Genesis are then not able to comprehend that proponents of evolution consider the concept of the missing link to be a *metaphor*.
Look at the Hummingbird,
Gosh, someone's seen through the charade! It's all over!
No. One reason they do not appear in the fossil record is their diminutive size which results in a fragile bone system quickly reducing to nowt. D.N.A. analysis, however, has demonstrated that they share strong similarities with swifts, which are in the fossil record.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory is perhaps a misnomer, as it cannot be conclusively proved... Creationism, however, can be conclusively *disproved*. Those who ascribe to the former do not, unlike Creationists, claim that theirs is all-encompassing and written down in a book from 150 years ago, three millennia ago. They believe their texts represent the unassailable truth, so assume others think as they do.
No we don't.
Although, part of the desire of Creationists to debunk evolutionary theory will be related to this mental dissonance, but it'll also be deliberate disingenuous in seizing on one gap in a knowledge which is not claimed to be omniscient and worrying it death.
they feed on insects by plunging their necks into plants, sliping nectar at 13 sips a second. In evolution did these birds once have short beaks and they grew long over many millions of years?
Why not? There are hummingbirds of differing degrees of complexities. Some preform marvellous acrobatics with delicate proboscises whilst others lap on surface nectar. Furthermore, they are a recent appearance - again, D.N.A. analysis - so may not been present long enough for the fossil record.
Did flowers grow longer at the same rate?(why? when they did not need to) other wise the birds would have not been able to feed.
There is no purpose to the evolutionary process (and the idea that there is a progression aided and abetted the heretical Social Darwinism of the 19th Century and biological racism). It's about immediate selective biases and making the best use of what's there at the time. Maybe there were certain flowers with tastier nectar further down, and certain birds were able to reach it; who knows? Evolutionary theory is not claimed to be all-knowing and reducible to a few pages.
Even if hummmingbirds had been around for 'only' 500,000 years, this is longer than any human knowledge. The 'sudden' changes which could wipe out such species would take place over many human lifetimes.
Is there not an easier way for birds to feed? why dont chickens feed that way?
This is one of the daftest things I've ever seen on the Internet, and it's up against some stiff competition. Why don't chickens play hopscotch?
The life of a virus system can be followed over many generations and yet they are still viruses.
The same follows for humans and chimpanzees, or even dogs, evolving from a common ancestor. They remain mammals. I bet you thought you were saying something else.
The Piltdowm Man, on display at the British Museum for 40 years as the missing link found in 1912 was discover in 1953 to be the head of a man and the jaw of an orang-utan filed down to fit.
The Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax - quite possibly by Arthur Conan Doyle as revenge for his belief in spirtualism being disproved - suspected at the time and, stupidity of stupidities, finally shown to be so by increased understanding of evolutionary theory.
The other 'damning' errors you gave are less than half a dozen individual bloopers which were found to be so through the application of the knowledge you're attempting to rubbish. Again, it's Creationists, not us, who believe in individual ineffable truths representing the literal fact and base their entire narratives on syllogisms and the Denying tactic of seizing upon doubtful claims, which were only ever peripheral to evolutionary theory, to present as conclusive proof.
Darwin himself did not claim to have provided an all-empasing theory.
Modern day genetics is distroying Darwin, it is perhaps an odd irony.
No it's not. Try harder.
The life of a virus system can be followed over many generations and yet they are still viruses.
You forgot or intentionally didn't add that subsequent generations from a virus that mutated beneficially are not quite the same virus prior to the mutation. They have changed. Microbial/viral life took several billions of years to develop into multicellular lifeforms which can be seen in the fossil record.
The coelacanth (fish - fins are on the way to becoming legs)
http://www.dinofish.com
Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million ... Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, ...
\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Melancholy Man
17-Mar-09, 22:12
The coelacanth *is* a living fossil. Sharks, marsupials, crocodiles, bacteria have been evolving over aeons... the coelacanth hasn't changed at all.
David Banks
17-Mar-09, 23:33
I could quote you many hundreds of professors who would totally disagree with your view. Perhaps you can explain where all of the missing links are, one will do.
For me, "Big History" passes the test of reasonableness. I am unable and unqualified to give other than my own opinion.
Tell us all where we can find peer-reviewed works by some of the 'many hundreds of professors' - their institutions, any available online or DVD lectures or other information you consider relevant.
Responding to your sign-off remark, may I suggest a lecture series by Prof. Bart D. Ehrman entitled "The New Testament" - also from the teaching company.
/David B.
I could quote you many hundreds of professors who would totally disagree with your view. Perhaps you can explain where all of the missing links are, one will do.
Professors of what?
If by definition, evolution is a succession of small advantageous mutations creating different species over an exceedingly long time, so if we find one missing link then we must create another two missing links either side of the one that was found in the first place.
(fish - fins are on the way to becoming legs)
As D:ream and the Labour Party said:-
"Fins, can only get better, can only get better, now I've found you"
ZZTop :-
"She's got legs, and she knows how to use them"
Kate Bush:-
"Running up that road, running up that hill"
Westlife:-
"You're flying without wings"
THAT is evolution folks!!
Could it be possible that both creationists and evolutionists are right? The Bible tells that God created various things in a day for each. How long did each day last? It doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. The first day He created light - the big bang? The fifth day, life come from the waters. That I believe ties up with evolution, life came from the water.
Melancholy Man
18-Mar-09, 00:30
Could it be possible that both creationists and evolutionists are right?
No, because they are mutually contradictory. It's not like saying -1^0.5 can be true despite ordinary arithmetic. You might as well be saying 5/2 = 3*7.
The Bible tells that God created various things in a day for each. How long did each day last? It doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. The first day He created light - the big bang? The fifth day, life come from the waters. That I believe ties up with evolution, life came from the water.
It also says that Light which demarcates night and day came after the Earth was present, that the Earth was covered with water in the Beginning, that the Sun (i.e. the source of light) and Moon (which is also called a source of light) came on the fourth 'day', that birds came before land animals, that woman came after man... hey, wait a minute, it's nonsense!
DeHaviLand
18-Mar-09, 00:31
The coelacanth (fish - fins are on the way to becoming legs)
And after 65 million years, still haven't done so. Its hardly the most compelling argument for any kind of evolutionary process.
Could it be possible that both creationists and evolutionists are right? The Bible tells that God created various things in a day for each. How long did each day last? It doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. The first day He created light - the big bang? The fifth day, life come from the waters. That I believe ties up with evolution, life came from the water.
