Has anyone else considered that it's not terrorism

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I have done some research involving my arguement of creation over evolution.

Rob, if that's true, I'm really, really glad. Thanks for making the time.

 

I'll explain the evolution of symbiosis now.

 

these two "species" would have needed to evolve at the smae time in order to survive

Why? Symbiotic species can themselves be an evolutionary pressure on each other. Think of it this way: once upon a time, species A was more likely to survive in conjunction with species B. If B also derives benefit from its cohabitation with A, those specimens of B which provide more benefit to A will be more likely to survive. Equally, if A is deriving benefit from the relationship, the greater the benefit derived, the greater its chances of survival. Any behaviour which benefits an organism by definition makes it more likely to survive, and therefore the species as a whole (barring a change in environment) is likely to acquire those characteristics.

This is a process which destroys its mistakes without mercy and preserves its successes. The fallacious argument against symbiosis is a parallel to the "half an organ" fallacy - since evolution is not directed in any way, all structures have some use. Thus the frog's skin which functions as "half" a lung. Thus the flying snake's flattened ribcage and the flaps of skin on flying squirrels - both structures are "half" a wing. They aren't as good as a wing, but they're better than nothing. You remember the pinhole cameras in photography classes? That's how a nautilus's eye works. It isn't an eye, but it's good enough. Even a patch of light-sensitive cells is better than nothing at all and it provides an advantage to the organism. Over time successive mutations and recombinations continue to improve on the original.

 

You see, weaknesses and dependencies can evolve in the same way as strengths because evolution has no concept of "better" or "worse" changes - just changes which help an organism to survive and changes which don't. Everything else is irrelevant. We're weaker, much weaker, than primitive humans were - in terms of muscle mass. But as intelligence and cooperation became more important for survival than sheer brute strength, the evolutionary process ceased to select for muscle mass and thick bone ridges. It just didn't make a difference anymore. Brain capacity was more important. So now we have relatively fragile skulls and straight foreheads - and really, really big heads. That's why childbirth is so painful. Hip structure has remained the same (because women usually die in childbirth because of infection rather than simple strain) while our skulls have grown.

 

Interdependencies form in exactly the same way. Benefits accrue, and whatever weaknesses are compensated for by the symbiote cease to become evolutionary pressures. So, over time, the plover and the crocodile become more and more well-adapated to each other's needs. Countless other examples exist - the pollen-carrying bees you cited, and hummingbirds, which do the same thing, the bacteria which digest cows' food for them, the liver fluke which goes through its life cycle in three different creatures... in fact we can see in the last example how one stage influences the next stage; the highly complex cycle clearly evolved bit by bit. If it had been created that way it simply wouldn't be necessary for it to go through an intermediary stage in order to infect its final host. Symbiosis is in fact one of the strongest arguments for evolution, not against it.

 

I hope that cleared things up.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Mutation happens. In any biology class you learn about how gene sequences are shuffled through reproduction. The reproduction process is NOT perfect in that it never produces a perfect copy by natural means. I say natural since cloning is now possible. Mutation can be as small a difference as different eye color from the parent or as large as an extra arm or leg. The same basic four nucleotides dictate everything, so variation can be great or small. There is an equation that was figured out to be able to stop evolution entirely, but it will never work because mutation needs to be taken out, and that will never happen, because, by natural means, the switching over of genes will never be stopped.

 

And Science IS Reason. Any of these perfections you may think of(which are all discounted by entropy) just haven't been explained yet.

 

Kotzenjunge

Likes How the First Law of Thermodynamics Discounts Almost Anything

 

EDIT: Marney just put it best, leave my sleep-deprived version out of this.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Let's think of this more as science vs. reason.

You're slipping back into your bad old ways here. Please don't do that. If you're interested in learning I'll be happy to explain anything that you're having problems with, but I won't countenance a statement like this. Science is reason. Faith is not. You've said that yourself. So kindly don't imply now that you are working through logic.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Although I thank you for trying to answer my question, I still can't believe it. It's way to perfect a situation. I will continue to research this to get more examples. Thanks anyway

 

--Rob

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Um, dude, you can research until you're blue in the face. The only thing that will support you is perhaps an extremely backwards Amish publication. Even the Church admits pretty much everything that science has found as truth.

