Evolution

[crassus]

wow, now thats alot of posts in one night. Why do we only use 1/5 of our brain, why did our brain so excessively evolve, just to throw stones at each other or beat each other with sticks? Please explain the dating system, dating from the layer of rock it's found under is rediculous. All the time they find petrified wood stretching through millions of years of rock, some sideways or even upside down. Did Richard Leakey not find a full human skeleton dated under 212 million years of rock? Well before the apparant 3.5 million years lucy was found under. And to suggest the earth relatively kept it's climates for billions of years is rediculious, more than just a handful of meteors would have hit us. And the method of carbon dating would undoubtly have been effected or distorted by something over millions of years. There is no proving god does not exist, and there is no proving life existed before 10000-15000 years ago. All i see is the wonders of god's creation and it's immensly diverse species. Fossils explain nothing, except they used to live at one time.

There is evidence the universe began, big bang or not. And the only logical explaination is something that has always existed, that created the universe. This god could not have just appeared because that is impossible and illogical, he must have always existed or else we have to ask the 'hen or the egg' argument. The universe could not have just began because that is impossible and illogical. The string theory has absolutely 0 evidence. The universe will not implode, because it is accelerating it's rate of expansion. Therefore God creating the universe is the only logical explanation. That is evidence enough for me.

But this is about evolution not the big bang. This is all stuff off the top of my head. i guess i should start researching for a better argument. in the mean time i expect another 50 post rebuttal to my post, with still no evidence, just assumptions. Try explaining the first species to me then, how it came to be, and how it survived (single celled of course.) from the pre-biotic soup, just to refresh my memory.

[Nordicvs]

Originally Posted by crassus

wow, now thats alot of posts in one night. Why do we only use 1/5 of our brain, why did our brain so excessively evolve, just to throw stones at each other or beat each other with sticks?

We don't use only 20% of our brains--that's a myth. We use all of our brains, but not all at once and usually no more than 25% at one time (unless we're really multi-tasking).

Please explain the dating system, dating from the layer of rock it's found under is rediculous. All the time they find petrified wood stretching through millions of years of rock, some sideways or even upside down. Did Richard Leakey not find a full human skeleton dated under 212 million years of rock?

Are you refering to "Turkana Boy?" If so, Turkana Boy was the nearly complete skeleton of a 9-year-old hominid who died 1.5 million years ago. The rock around or over him is of little consequence.

A landslide of much older rock could have covered the skeleton. Big deal

Well before the apparant 3.5 million years lucy was found under. And to suggest the earth relatively kept it's climates for billions of years is rediculious, more than just a handful of meteors would have hit us.

I'm not sure what point you have here.

And the method of carbon dating would undoubtly have been effected or distorted by something over millions of years. There is no proving god does not exist,

Here's some info on radiocarbon dating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Evolution is a biological science and doesn't give a shit about religions. Is Physics out to disprove God or Allah or even Zeus? No. Neither is evolution.

and there is no proving life existed before 10000-15000 years ago. All i see is the wonders of god's creation and it's immensly diverse species. Fossils explain nothing, except they used to live at one time.

I think you just contradicted yourself--if fossils prove nothing, except that life existed a long, long time ago, then they do prove something, and they are evidence that life existed a long, long time ago.

There is evidence the universe began, big bang or not. And the only logical explaination is something that has always existed, that created the universe. This god could not have just appeared because that is impossible and illogical, he must have always existed or else we have to ask the 'hen or the egg' argument.

Or he created himself. Or he doesn't exist at all. Or he died some time ago.

The universe could not have just began because that is impossible and illogical. The string theory has absolutely 0 evidence. The universe will not implode, because it is accelerating it's rate of expansion.

Sources, please.

Therefore God creating the universe is the only logical explanation. That is evidence enough for me.

Hey, good for you. Then why are you threatened by a discussion of evolution?

But this is about evolution not the big bang. This is all stuff off the top of my head. i guess i should start researching for a better argument. in the mean time i expect another 50 post rebuttal to my post, with still no evidence, just assumptions. Try explaining the first species to me then, how it came to be, and how it survived (single celled of course.) from the pre-biotic soup, just to refresh my memory.