It is the same notion that some people hold about explaining really old ages in the Bible. Folks living to 800 years plus were explained, by some, supposedly credible, Creationists, as being a result of some scribes considering that a lunar month was a year in Biblical times. Then you read in Genesis about characters having children when they were 80 odd years old. That would mean they were less than SEVEN years old in real terms, when they had the child!!
People will believe any old nonsense when they WANT to believe. They will dismiss everything that contradicts their view, no matter how obvious and logical it is.
God rested on the Seventh Day? Gee Whiz, pretty poor excuse for a God. I reckon he was claiming it was Genetic or something, like the Teletubbies family. They're all in Lala Land ;)
Boozeburglar
18-Mar-09, 00:49
Yes in realtime.
Viruses are notorious at developing immunity to drugs and developing new forms at being transmitted from one host to another. This is evolution being observed in realtime.
Well I guess one man's realtime is another man's playtime..
You have observed these in realtime?
Sounds unlikely to me..
:)
And after 65 million years, still haven't done so. Its hardly the most compelling argument for any kind of evolutionary process.
I think you are right. There is NO Evolution. Mankind believed in a "Mannie in the Sky" many moons ago. All this time later, we, pretty much, still believe in a "Mannie in the Sky"
Not much Evolution there.
Still, it's safer to believe in God. It can't be disproved and, if your right, you get balcony seats in Heaven. Golly, it's a tempting mantra!!
Six days to create the World and 65 Million years to do pretty much nothing to shout about, other than the raxation of a bonny planet, which will be cooked to a black char in the future (unless the oven timer kicks in)
Did anyone actually go to the meeting, to hear what John Mackay had to say? I was unable to be there, but I heard him speak on Sunday night in church, and it was very interesting..
Well it is obvious some of us haven't evolved out of believing in mumbo jumbo or likely to.:lol:
It is time they snapped out of their matrix world but some are never ready to be unplugged...
And after 65 million years, still haven't done so. Its hardly the most compelling argument for any kind of evolutionary process.
The ceolacanth is an alleged missing link on the evolutionary highway. Creationists love to say where are the missing links, there are none. So this splendidly unchangeable fish serves as a missing link, a signpost, pointing to lungs and lungfish etc etc.
Likewis the bird with teeth and a bone tail....
Melancholy Man
18-Mar-09, 19:23
I wouldn't say that Creationists are caught up a Matrix-like psychosis. That would suggest a dislocation with 'this' world and belief that it's stalked by spectres deserving only of destruction and that even virtuous individuals, oneself included, should be freed from such corrupt flesh-vessels of filth.
Rather like jihadist suicide-bombers... take that Golach!
No, because they are mutually contradictory. It's not like saying -1^0.5 can be true despite ordinary arithmetic. You might as well be saying 5/2 = 3*7.Lol, we've been to -1^0.5 before. Anyways, how can a number not be true? :lol:
I watched some of Darwin's Dangerous Idea tonight but I switched it off because Andrew Marr was being way too earnest and enthusiastic for my weary brain. I need a 'tired' smiley here.
Look at the Hummingbird, they feed on insects by plunging their necks into plants, sliping nectar at 13 sips a second. In evolution did these birds once have short beaks and they grew long over many millions of years?
The life of a virus system can be followed over many generations and yet they are still viruses.
The lives of hummingbirds can be followed over many generations also, yet they too are still hummingbirds
Did flowers grow longer at the same rate?(why? when they did not need to)
Who says they didn't need to? What are you basing your theory on? Have you any scientific proof to back your theory up? I would imagine you haven't. Like I imagine you haven't any proof, scientific or otherwise, that God made the earth 10,000 years ago. The Bible can't used as proof. It's word of mouth. Fireside 'Chinese Whispers' dating back 50,000 years.
I agree with Voltaire when he suggested that if God didn't exist, man would find it necessary to invent him. (Full story here - http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=776218)
Some people prefer the comfort of a higher being and pooh-pooh all else. Creationists believe that they are right. Darwin didn't. He proposed a theory. Where's the creationism theory (biblical theory)?
This link is also interesting -
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
an intelligent article
Perhaps someone could show me the missing link? not following either at the moment.
Look at the Hummingbird, they feed on insects by plunging their necks into plants, sliping nectar at 13 sips a second. In evolution did these birds once have short beaks and they grew long over many millions of years?
Did flowers grow longer at the same rate?(why? when they did not need to) other wise the birds would have not been able to feed. Is there not an easier way for birds to feed? why dont chickens feed that way?
The Piltdowm Man, on display at the British Museum for 40 years as the missing link found in 1912 was discover in 1953 to be the head of a man and the jaw of an orang-utan filed down to fit.
Orce Man presented as the oldest european has since been found (1993) to be a skull of a Donkey.
Toumain Man (2002) DNA of a female gorilla.:lol:
Lucy (Austrlopithecus afarensis) now shown to be a pigmy chimpanzee.
Nebraska Mans Tooth, DNA shown teeth to be those of a pig.
Modern day genetics is distroying Darwin, it is perhaps an odd irony.
I can guess from which sources you are getting your reading matter but in actual fact genetics is enhancing what we already know about Evolution.:lol:
Melancholy Man
20-Mar-09, 15:44
Lol, we've been to -1^0.5 before. Anyways, how can a number not be true? :lol:
Oh, it is true... just not true within elementary arithmetic. ;)
I watched some of Darwin's Dangerous Idea tonight but I switched it off because Andrew Marr was being way too earnest and enthusiastic for my weary brain. I need a 'tired' smiley here.
Stay away from quantum theory, then. :confused
No, because they are mutually contradictory. It's not like saying -1^0.5 can be true despite ordinary arithmetic. You might as well be saying 5/2 = 3*7.
It also says that Light which demarcates night and day came after the Earth was present, that the Earth was covered with water in the Beginning, that the Sun (i.e. the source of light) and Moon (which is also called a source of light) came on the fourth 'day', that birds came before land animals, that woman came after man... hey, wait a minute, it's nonsense!
You've already lost me on the mathematical shorthand so I really don't know what you mean.
As for the Earth was present at creation, I beg to differ. The 'earth' was a formless void suggests to me that what we know as earth was non-existent at that point.
Creationism is different than belief in creation, but from what I am reading in these last several posts I am hearing creation. I totally believe in creation as it is Biblically communicated. I also support the theory of evolution. Okay, my theological studies trump my biological education, but they are both areas of science that I am passionate about. Biblical creation and evolution are not inconsistent in my mind. (Yes, I support the traditional Oxford understanding of Theology as the Queen of the Sciences.)