 

Kotzenjunge

Liked that it Took the Church Some 450 Years to Admit Copernicus Was Right

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I would eb an ignorant man to flush my beliefs down the toilet because some people on an internet message board told me I was wrong. I continue will research this until I find rock hard proof of one side vs. the other.

 

--Rob

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'm not saying we're telling you you're wrong and to accept us as absolute. I'm just saying you won't find much support anywhere you look. Don't try the old "just a messageboard" excuse when you're wrong. The only side you'll ever find rock solid proof of anything from is Science, also known as reason, also known as logic.

 

Kotzenjunge

Is Laughing Equally Hard at Rob and Mr. Bean Right Now

[Guest Cancer Marney]

will research this until I find rock hard proof of one side vs. the other.

 

You won't, because it's a false dichotomy. Even the Pope said that evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be "more than a theory." The only thing with which he takes issue is the idea of an evolution of the soul, and science says nothing, nothing at all about the soul. Really, I can't imagine what you hope to find.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

You won't, because it's a false dichotomy. Even the Pope said that evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be "more than a theory." The only thing with which he takes issue is the idea of an evolution of the soul, and science says nothing, nothing at all about the soul.

You know, I could care less what the pope thinks. I am not roman catholic but christian. It starts along the same lines but I believe catholics go about it the wrong way. Christians do not acknowledge the pope, atleast not the ones of which I have been around. I am not going to bash the catholic religion so I will just leave it at that.

 

--Rob

[Guest Cancer Marney]

This is exactly the problem. You aren't looking for answers, you're looking for confirmation of your previously held beliefs. Anytime anyone says anything which confirms evolution, you dismiss it. But every stupid, illogical, dishonest "proof" of creationism you find you embrace.

Believe what you want to believe. I'm done trying to be nice.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Dammit man, the idea behind using the Pope as an example is showing that even the most stubborn of the churches admits it as truth. When the Church admits something, it's usually after everyone else on the planet has.

 

Kotzenjunge

Likes Attempts to Divert Heat from Idiots

[Guest MrRant]

You won't, because it's a false dichotomy. Even the Pope said that evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be "more than a theory." The only thing with which he takes issue is the idea of an evolution of the soul, and science says nothing, nothing at all about the soul.

You know, I could care less what the pope thinks. I am not roman catholic but christian. It starts along the same lines but I believe catholics go about it the wrong way. Christians do not acknowledge the pope, atleast not the ones of which I have been around. I am not going to bash the catholic religion so I will just leave it at that.

 

--Rob

Well my mind isn't quite large enought to process that statement. My mind wants to make sense of it... but can't... hurts to much.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It's not "too perfect" when you take into account those organisms have been evolving towards that position for millions of years. Well, 6000 in your case, but anyway...

 

Large fish and whales have the same sort of relationship with remoras. The remora scavenges what the large creature leaves behind, and picks parasites off of the host's body.

 

The remora gets food and an easier mode of transportation, The shark or manta ray stays parasite-free.

 

Both species depend on each other for survival. If the shark weren't there, the remora would be forced to hunt on its own, which would mean examples more adept for hunting would live longer, thus giving them more of a chance to reproduce, passing on those similar successful traits to the next generation, as opposed to the now obsolete scavenger traits, until eventually they wouldn't be scavengers anymore, since there'd be nothing to scavenge. You're assuming these animals develop at exactly the same time, which isn't necessarily true. Crocodiles are much, MUCH older as a species than the plover. Same with sharks and remoras. Here's an example of a remora if you've never seen one: Picture of remoras and manta rays

[Guest Downhome]

The man is a good christian and if you read the bible it disproves evolution.

i just got done reading the bible five minutes ago. where were the dinosaurs, dude?

Dinosaurs are described in vast detail in the book of Job. They are spoken about, as if they existed in a time before that which was Adam and Eve. Yeah folks, the "seven days" was a LOT more than just "seven" days. So in theory, it was indeed a type of biblical evolution so to speak.