There ya go. Your mind is made up before even showing up

[crassus]

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

We don't use only 20% of our brains--that's a myth. We use all of our brains, but not all at once and usually no more than 25% at one time (unless we're really multi-tasking).

Still doesn't explain the need for such a large brain, i highly doubt throwing stones at things is such a mental excersize. Any answers to how the blowholes came in whales?

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

Are you refering to "Turkana Boy?" If so, Turkana Boy was the nearly complete skeleton of a 9-year-old hominid who died 1.5 million years ago. The rock around or over him is of little consequence.

A landslide of much older rock could have covered the skeleton. Big deal

I guess i must be refering to that, remember it was a full human skeleton, not a transitional species, meaning we remained the same for 1.5 million years. exactly, dating by the layer of rock is very innacurate, very subject to change by even the slightest landslide, thanks for proving my point. Remember the trees i brought up. The only way of dating is just a Giant guess.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

I'm not sure what point you have here.

My point was the earth is constantly changing, especially if the earth is allegedly 4.6 billion years old, something would have destroyed life one way or another, especially meteors.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

Here's some info on radiocarbon dating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Evolution is a biological science and doesn't give a shit about religions. Is Physics out to disprove God or Allah or even Zeus? No. Neither is evolution.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The maximum range of radiocarbon dating appears to be about 50,000 years, after which the amount of 14C is too low to be distinguished from background radiation.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

I think you just contradicted yourself--if fossils prove nothing, except that life existed a long, long time ago, then they do prove something, and they are evidence that life existed a long, long time ago.

No it just proves they once existed, it does not show when or if any existed before or after another species. and there is still a huge lack of transitional species and huge leaps between current species. There would have to be 1000s if not more of transitional species fossils out there.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

Or he created himself. Or he doesn't exist at all. Or he died some time ago.

God must be almighty, and he must be above all the laws of this universe, or the idea of god is flawed. He must have always existed and he must always exist in the future or the idea of god is flawed. Nothing comes from nothing.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

Hey, good for you. Then why are you threatened by a discussion of evolution?

well i felt obligated to post my opinion due to childish posts comparing thiesm to being an idiotic/unscientific idea. I firmly stand that evolution has no facts and only brings more useless questions.

People keep listening to everything they are told in schools about evolution, they don't know the contradictions and they pass it all as fact. They just run around waving their hands in the air declaring 'evolution is fact' with out any proof. We'll see how long i can last against the army of evolution...

[Nordicvs]

Originally Posted by crasus

Still doesn't explain the need for such a large brain, i highly doubt throwing stones at things is such a mental excersize. Any answers to how the blowholes came in whales?

Obviously we were throwing more than stones, and walking upright required ancient humans to adapt their morphology to accommodate this bipedalism.

Anyway, arguments from ignorance are not real arguments; saying that some information is lacking does prove that a deity did it--where's the chain of evidence to that?
All that proves is that further study and research is needed. No scientist will say that human knowledge is complete--it is just beginning.
Blowholes in whales? No, I am unfamilar with whales in general.

I guess i must be refering to that, remember it was a full human skeleton, not a transitional species, meaning we remained the same for 1.5 million years. exactly, dating by the layer of rock is very innacurate, very subject to change by even the slightest landslide, thanks for proving my point. Remember the trees i brought up. The only way of dating is just a Giant guess.

What point of yours did I prove? They didn't date the skeleton on the basis of rocks on top of it.

Turkana Boy is classified as either Homo erectus or Homo ergaster--not Homo sapiens.

My point was the earth is constantly changing, especially if the earth is allegedly 4.6 billion years old, something would have destroyed life one way or another, especially meteors.

Why? It's very probable that meteors brought life to this planet. Do you have any idea how tenacious life is? A virus can lay dormant for thousands of years. Bugs can stay dormant or frozen for a long time and still survive--eggs, seeds, et cetera, can last for centuries. Life cannot be stopped or rarely even contained. It can survive at the bottom of the ocean or at the top of a mountain or frozen in Antarctica.