We were designed by an all-wise, super-intelligent creator who loves us and would like to forgive our sins. Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.
You've already lost me on the mathematical shorthand so I really don't know what you mean.
As for the Earth was present at creation, I beg to differ. The 'earth' was a formless void suggests to me that what we know as earth was non-existent at that point.
Creationism is different than belief in creation, but from what I am reading in these last several posts I am hearing creation. I totally believe in creation as it is Biblically communicated. I also support the theory of evolution. Okay, my theological studies trump my biological education, but they are both areas of science that I am passionate about. Biblical creation and evolution are not inconsistent in my mind. (Yes, I support the traditional Oxford understanding of Theology as the Queen of the Sciences.)
There you go now. What a good post. I suppose its only good because i agree with it. :lol:
I was at the talk on Tuesday night and I quite enjoyed the experience. I went with a friend who has Christian leanings but never been in a church in his life, almost. I got quite disturbed inside at some of the things John Mackay was saying and I was surprised at the enthusiasm of the audiance to his presentation.
They had lovely tea and cakes afterwards and i was first in the tearoom after the show.
Oh, it is true... just not true within elementary arithmetic. ;)I ask again, how can a number be true? Is 6 true? What about 8? What about 1.61803399? Could it be false?
Stay away from quantum theory, then. :confusedWhy would I want to do that? :confused
There you go now. What a good post. I suppose its only good because i agree with it. :lol:
I was at the talk on Tuesday night and I quite enjoyed the experience. I went with a friend who has Christian leanings but never been in a church in his life, almost. I got quite disturbed inside at some of the things John Mackay was saying and I was surprised at the enthusiasm of the audiance to his presentation.
They had lovely tea and cakes afterwards and i was first in the tearoom after the show.
I bet you felt superior though. :Razz
Was the audience sympathetic? Isn't that what you'd expect for an audience that went to hear someone like him?
I don't think I felt superior, at least I hope not. I found it strange that lovely inteligent people were saying the world was only 10000 years old.
I didnt know what to expect from the audience I never thought about it. Your right though. The experience confirmed what your suggesting.
You're a better person than me then, but I wouldn't have gone to that meeting so it's not a fair comparison.
I don't know why intelligent people believe the world is only ten thousand years old. Maybe they're scared of reality and are grasping at straws or maybe they're rebels of a sort. I knew intelligent people in Thurso that did the same, they rejected evolution but I never really understood why they saw that as being rebellious.
Melancholy Man
20-Mar-09, 23:16
I ask again, how can a number be true? Is 6 true? What about 8? What about 1.61803399? Could it be false?
They're all true as mathematical concepts, just as -1^0.5 is.
Why would I want to do that? :confused
It's scary.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
20-Mar-09, 23:18
The only reason Darwin gets mentioned is because he had the bravery to put forward what he thought.Totally ridiculed for it,the cartoon of his face on a monkeys body for example.He's still remembered though,so his evolution and natural selection theories must have hit home to some.I have always been a scientist sort of guy than a creationist sort of guy.
I have still to meet someone who has managed to explain the truth of how we all got here.So to answer the thread Darwin was right,cause he didn't blether over a pint about it,but put it down on paper.
They have tried to reduce the amount of genes in a mycoplasa to zero which you need to achieve if you are going to go from hydrogen to human and they couldn't go below 397 genes. Science has imploded, it can't achieve the origins of anything.
They're all true as mathematical concepts, just as -1^0.5 is.A number isn't a concept nor does it possess a binary true or false property, it's a number. That's it.
It's scary.So? I didn't switch off Andrew Marr because he was scary, I did it because he was being earnest and I was tired.
The only reason Darwin gets mentioned is because he had the bravery to put forward what he thought.Totally ridiculed for it,the cartoon of his face on a monkeys body for example.He's still remembered though,so his evolution and natural selection theories must have hit home to some.I have always been a scientist sort of guy than a creationist sort of guy.
I have still to meet someone who has managed to explain the truth of how we all got here.So to answer the thread Darwin was right,cause he didn't blether over a pint about it,but put it down on paper.Do you believe we all evolved from a rock?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
20-Mar-09, 23:41
Do you believe we all evolved from a rock?
Something happened in space.A major explosion(the big bang),the debris was sent out everywhere and our sun caught some of the rocks and the planets in our solar system were created.The distance that the earth landed from the sun meant that life could exist.
On the rest of the rocks they couldn,t.
Somewhere else another rock has landed in the same distance from its sun and is evolving or devoloping or has developed.I don't think we're alone in the universe,I don't think we've been visited though.Here's a thing though TBH,my own opinion,the species that was in the Big Bang is the same on the rest of these lucky planets.
One of a humans major fears is the thought of being alone.Thats why Gods are created so that you don't.Why should anyone feel alone when their are others out there millions,billions of light years away.
I vote cedric for president. :)
Something happened in space.A major explosion(the big bang),the debris was sent out everywhere and our sun caught some of the rocks and the planets in our solar system were created.The distance that the earth landed from the sun meant that life could exist.Cedric, if you'd been alive several thousand years ago and knew then what you know now you could have been one of the authors of Genesis. You know more than they did but you'd still be almost as wrong as they were.
Something happened in space.A major explosion(the big bang),the debris was sent out everywhere and our sun caught some of the rocks and the planets in our solar system were created.The distance that the earth landed from the sun meant that life could exist.
On the rest of the rocks they couldn,t.
Somewhere else another rock has landed in the same distance from its sun and is evolving or devoloping or has developed.I don't think we're alone in the universe,I don't think we've been visited though.Here's a thing though TBH,my own opinion,the species that was in the Big Bang is the same on the rest of these lucky planets.
One of a humans major fears is the thought of being alone.Thats why Gods are created so that you don't.Why should anyone feel alone when their are others out there millions,billions of light years away.We are definitely not alone in the universe but it has nothing to do with evolution but more to do with our creator.
I vote cedric for president. :)
I think I prefer a known unknown like Obama.
We are definitely not alone in the universe but it has nothing to do with evolution but more to do with our creator.
Surely you mean your creator? :eek:
What is essentially alive here? Our genes or the bio-mechanical entities that we call ourselves?
What is essentially alive here? Our genes or the bio-mechanical entities that we call ourselves?