[Guest Downhome]

Also, the Bible speaks of more than one "Earth Age". The Bible only, however, deals with the Human existance on Earth, because the point of the book in the first place is to teach us about our past as a people, and to teach us about God and his love, and where OUR world is going.

 

Not many, if any mainstream, Christians teach anything like this, but it is true. So it's very much possible, and likely, that animals and the such did evolve, the Bible says so basicly. As for humans, I do believe that God just "created" us right then and there, in his image.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Here proof there was a flood and here is how the bible made such story as Noah's arch.

 

6000 years ago(gasp, that number) the black sea was a small fresh water lake. The small strip of land in front of Troy(city by the connector of the Med sea and the Blacksea) ripped a part by Contential shift. This allowed all the salt water from the Med sea flood the black sea. Made it the size it is today. Basiclly growning double in size.

 

5000 years ago The Fertal cressent has illregular floods(still does in modern day Iraq). Each time of the floods there are stories of this BIG one by the black sea. As time goes on, these stories come more weirder and absound. Thus making them a fairy tail.

 

4000 years ago. The Epic of Gilgamesh is written. with Gilgamesh building an arch and only allowing 2 of each animal known to man with his Suns and their wives. 6 days and 6 nights of rain. And then after 7 days a dove is let go to found land.(kinda eire isn't it?)

 

3000 years ago, they start writing the bible. You can tell the older parts of the bible by God being called Yahweh. Then if you see El, that is the second oldest parts of the bible.

 

2500 they have bible "editors" finalize the bible. Which is made up of scrolls just pieced to gether at will if they had anything close to what others around it said. It was completed in the post exile peroid.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Here is how you disprove the 7 day theroy.

Day one God builds heavens and earth:

Day two(I beileve) God builds sun:

 

Well, we count a day in its most pureist form as Sun up one day to Sun up the next. With no sun to come out. The earth could of have a 23 hour day, a 25 hour day, Hell it could have been 5 million years. Oh fuck it, 5.2 billion years. No sun to disprove time.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Are you serious? I really hope not. I'm talking about the both of you.

 

Kotzenjunge

Wonders if All Science is in Vain

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

You know, I could care less what the pope thinks. I am not roman catholic but christian. It starts along the same lines but I believe catholics go about it the wrong way. Christians do not acknowledge the pope, atleast not the ones of which I have been around. I am not going to bash the catholic religion so I will just leave it at that.

 

--Rob

 

Christian could mean anything. Catholics are Christian. What are you? Eastern Orthodox? Lutheran? Anglican? Mormon? Baptist? Other?

[Guest Midnight Express83]

My story his historical facts. Not just bullshit ramblings.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Here proof there was a flood and here is how the bible made such story as Noah's arch.

 

6000 years ago(gasp, that number) the black sea was a small fresh water lake. The small strip of land in front of Troy(city by the connector of the Med sea and the Blacksea) ripped a part by Contential shift. This allowed all the salt water from the Med sea flood the black sea. Made it the size it is today. Basiclly growning double in size.

 

5000 years ago The Fertal cressent has illregular floods(still does in modern day Iraq). Each time of the floods there are stories of this BIG one by the black sea. As time goes on, these stories come more weirder and absound. Thus making them a fairy tail.

 

4000 years ago. The Epic of Gilgamesh is written. with Gilgamesh building an arch and only allowing 2 of each animal known to man with his Suns and their wives. 6 days and 6 nights of rain. And then after 7 days a dove is let go to found land.(kinda eire isn't it?)

 

3000 years ago, they start writing the bible. You can tell the older parts of the bible by God being called Yahweh. Then if you see El, that is the second oldest parts of the bible.

 

2500 they have bible "editors" finalize the bible. Which is made up of scrolls just pieced to gether at will if they had anything close to what others around it said. It was completed in the post exile peroid.