Besides, the atmosphere is much thicker than it used to be--most meteors never even break through it...they burn up. Long ago it was thinner, so many more got through.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia The maximum range of radiocarbon dating appears to be about 50,000 years, after which the amount of 14C is too low to be distinguished from background radiation

If you had read a little further, past the first sentence, you would have found that it's one type of radiometric dating. Only one.

--The rubidium-strontium dating method is a radiometric dating technique that geologists use to determine the age of rocks.



--Potassium-argon or K-Ar dating is a method used by archaeologists and geologists to ascertain the date of ancient mineral deposits.

--Argon-argon dating is a radiometric dating technique similar to that of Potasium-Argon. In fact, Argon-Argon is a method to confirm the results of the K-Ar results by verifying how much Atomspheric argon was initially in the rock when it cooled, or if the rock has been reheated and "reset".

--Uranium-thorium dating, also often referred to as thorium-230 dating, uranium-series disequilibrium dating or uranium-series dating, is a radiometric dating technique commonly used to determine the age of carbonate materials such as speleothem or coral.

--Optically Stimulated Luminescence or OSL Dating is a method of establishing the age of soil sediments. It is used by archaeologists as an alternative to radiocarbon dating.

This last one is accurate to around 200,000 years.

Uranuim-lead dating is good at dating things older then that. Archaeologists have dated things from the early Permian period, and the beginning of the Triassic period, 252.6 million years ago. Give or take 200,000 thousand years.

And these are merely the radiometric ways to date things. Carbon 14 is not the only one employed--just the most famous.

No it just proves they once existed, it does not show when or if any existed before or after another species. and there is still a huge lack of transitional species and huge leaps between current species. There would have to be 1000s if not more of transitional species fossils out there.

Yes, there are gaps. The gaps, however, are not as wide as they were 80 years ago; and 80 years from now, they will even thinner.

well i felt obligated to post my opinion due to childish posts comparing thiesm to being an idiotic/unscientific idea. I firmly stand that evolution has no facts and only brings more useless questions.

Whether theism is idiotic or not is open to opinion; is it unscientific? Yes, it is. Faith holds it together and is its basis. It does not use scientific method.
However, this thread is not about religion, or about attacking it. The stickied religion thread is a good place for that. Or the Melee.

People keep listening to everything they are told in schools about evolution, they don't know the contradictions and they pass it all as fact. They just run around waving their hands in the air declaring 'evolution is fact' with out any proof. We'll see how long i can last against the army of evolution...

Army of evolution? I don't follow.

Evolution is a fact, in certain instances--studying bacteria, viruses, microbes, insects, even mice. Anything that has a short life span and breeds in large numbers.

How is it that so many varieties of dogs came to be? Did God do that? Or did humans breed those dogs, using applied genetics, to creates dogs with the traits they wanted. Evolution at work, bud.

[Blood n Guts]

Originally Posted by crassus

Still doesn't explain the need for such a large brain, i highly doubt throwing stones at things is such a mental excersize. Any answers to how the blowholes came in whales?

Having a nasal passage on the top of ones head is obviously an adaptation, as is a larger brain and being bipedal. The fossil record shows translation of nasal passages on aquatic mamals from the front to the top of different animals heads.

I guess i must be refering to that, remember it was a full human skeleton, not a transitional species, meaning we remained the same for 1.5 million years. exactly, dating by the layer of rock is very innacurate, very subject to change by even the slightest landslide, thanks for proving my point. Remember the trees i brought up. The only way of dating is just a Giant guess.

No, Potassium-Argon dating is the other way; it uses the same principle of Carbon Dating, only uses a different isotope which decays much more slowly, allowing effective dating in the hundreds of millions, even billions of years.

My point was the earth is constantly changing, especially if the earth is allegedly 4.6 billion years old, something would have destroyed life one way or another, especially meteors.

The oldest fossilized bacteria ever found is around 2 billions years old. Before that the earth was still a giant sphere of molten rock and metal. Life is surprisingly resilient, one of the more elegant aspects of the theory of evolution.

No it just proves they once existed, it does not show when or if any existed before or after another species. and there is still a huge lack of transitional species and huge leaps between current species. There would have to be 1000s if not more of transitional species fossils out there.