Good question Rheg. What do you think the answer is?
Good question Rheg. What do you think the answer is?
Good question Crayola. I think therefore I am, but it is my genes that have the greatest longevity.
But what is life afterall? If it needs live matter to record what is there anyways, so without life could matter not exist in the first place? So if matter whether either live or not needs to say it exists for it to exist does it matter if we are alive or non existent? Dunno really. Schroedingers cat?
Melancholy Man
21-Mar-09, 00:20
IF someone is dead THEN they were once alive.
<stabs Rheggie repeatedly>
He's dead SO he was once alive.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
21-Mar-09, 00:21
We are definitely not alone in the universe but it has nothing to do with evolution but more to do with our creator.
You evolve to survive.Science or religion.We're never going to agree.If yer happy with your creator then don't worry I'm happy with mine.
Ps sorry for the delay in reply but was watching a cracking video on you tube
Good question Crayola. I think therefore I am, but it is my genes that have the greatest longevity.
But what is life afterall? If it needs live matter to record what is there anyways, so without life could matter not exist in the first place? So if matter whether either live or not needs to say it exists for it to exist does it matter if we are alive or non existent? Dunno really. Schroedingers cat?I think the answer could be 'both' because neither can live without the other.
You don't need live matter to record inanimate matter. It's there irrespective of our presence, collapse or no collapse.
IF someone is dead THEN they were once alive.
<stabs Rheggie repeatedly>
He's dead SO he was once alive.
Is a grain of sand dead?:confused
Melancholy Man
21-Mar-09, 00:27
It may contain material from dead animals but... eeeeek! A talking dead person!
Cedric Farthsbottom III
21-Mar-09, 00:37
Is a grain of sand dead?:confused
A grain of sand isn't dead as it is the main ingredient to the creation of a sandcastle.To create something you must be alive.
IF someone is dead THEN they were once alive.
<stabs Rheggie repeatedly>
He's dead SO he was once alive.
Why would you want to stab Rheggie? Does he offend your train of thought or do you just wish to stop him in his tracks?
Good question Crayola. I think therefore I am, but it is my genes that have the greatest longevity.
But what is life afterall? If it needs live matter to record what is there anyways, so without life could matter not exist in the first place? So if matter whether either live or not needs to say it exists for it to exist does it matter if we are alive or non existent? Dunno really. Schroedingers cat?What is life? How about something you evolutionists can't re-create at least from inanimate objects.:lol:
Why would you want to stab Rheggie? Does he offend your train of thought or do you just wish to stop him in his tracks?
That's what I was wondering. :confused
What is life? How about something you evolutionists can't re-create at least from inanimate objects.:lol:
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Rheghead was stabbed to make him die, so that we could then theorise that he was alive previously. It's only theory though and Rheggers is happily sipping claret, as we speak (or perhaps nobody is speaking anymore ;) )
Melancholy Man
21-Mar-09, 01:16
<opens up with semi-automatic>
No, he's dead.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Rheghead was stabbed to make him die, so that we could then theorise that he was alive previously. It's only theory though and Rheggers is happily sipping claret, as we speak (or perhaps nobody is speaking anymore ;) )He was alive and definitely not an inanimate object. Rheghead is the resurrection and he is the light.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
21-Mar-09, 01:39
He was alive and definitely not an inanimate object. Rheghead is the resurrection and he is the light.
I'm glad you mentioned the quote"resurrection and he is the light."Because if you ask anybody circa 1990 where this quote was from I bet you the majority would say "was it not a lyric from the Stone Roses",rather than"oh yes it was from the bible".Thats evolution for you.
Oh yes and and for you Stone Roses Fans and Complete Stone Roses fans the lyrics are"I am the resurrection and I am the light".TBH you should know better.
Wonder how the Complete Stone Roses got on the night at the Assembly Rooms in Wick.I sadly missed it talkin aboot the universe.:lol::lol:
I'm glad you mentioned the quote"resurrection and he is the light."Because if you ask anybody circa 1990 where this quote was from I bet you the majority would say "was it not a lyric from the Stone Roses",rather than"oh yes it was from the bible".Thats evolution for you.
Oh yes and and for you Stone Roses Fans and Complete Stone Roses fans the lyrics are"I am the resurrection and I am the light".TBH you should know better.
Wonder how the Complete Stone Roses got on the night at the Assembly Rooms in Wick.I sadly missed it talkin aboot the universe.:lol::lol:I thought I had better state that, "He is the resurrection," just to be grammatically correct.
The stone roses were Britains best kept secret and should have been superstars.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
21-Mar-09, 01:56
I thought I had better state that, "He is the resurrection," just to be grammatically correct.
The stone roses were Britains best kept secret and should have been superstars.
Should have been superstars?They are Superstars.Well in the universe anyway.They have a tribute band,that means superstars.When did you last hear of a band "Jesus and the Desciples"or "God,God I wish I had!!!"Evolution progresses through the generations.Folk think evolution is a physical development in the structure.In my opinion,evolution is a progress in human nature and animal nature.A human has evolved through this and grabbed it.A giraffe is still eating leaves from a tree,like it did before.When was the last time you saw a giraffe with a MP3 player.
So from my post of before is there a planet billions of light years away where the giraffe is looking at his shares and the human is eating the leaves of the trees.
PS Apologies to the giraffes,ye were the first animal that came to my head.
Should have been superstars?They are Superstars.Well in the universe anyway.They have a tribute band,that means superstars.When did you last hear of a band "Jesus and the Desciples"or "God,God I wish I had!!!"Evolution progresses through the generations.Folk think evolution is a physical development in the structure.In my opinion,evolution is a progress in human nature and animal nature.A human has evolved through this and grabbed it.A giraffe is still eating leaves from a tree,like it did before.When was the last time you saw a giraffe with a MP3 player.
So from my post of before is there a planet billions of light years away where the giraffe is looking at his shares and the human is eating the leaves of the trees.
PS Apologies to the giraffes,ye were the first animal that came to my head.
There are probably Giraffes checking the Financial times apparently they have a neck for anything but soap and water.
Should have been superstars?They are Superstars.Well in the universe anyway.They have a tribute band,that means superstars.When did you last hear of a band "Jesus and the Desciples"or "God,God I wish I had!!!"Evolution progresses through the generations.Folk think evolution is a physical development in the structure.In my opinion,evolution is a progress in human nature and animal nature.A human has evolved through this and grabbed it.A giraffe is still eating leaves from a tree,like it did before.When was the last time you saw a giraffe with a MP3 player.