These are correct. There is basis in truth of most of the histories in the Bible. There is evidence for an Exodus too (approx. 3300 years ago). They just didn't happen exactly like in the Bible. I don't doubt that there was a real Noah, but I don't believe that the entire world was flooded, although there would have been an extremely devastating flood in this region at around that time.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Dinosaurs are described in vast detail in the book of Job. They are spoken about, as if they existed in a time before that which was Adam and Eve.

I presume you're talking about Leviathan and Behemoth. There is no evidence whatsoever for man and dinosaurs coexisting at any time, and the passages in Job are obscure enough to be applied to practically anything. The "vast detail" is poetic, and can be twisted to suit whatever purpose you like.

Dinosaurs are never mentioned in the Bible. Not once.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Dinos are one of the few things in the bible not really talked about much. Like facts. And logic.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Well, all I'm gonna say about the bible is I like the South Park Theory: The bible is a bunch of stories to teach good morals. You know, things'll work out, don't go all out for the vengence thing, yadda yadda. Right, I'm done.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Ugh Rob you're not actually doing research if you're just looking for more examples to disprove evolution. You're not making any real attempt to understand the science behind evolution, you're just trying to find holes in the theory so that you can default back to creationism with a clear conscience. If you were being the least bit objective, you'd realize that when you bring up a "flaw" in evolution, someone always is able to explain in detail how the theory explains the "flaw". On the other hand, when someone brings up a flaw in creationism, the only thing you can come up with to back it up is "the Bible said so". Going in with your mindset, you'll never find the proof you seek, because creationism will never offer any proof, and because you're hellbent on dismissing any proof of evolution.

 

<<<I still can't believe it>>>

 

And therein lies the problem. You got the explanation that you asked for, but your views were set going in. You can keep bringing in your "flaws", and Marney and AoO can keep picking them apart, but until you start looking at logic instead of just faith, you're never going to get anywhere.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How about the flaw of a flood of that magnitude defying the laws of physics? Hell, I'm not going to post all that again, just check my last post as to why I think interpereting the deluge literally is completely laughable.

 

Now, saying there was a devastating flood in that part of the world is a different story, THAT is believable, and completely possible, maybe even true, but now how it's written in Genesis. That's just ridiculous.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Well, we count a day in its most pureist form as Sun up one day to Sun up the next. With no sun to come out. The earth could of have a 23 hour day, a 25 hour day, Hell it could have been 5 million years. Oh fuck it, 5.2 billion years. No sun to disprove time.

No, a day is the time it takes for the earth to make a full rotation. The sun doesn't figure into it.

 

Also, if you think plants and animals evolved while plunged into "5.2 billion" years of complete darkness, you're also sadly mistaken.

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

Rob, 'research' the Scopes trial in the 20's, and then track down a copy of the film 'Inherit the Wind.'

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Darrylxwf, lot's of info on the scopes trial is not accurate. Or atleast 'Inherit the Wind" Such as........

 

Scopes was not a biology teacher and never taught the theory of evolution to any class. He taught physics, chemistry, and math as well as coached football, basketball, and baseball. Scopes was filling in for the normal biology teacher at the end of the year (who was out for a prolonged illness). In his autobiography, Center of the Storm, Scopes stated, "We reviewed for the final exam, as best I remember. To tell the truth, I wasn't sure I had taught evolution."

 

OK so here is my opinion as to why evolution is the prominate theory in the eyes of the majority. First off, the entire theory is based on racism. Now I am white, and as a christian I believe we are all created equal. Let's take a look at the title for darwins book on evolution.

"On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

 

Yep, that's the whole title. What are these "favoroured races" darwin speaks of? Darwinism was one of biggest influences on Adolf Hitler and Nazism. That "favoured races" thing, is all about racism. My thoughts are if one does not believe that there is a god, then one must believe that we are not equal. This is why I trust in my faith and will continue to do so.

 

--Rob

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You fucking dolt, that has to do with favorable traits in living creatures, not skin color or religion in humans. Humans are Homo sapiens whether they are black, white, asian, whatever. The Favorable Races he's speaking of are species that have traits which make it more likely for them to live longer, thus reproduce and pass those same traits on to the next generation.