Fossils are very rare because of the circumstances required to produce them. Transition can be observed on a wider scale. Prior to the Mesozoic era (age of reptiles [dinosaurs]), in the Paleozoic, reptiles first appear. In the last period of the era, mammal like reptiles appear and dominate the landscape. After the Permian extinction, in which 90% of all species died, the Mesozoic era began, noted by the dominance of Bird-like Reptiles (aka Dinosaurs). Towards the end of the Mesozoic we find that primitive mammals and primitive birds exist.

[!moof]

crassus, evolution does not have any facts, and neither does science. Science is not about learning facts. Science is about explaining how the universe works. Evolution is explaining the "origins of species".

I've said why we have bigger, more powerful brains. We are tool-users. Tool-users use their brains to invent tools. Better brains=better tools. More complex tools actually stimulate brain development, which means smarter humans. Smarter humans build better tools.

Wolf->Dog through evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
This link explains whale evolution quite well.

The oldest known Homo Sapiens specimen dates back 190,000 years, FYI.

[crassus]

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

Obviously we were throwing more than stones, and walking upright required ancient humans to adapt their morphology to accommodate this bipedalism.

Anyway, arguments from ignorance are not real arguments; saying that some information is lacking does prove that a deity did it--where's the chain of evidence to that?
All that proves is that further study and research is needed. No scientist will say that human knowledge is complete--it is just beginning.
Blowholes in whales? No, I am unfamilar with whales in general.



What point of yours did I prove? They didn't date the skeleton on the basis of rocks on top of it.

Turkana Boy is classified as either Homo erectus or Homo ergaster--not Homo sapiens.



Why? It's very probable that meteors brought life to this planet. Do you have any idea how tenacious life is? A virus can lay dormant for thousands of years. Bugs can stay dormant or frozen for a long time and still survive--eggs, seeds, et cetera, can last for centuries. Life cannot be stopped or rarely even contained. It can survive at the bottom of the ocean or at the top of a mountain or frozen in Antarctica.

Besides, the atmosphere is much thicker than it used to be--most meteors never even break through it...they burn up. Long ago it was thinner, so many more got through.



If you had read a little further, past the first sentence, you would have found that it's one type of radiometric dating. Only one.

--The rubidium-strontium dating method is a radiometric dating technique that geologists use to determine the age of rocks.



--Potassium-argon or K-Ar dating is a method used by archaeologists and geologists to ascertain the date of ancient mineral deposits.

--Argon-argon dating is a radiometric dating technique similar to that of Potasium-Argon. In fact, Argon-Argon is a method to confirm the results of the K-Ar results by verifying how much Atomspheric argon was initially in the rock when it cooled, or if the rock has been reheated and "reset".

--Uranium-thorium dating, also often referred to as thorium-230 dating, uranium-series disequilibrium dating or uranium-series dating, is a radiometric dating technique commonly used to determine the age of carbonate materials such as speleothem or coral.

--Optically Stimulated Luminescence or OSL Dating is a method of establishing the age of soil sediments. It is used by archaeologists as an alternative to radiocarbon dating.

This last one is accurate to around 200,000 years.

Uranuim-lead dating is good at dating things older then that. Archaeologists have dated things from the early Permian period, and the beginning of the Triassic period, 252.6 million years ago. Give or take 200,000 thousand years.

And these are merely the radiometric ways to date things. Carbon 14 is not the only one employed--just the most famous.

All that brings me to my main point, (http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...17/i3/pigs.asp)that the method of dating used by scientists is highly innacurate and is always subject to change. Dating by the rocks from around the fossils is very innacurate which seems to be the only method of dating used. And most, if not all, of those dating methods u provided will almost always contradict each other, they will not all come up with the same answer. It is All circular reasoning after the 50,000 year point, which will then create much debate on every single thing found. I will not throw my money on the highly unstable theory of evolution. Where as the theory and longest standing scientific belief that god created all will never be proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

Yes, there are gaps. The gaps, however, are not as wide as they were 80 years ago; and 80 years from now, they will even thinner.

or wider, as more theories come, more unanswered questions arise.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

Whether theism is idiotic or not is open to opinion; is it unscientific? Yes, it is. Faith holds it together and is its basis. It does not use scientific method.