So from my post of before is there a planet billions of light years away where the giraffe is looking at his shares and the human is eating the leaves of the trees.
PS Apologies to the giraffes,ye were the first animal that came to my head.
Aha so you admit that you think giraffes can read the Org forum!!!
Surely you mean your creator? :eek:I don't want to leave anyone out.
Melancholy Man
22-Mar-09, 01:35
Here (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2007/12/galloway-comes.html) is George Galloway on Creationism:
“I was looking at my little six month old baby today beginning to take his first steps crawling across the hall of the Methodist Central Hall today, and it doesn’t look like an accident to me. He doesn’t look like an accident of evolutionary chance to me. I’m not really prepared to believe that from the bottom-dwelling slugs of the pond came the voice of Pavarotti. I’m not really prepared to believe that Albert Einstein and a spider are really the same thing, that they just took a different evolutionary path.”
I can sympathize with this. To look at the beauty which is a human baby, smiling up at you, how difficult it must be to imagine it had emerged from a bottom-feeding slug in as little as one generation.
I can sympathize with this. To look at the beauty which is a human baby, smiling up at you, how difficult it must be to imagine it had emerged from a bottom-feeding slug in as little as one generation.
Not quite in one generation, I bet even Galloway's baby still squirmed around and made gurgling noises.
A grain of sand isn't dead as it is the main ingredient to the creation of a sandcastle.To create something you must be alive.Someone created the sand-castle, Cedric. They were alive when they did it.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
23-Mar-09, 23:47
Someone created the sand-castle, Cedric. They were alive when they did it.
Ah TBH,but what if the wind blew the sand into a mound.This might not be a castle made from a bucket.Its still a sandcastle.Is the wind alive,is the sand.What about a whirlpool in the sea,this is wind with water making a powerful force.Both would seem to be classed as not alive.The Universe is a funny place,I think the vacuum of space has nothing.You take a bottle in a science class and drain all the air out of it until it is a vacuum.No air no nothing.Put a seal on the bottle and gradually over time,molecules,atoms get into the bottle and the seal is suddenly released from the bottle.An outside force,going away from the bottle,in universal terms this means God or something more powerful than we could possibly imagine.
Ah TBH,but what if the wind blew the sand into a mound.This might not be a castle made from a bucket.Its still a sandcastle.Is the wind alive,is the sand.What about a whirlpool in the sea,this is wind with water making a powerful force.Both would seem to be classed as not alive.The Universe is a funny place,I think the vacuum of space has nothing.You take a bottle in a science class and drain all the air out of it until it is a vacuum.No air no nothing.Put a seal on the bottle and gradually over time,molecules,atoms get into the bottle and the seal is suddenly released from the bottle.An outside force,going away from the bottle,in universal terms this means God or something more powerful than we could possibly imagine.
The odds would be great but it is possible that the wind could create something resembling a castle but it wouldn't be through intelligent design.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
24-Mar-09, 00:13
The odds would be great but it is possible that the wind could create something resembling a castle but it wouldn't be through intelligent design.
A sand dune is a sandcastle,it might not be created and designed as we would as kids from a bucket but two powers made it.Darwin writes through natural selection that species will survive and others will not.To be created you live,its up to that species to survive.
Lets put it this way,both me and you are born and live in boiling hot water.One day you decide to leave because ye cannot be bothered with the heat,I decide to stay cos I like the spa.Four guys go with you and four guys stay in the spa with me.Now instead of 10 guys living in boiling water we now have five in and five out.Take this over millions of years,with different natural instincts and different experiences thats a lot of species.With non alive powers involved as well.What a Universe.
A sand dune is a sandcastle,it might not be created and designed as we would as kids from a bucket but two powers made it.Darwin writes through natural selection that species will survive and others will not.To be created you live,its up to that species to survive.
Lets put it this way,both me and you are born and live in boiling hot water.One day you decide to leave because ye cannot be bothered with the heat,I decide to stay cos I like the spa.Four guys go with you and four guys stay in the spa with me.Now instead of 10 guys living in boiling water we now have five in and five out.Take this over millions of years,with different natural instincts and different experiences thats a lot of species.With non alive powers involved as well.What a Universe.Providing that you nor I are female then both sets in your example would die out because they couldn't procreate.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
24-Mar-09, 00:59
Providing that you nor I are female then both sets in your example would die out because they couldn't procreate.
When I say guys it means a group of pals,male or female.Sometimes if I'm rebelious I say folks.Darwin is right with his origin of the species,in my eyes.What else could it be?
Jesus was a brave man,a man before his time.He spoke of a world that he felt that would be best to take the world forward.What did they do,they killed him. Darwin did the same he spoke his true views and put down what he thought,he was totally ridiculed for these views.
They both have a couple of things in common.That there was a group of folk who believed in what they heard,also that their both remembered to this day.
They both have a couple of things in common.That there was a group of folk who believed in what they heard,also that their both remembered to this day.
Hmmm! Now one is definitely remembered but I feel the jury may be out on the other. :confused
Cedric Farthsbottom III
24-Mar-09, 01:14
Hmmm! Now one is definitely remembered but I feel the jury may be out on the other. :confused
Exactly wifie and thats why the discussion has no answer.But I know Darwin is remembered,don't be so hard on Jesus with the jury though after all he did say"Forgive them Father,for they don't have a scooby wit their doin"
Here (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2007/12/galloway-comes.html) is George Galloway on Creationism:
“I was looking at my little six month old baby today beginning to take his first steps crawling across the hall of the Methodist Central Hall today, and it doesn’t look like an accident to me. He doesn’t look like an accident of evolutionary chance to me. I’m not really prepared to believe that from the bottom-dwelling slugs of the pond came the voice of Pavarotti. I’m not really prepared to believe that Albert Einstein and a spider are really the same thing, that they just took a different evolutionary path.”
I can sympathize with this. To look at the beauty which is a human baby, smiling up at you, how difficult it must be to imagine it had emerged from a bottom-feeding slug in as little as one generation.
I hope GG understands politics better than he understands evolution but I have my doubts. [disgust]
To be fair to George Galloway he is a commited Christian who condemns creationists and would probably agree with Canucks earlier post on the compatability of God and evolution.
To be fair to George Galloway he is a commited Christian who condemns creationists and would probably agree with Canucks earlier post on the compatability of God and evolution.
That's not the impression I got by reading some of the links above. I don't think he understands evolution. Most people don't, why should he be different from most people?
That's not the impression I got by reading some of the links above. I don't think he understands evolution. Most people don't, why should he be different from most people?
He's no different from most most evolutionists. They don't understand why they believe what they do either.
That's not the impression I got by reading some of the links above. I don't think he understands evolution. Most people don't, why should he be different from most people?
Do we need to understand evolution to believe it. Is it not enough that we have high priests of science who will pass the message down to those of us who have to work for a living and if necessary they can stand their ground with the evidence and argument they have created. George Galoway probably believes that God created the universe and evolution by natural selection is the mechanics of our natural world. Much less dangerous idea than a 10,000 year old world.
Do we need to understand evolution to believe it. Is it not enough that we have high priests of science who will pass the message down to those of us who have to work for a living and if necessary they can stand their ground with the evidence and argument they have created. George Galoway probably believes that God created the universe and evolution by natural selection is the mechanics of our natural world. Much less dangerous idea than a 10,000 year old world.I reckon you would have to understand it to believe it.
A scientist waves his arm at his massive lab of sophisticated equipment and says to God, "Human intelligence is now so great and our understanding of science so comprehensive that I, too, can create life."
Unimpressed, God reaches down, takes a lump of dirt, breathes on it, and transforms it into a butterfly that flutters from his hand.
"That's nothing!" brags the scientist. "I too can make a butterfly!" He reaches down to get a piece of dirt.
"Hold it right there," God says. "Make your own dirt."[lol]
I reckon you would have to understand it to believe it.
[lol]
I dont need to understand it any more than I understand some of the stuff that flows through my head. That being said I understand it enough to believe it.
I would be more inclined to suggest that those who dont believe it.........dont undersatand it. [lol]
I dont need to understand it any more than I understand some of the stuff that flows through my head. That being said I understand it enough to believe it.
I would be more inclined to suggest that those who dont believe it.........dont undersatand it. [lol]So evolution has become another religion.
I dont need to understand it any more than I understand some of the stuff that flows through my head. That being said I understand it enough to believe it.
I would be more inclined to suggest that those who dont believe it.........dont undersatand it. [lol]
Aha! So in effect you are sayin you need to understand it (well at least what they are sayin) to believe it! :cool:
Aha! So in effect you are sayin you need to understand it (well at least what they are sayin) to believe it! :cool:Damn, I missed that. Shame on you gleeber.:lol:
Of course it's a religion. Science is just a way of understanding the world. Thats all religion is. Thousands of years ago early man was full of superstition more so than even today. Understanding his environment has always been a driving force.
Science evolved as a more logical way of understandiong the universe so i wouldnt have a problem with calling science my religion. Theres no worshipping involved though unless your a scientist with a big head.
He's no different from most most evolutionists. They don't understand why they believe what they do either.
Explain please ?
Aha! So in effect you are sayin you need to understand it (well at least what they are sayin) to believe it! :cool:
I said I dont need to understand it but most people could get a grasp of the bare essentials without undertanding the nitty gritty. hope that helps your confusion. Theres nothing worse than talking to superstitious people about non superstitious things. They need it to be superstitious to understand it or to be more correct not understand it.
God works in mysterious ways eh? [lol]
I said I dont need to understand it but most people could get a grasp of the bare essentials without undertanding the nitty gritty. hope that helps your confusion. Theres nothing worse than talking to superstitious people about non superstitious things. They need it to be superstitious to understand it or to be more correct not understand it.
God works in mysterious ways eh? [lol]
Emm - you said "That being said I understand it enough to believe it." :)
He's no different from most most evolutionists. They don't understand why they believe what they do either.
Aye, that's a cracker Moira lol
Aye, that's a cracker Moira lolI'm not Moira?:eek:[lol]
Melancholy Man
25-Mar-09, 01:42
Can I blow my own trumpet and point people back to my earlier comments, instead of their pseudo-hippy we-are-all-one-sentient-sandcastle twaddle?
Explain please ?What do you need explaining?[lol]
I'm not Moira?:eek:[lol]
Correct TBH. I am Moira. Now go answer the question.
Correct TBH. I am Moira. Now go answer the question.You made a request, you didn't ask a question.
Aye, that's a cracker Moira lol
It's a cracker, sure enough. The great TBH answers a question with another question. :lol:
It's a cracker, sure enough. The great TBH answers a question with another question. :lol:
You didn't ask a question and I didn't make any claims to be great. Where did you pull that one from?
Finding empathy with Gleeber wont do you any good unless you are unsure of yourself and you need support.
Can I blow my own trumpet and point people back to my earlier comments, instead of their pseudo-hippy we-are-all-one-sentient-sandcastle twaddle?Are you calling Cedric a "Pseudo-Hippy?"
Melancholy Man
25-Mar-09, 02:19
Yes, T.B.H.
I hope GG understands politics better than he understands evolution but I have my doubts. [disgust]
He understands politics exceptionally well. It's just a shame he doesn't appear to understand that it's the done thing to give audit books to investigators.
To be fair to George Galloway
No, let's not.
he is a commited Christian who condemns creationists and would probably agree with Canucks earlier post on the compatability of God and evolution.
Oh, I'll remember that when he next drops hints about being a Muslim. He comes from a highly socially conservative Dundee Catholic background ("I've never met a gay Arab"), but that's not to same as being a committed Christian.
The quotation I gave was, probably, due more to his attempting to curry favour with the even more socially conservative sections of Bengali society which make up his current voting base..
Yes, T.B.H.
How do you know he is not a bona fide Hippy?
Melancholy Man
25-Mar-09, 02:28
He wouldn't be using the corporate Internet if he were, and certainly wouldn't be coming out with this half-baked sandcastles-of-intelligence stuff.
He wouldn't be using the corporate Internet if he were, and certainly wouldn't be coming out with this half-baked sandcastles-of-intelligence stuff.So he's a sell out. Many hippies are.[lol]
Melancholy Man
25-Mar-09, 02:34
So he's a sell out. Many hippies are.[lol]
It's usually the only type of hippy; pursuit of their own gratification when they were young and others paying their way, and pulling up the rope-ladder as they grew older and wished to remain in the comfort to which they'd grown accustomed.
It's usually the only type of hippy; pursuit of their own gratification when they were young and others paying their way, and pulling up the rope-ladder as they grew older and wished to remain in the comfort to which they'd grown accustomed.Hasn't that always been a proclivity of the young.