A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world.

The Scientific method i agree with completely, Macro-evolution has not been observed and therefor holds no fact through the scientific method. The simple fact that life/the universe exists, is evidence enough through the scientific mehod that creation can be a credible scientific fact.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

However, this thread is not about religion, or about attacking it. The stickied religion thread is a good place for that. Or the Melee.

i agree, so no more idiotic rants that creation has no evidence if evolution lacks any evidence.

Originally Posted by Nordicvs

How is it that so many varieties of dogs came to be? Did God do that? Or did humans breed those dogs, using applied genetics, to creates dogs with the traits they wanted. Evolution at work, bud.

Evolution is not a fact, it is all guessing and circular reasoning. All those dogs are just dogs, a dog can breed with a dog, it's still a dog. It's like saying a black person can't breed with a white person, that one evolved from the other, which is rediculious. Dogs are not evolving before our eyes, otherwise they would be super dogs of drastically different chapes and sizes within just a few million years, infact that proves the earth is no more than a few thousand years old. These minor changes are written in our DNA and does not make us a different species. and note the word written, u cant throw a bunch of nuts and bolts together in a box and shake it expecting a computer to come out. or that 747 in a junkyard argument.

[!moof]

crassus.

1. The Scientific method i agree with completely, Macro-evolution has not been observed and therefor holds no fact through the scientific method. The simple fact that life/the universe exists, is evidence enough through the scientific mehod that creation can be a credible scientific fact.

a. Macroevolution has been seen in microbiotic development.

b. The fact that the universe exists does not prove creationism, it proves that the world exists.

2. Okay on the dog breeds thing, what about wolves and dogs? They are diffferent species, yet they developed based on artificial selection, aka evolution.

[Snake Morrison]

Evolution in the present day is perfectly valid to me. It is completely observable and provable through testing in laboratories and the like. Thus I absolutely have no problems with micro-evolution, or, in essence, adaptation. My problem with the Theory of Evolution arises way back at the beginning of the universe.

First of all, the problem I have with the initial Big Bang Theory is that there is no good explanation for where the primeval fireball came from. Some people claim that the ball has always existed, while others say that there was no Big Bang and that the expanded universe has always existed. I don't like either of these theories, especially when they finish with, "But, of course, stating that a higher being has always existed is completely ludicrous," because I don't think that there is much of a jump between "The universe has always existed." and "God has always existed."

But I digress. This is not about the Big Bang Theory but about evolution, but I have a problem with the beginning of evolution as well. It is very similar to the first: Where did life come from? How did life originate? Unfortunately for the evolutionists, nobody I've heard of supports the notion that life has always existed, so that loophole isn't an option here. Dirt and rocks, even if they come together and form a planet, cannot evolve to form life.

Therefore my belief is that God created the universe. He set all the planets in motion, made the star systems, etc. He created life on Earth (humans included, or we lose our intrinsic value), with the special ability to adapt to our surroundings in an ever-changing world. That would also explain the presence of evolution and adaptation today.

So...what do you think?

[JaKoB 88]

Originally Posted by gameplayerabm

Therefore my belief is that God created the universe. He set all the planets in motion, made the star systems, etc. He created life on Earth (humans included, or we lose our intrinsic value), with the special ability to adapt to our surroundings in an ever-changing world. That would also explain the presence of evolution and adaptation today.

So...what do you think?

This theory is no more or less plausible than the theory that certain molecules on our planet billions of years ago allowed prokaryotic cells to form. Actually, scientists have done tests with electricity and various other intruments and have created life inside labs. It was in my biology book, so I don't have a source. In my opinion, the theory of evolution holds far more water than the theory of creationism. Again, as has been repeated over and over, evolution is based on observations and many hypothesises that have been tested and proven to work. Not everything in evolution is for certain. That is why we are still learning.

But, how many tests have you seen that prove some invisible entity created all life? How much physical proof can you come up with to prove the existance of a God? All I see are historical writings by Nomads thousands of years ago. I will take the word of a scientist from today over the word of an ignorant nomad from thousands of years ago.