Melancholy Man
25-Mar-09, 19:43
No, it's specifically the people who claimed to be hippies 40-odd years ago. It's noteworthy how many of them became right-wing plutocrats as soon as they started accruing personal wealth and commodities instead of sharing the love with others. And don't get me started on those who marched under the same banners as Ho Chi Minh.
Anyone would think there was a fundamental streak of selfishness running throw the flower-power mob.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
25-Mar-09, 21:00
No, it's specifically the people who claimed to be hippies 40-odd years ago. It's noteworthy how many of them became right-wing plutocrats as soon as they started accruing personal wealth and commodities instead of sharing the love with others. And don't get me started on those who marched under the same banners as Ho Chi Minh.
Anyone would think there was a fundamental streak of selfishness running throw the flower-power mob.
Ye call me a 40-odd year old pseudo hippy.How wrong?I spent my years growing up listening to different ideas.The sandcastle "twaddle" was in reply to a question in a post in this thread "is sand alive".I am too young to be a flower power hippy,I am also too young to be a child from the flower power era.
Darwin is right,in my eyes,because I can understand what he saw in his investigation of our planet.I like his ideas.I would never be so naive to underestimate a persons belief and faith in God.
Do we need to understand evolution to believe it. Is it not enough that we have high priests of science who will pass the message down to those of us who have to work for a living and if necessary they can stand their ground with the evidence and argument they have created. George Galoway probably believes that God created the universe and evolution by natural selection is the mechanics of our natural world. Much less dangerous idea than a 10,000 year old world.You don't need to understand evolution to believe it but if you want to be taken seriously you need to understand it before announcing in public that you don't believe it.
Based on what GG is alleged to have said I suspect he doesn't understand evolution.
I dont need to understand it any more than I understand some of the stuff that flows through my head. That being said I understand it enough to believe it.
I would be more inclined to suggest that those who dont believe it.........dont undersatand it. [lol]Yes and most of the posters on this thread haven't shown they know or understand much about it.
He understands politics exceptionally well. It's just a shame he doesn't appear to understand that it's the done thing to give audit books to investigators.I could probably work it out myself but what prompted your comment about audit books?
He understands gesture politics very well but he'll never change what he could have changed in politics if he wasn't so self-centred and demanding of attention and in that sense he's a failure. He has a silvery tongue and a big gob.
Welcomefamily
26-Mar-09, 23:22
Professors of what?
If by definition, evolution is a succession of small advantageous mutations creating different species over an exceedingly long time, so if we find one missing link then we must create another two missing links either side of the one that was found in the first place.
Sorry for delay in response but my own research comes before any enjoyable pasttime. To start with, http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#4) A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/
Welcomefamily
26-Mar-09, 23:54
Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that the argurement is between Darwin and Creationism which is a very false belief, there are many other arguements that are not God lead that do not believe in Darwins theory of evolution.David Moyles book Neither Darwin nor Genesis, a new paradigm for Creation and Evolution is another view. However modern genetic evidence does suggest modern man is outside the range of mitochondrial DNA of Neandertal.
Schmitz et al. (2002) reported on a fourth Neandertal mtDNA sequence from the second Neandertal fossil found at Feldhofer, the site in Germany at which the first Neandertal fossil was found. It was closely related to the previous Neandertal mtDNA sequences.
Serre et al. (2004) were able to sequence mtDNA from four other Neandertal fossils, along with mtDNA from five early modern humans. The four Neandertals all had mtDNA similar to those found in the previous Neandertals. Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. Interestingly, the mtDNA sequences from the Vindija Neandertals, which have a less extreme Neandertal anatomy than the classic Neandertals, and are considered transitional between modern humans and classic Neandertals by some scientists, were no closer to modern humans than the rest of the Neandertal fossils.
As of 2008, 17 mtDNA sequences have been extracted from Neandertal fossils (Green et al. 2008). All these sequences support the conclusion that Neandertal mtDNA is outside the range of modern human mtDNA, and strongly indicate that Neandertals made no lasting contribution to the human mtDNA gene pool.
Professor Luman Wing who did his PhD at Aberdeen in Biomolecules and Biotechnology would lead a school suggesting the complexity of the DNA would also support a uniqueness of the human race as a species, he states that Darwins study of finches shows adaption but does not create new species.
It is important that we recognise this uniqueness of man after all DNA studies have made huge impacts in all areas of medicine. Why have monkeys not learnt to read yet? if evolution is correct mankind has developed that benefit, why not monkeys. They were around when these so called no genetic relatives of ours were around and at that time we could not read.
Welcomefamily
27-Mar-09, 00:20
http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/misc/eve.html
An interesting article which shows S Dawkins explanation on the genetic Eve, our common descendant, however the important bit is the statement at the end of it, which states that the concept of Eve is not in dispute, its only the time scale. Modern studies has brought it down to under 200,000 years.
It is the lack of evidence for humans of our type before Eve that questions evolution.
Why have monkeys not learnt to read yet?
Because they are banned from the library. [lol]
Sorry for delay in response but my own research comes before any enjoyable pasttime. To start with, http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#4) A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/
Oh OK, thanks for that. I've seen the light, I'm a believer now.
Green_not_greed
27-Mar-09, 13:54
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#4) A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/
I see the first ICR "scientist" listed is Steve Austin, PhD. I always wondered what happened to him after 6 million dollar man.....
Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that the argurement is between Darwin and Creationism which is a very false belief, there are many other arguements that are not God lead that do not believe in Darwins theory of evolution.David Moyles book Neither Darwin nor Genesis, a new paradigm for Creation and Evolution is another view. However modern genetic evidence does suggest modern man is outside the range of mitochondrial DNA of Neandertal.
Schmitz et al. (2002) reported on a fourth Neandertal mtDNA sequence from the second Neandertal fossil found at Feldhofer, the site in Germany at which the first Neandertal fossil was found. It was closely related to the previous Neandertal mtDNA sequences.
Serre et al. (2004) were able to sequence mtDNA from four other Neandertal fossils, along with mtDNA from five early modern humans. The four Neandertals all had mtDNA similar to those found in the previous Neandertals. Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. Interestingly, the mtDNA sequences from the Vindija Neandertals, which have a less extreme Neandertal anatomy than the classic Neandertals, and are considered transitional between modern humans and classic Neandertals by some scientists, were no closer to modern humans than the rest of the Neandertal fossils.
As of 2008, 17 mtDNA sequences have been extracted from Neandertal fossils (Green et al. 2008). All these sequences support the conclusion that Neandertal mtDNA is outside the range of modern human mtDNA, and strongly indicate that Neandertals made no lasting contribution to the human mtDNA gene pool.
Professor Luman Wing who did his PhD at Aberdeen in Biomolecules and Biotechnology would lead a school suggesting the complexity of the DNA would also support a uniqueness of the human race as a species, he states that Darwins study of finches shows adaption but does not create new species.
It is important that we recognise this uniqueness of man after all DNA studies have made huge impacts in all areas of medicine. Why have monkeys not learnt to read yet? if evolution is correct mankind has developed that benefit, why not monkeys. They were around when these so called no genetic relatives of ours were around and at that time we could not read.Are you saying that neandertals were a different species?
Welcomefamily
27-Mar-09, 23:30
Modern DNA testing methods are being developed all the time, a few weeks ago some one was convicted on DNA evidence on a crime of 20 years ago. The method being used has only recently been available, DNA is taking major strides in illness prevention as we learn much more about it.
In response to your question TBH, I am not but a very well know group of scientist are, and I would certainly have to agree with them.
The question of Eve can only be disputed by casting doubt on the methods used to make quite major medical breakthrough in Bio Engineering.
Many creation web site will publish lists of scientist who disagree with Darwin they will also put a disclaimer that these scientist have not suggest that GOD was the cause of creation.
Im curious Rheghead what aspects of ape behaviour do you find in your genes?
it reminds me of once spending many weeks in a hot steamy jungle studying them in my Darwin days as a biologist before moving into micro dimensions, I remember how difficult traces these tagged apes, they are so fast through the trees and even with Land Rover following them was difficult. Bearing in mind that prior to the start of the 18 Century large areas of wood land were found through out much of Europe and considering that we were according to Darwin direct decendants of these apes, I found it suprising that the benefits of fast escape throught the trees cant be seen as a biological enhancement and us humans would have longer arms.
Modern DNA testing methods are being developed all the time, a few weeks ago some one was convicted on DNA evidence on a crime of 20 years ago. The method being used has only recently been available, DNA is taking major strides in illness prevention as we learn much more about it.
In response to your question TBH, I am not but a very well know group of scientist are, and I would certainly have to agree with them.
The question of Eve can only be disputed by casting doubt on the methods used to make quite major medical breakthrough in Bio Engineering.
Many creation web site will publish lists of scientist who disagree with Darwin they will also put a disclaimer that these scientist have not suggest that GOD was the cause of creation.
Im curious Rheghead what aspects of ape behaviour do you find in your genes?
it reminds me of once spending many weeks in a hot steamy jungle studying them in my Darwin days as a biologist before moving into micro dimensions, I remember how difficult traces these tagged apes, they are so fast through the trees and even with Land Rover following them was difficult. Bearing in mind that prior to the start of the 18 Century large areas of wood land were found through out much of Europe and considering that we were according to Darwin direct decendants of these apes, I found it suprising that the benefits of fast escape throught the trees cant be seen as a biological enhancement and us humans would have longer arms.You say that you are not suggesting that Neandertals were not a species of humanity then you say that certain scientists do and you agree with them?
Welcomefamily
27-Mar-09, 23:58
I personally did not do the research so I can not make that scientific claim, however it is a claim I would agree with.
What the scientists have said is that there is no direct DNA link between modern man and Neandertals.
For this to happen it means that Neandertal is a different species that died out.
You could now question where did we come from or what caused this changed in DNA.
I think its been suggested that Mars could have substained life?
Man has incredible adaption skills, he finds ways of adapting to extreme cold or extreme heat, he can go to great heights and into the depths of the oceans. Yet polar bears have problems with melting ice, many other animals have become extinct, why are we so different, why has nothing else evolved? Bacteria adapt to many different types of environment or immune systems but they are still bacteria, they have not developed arms and legs.
I personally did not do the research so I can not make that scientific claim, however it is a claim I would agree with.
What the scientists have said is that there is no direct DNA link between modern man and Neandertals.
For this to happen it means that Neandertal is a different species that died out.
You could now question where did we come from or what caused this changed in DNA.
I think its been suggested that Mars could have substained life?
Man has incredible adaption skills, he finds ways of adapting to extreme cold or extreme heat, he can go to great heights and into the depths of the oceans. Yet polar bears have problems with melting ice, many other animals have become extinct, why are we so different, why has nothing else evolved? Bacteria adapt to many different types of environment or immune systems but they are still bacteria, they have not developed arms and legs.Maybe you didn't do the research but you do agree with them so what changed your mind?
How do you mean they died out, couldn't they have just been absorbed into greater humanity?
Welcomefamily
28-Mar-09, 13:00
There are two types of DNA,the first is Nuclear DNA which is seen as two strings of DNA in our Cell nuclus and it is obtained from both parents at conception, in other words when we reproduce our DNA is split into two and the two half from each parent produce the new DNA copies.It controls our physical make up.
For example: in easy terms, one brown eyed parent has (brown eye 60%, blue eye 40%) and another blue eyed parent has (brown eye 35%, blue eye 65%),
These measurement will be in the form of chemical signals or graidents at conception, the offspring in this case will have blue eyes as the two measurements are added together and divided by two, so this offspring has (brown eye 47.5%, blue eye 52.5%)
However the other type is mitochondrial DNA used in forensic work, this is found in the many 100s or 1000 mitochondrial found in the cell which also contains its nucleus. This type of DNA comes only from the mothers egg and is passed to all offspring, however only daughters can pass this on.
This allows the mother of a daughter to be identified as well as her grandmother and so on. This type of DNA has very little diversity over generations by mutation perhaps 2 in a code of many thousands sequences, using this method all current DNA can be traced back to one common mother called Eve who is believed to have lived in Africa many thousands of years ago, (100K to 200K)
However these sequence code are not found in Neandertal so there can be no link between us and Neandertal.
However perhaps the biggest new challenge to Darwins theory is the mutation rate which in order for Darwins theory to be correct, many millions of mutations would have to take place.
One estimate I have seen suggests the earth would have to be many millions of times its age for it to be correct.
Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that the argurement is between Darwin and Creationism which is a very false belief, there are many other arguements that are not God lead that do not believe in Darwins theory of evolution.David Moyles book Neither Darwin nor Genesis, a new paradigm for Creation and Evolution is another view.
That is absolutely priceless. Thank you for the information. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.