Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by Xexima That is retarded. So not believing in a flying spegghetti monster is ignorant? now wait a sec, isn't that a conundrum? If you say that it is ignorant to believe in the spegghetti monster, you are saying that you are ignorant for being religious. See the flaw in your logic?
Can you disprove evolution? No. And there are even observations that point directly at evolution as being their cause. Can you disprove creationism? No. But there are absolutly no facts whatsoever that point toward it.
btw, this wasn't targeted directly at you, but at many others here...
Corrected..... I can also observe that one of my best friends has scaley skin, therefore that must prove that he is closer related to reptiles then I am...
Most observations that scientists make about evolution (IE legs which are not even exclusive to mamals) are wholely physical. And while physical characteristics are important... they are also a very subjective science.
The protrusions found were fins not legs... it's grasping at straws saying they WERE legs at some point in time...
----------- In an unconnected question. I was under the impression that the evolution of sea mamals shows that their legs and arms turn INTO fins...?? Lets say for example that these fins were indeed the remnants of legs... Then This would be a mamal with 6 limbs.... which is quite odd for mamals
This leads me to even further to believe that this is just a crazy one off mutation caused by millions of japanese people peeing in the water.. Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
Originally posted by methane47 ----------- In an unconnected question. I was under the impression that the evolution of sea mamals shows that their legs and arms turn INTO fins...?? Lets say for example that these fins were indeed the remnants of legs... Then This would be a mamal with 6 limbs.... which is quite odd for mamals
This leads me to even further to believe that this is just a crazy one off mutation caused by millions of japanese people peeing in the water..
A.) urine has never had mutating effects, although the image was funny
B.) If it was the remnants of legs, it would make it a mammal with 4 limbs and a tail specialized for swimming through water, which is not at all odd.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Aelfinn A.) urine has never had mutating effects, although the image was funny
you clearly never drank urine before... i have 5 testicals or maybe i am the first evolved human
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
A.) urine has never had mutating effects, although the image was funny
you clearly never drank urine before... i have 5 testicals or maybe i am the first evolved human
Everyone has their own problems I suppose.
Originally posted by Draenor
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science. and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
Your proof provided is hardly worth the term, try again.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Xexima
Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
No I didn't realize that...that's why I put it in my post that he said it.
I'm too excited to deal with you right now though, Colts win baby.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
True, especially considering that scientists have been unable to create amino acids that could begin life in even the most ideal of conditions...bottom line, you cannot create something from nothing...you cannot create life where there is none...unless you're God
Site the Miller experiment and I swear you will regret it...I have done my research on our buddy Miller
ps. Colts still won and my hands are shaking, which is why this thing probably has typos.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Aldaron Originally posted by LilithIshtar Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Xexima
Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
Im not a goddess, so I can't tell you that.
How the universe was created in the first place, or how the matter got there, is something we will NEVER know or figure out. It's impossible. Only the gods and goddesses know.
Did "Adam" or "eve" appear out of no where? My religion tells me no, they came from ape like creatures through evolution.
Your religion tells you they appeared out of no where.
You think I'm wrong.
I think you're wrong.
But the bottem line is, we'll never know for sure. Till we die at least and our gods tell us, or don't tell us, thats up to them. ;D
Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Aldaron Originally posted by LilithIshtar Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Xexima
Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
I don't think, well, actually I know, that we don't possess enough technology and knowledge to even guess how the earth started. But we do know that we are here, and we got here some how, some way. The most obvious explanation, using the amount of technology and knowledge that we do possess is that we, and every other living being on earth evolved from simple single celled organisms over the course of a very long time. We also know that the universe is expanding, which leads us to the assumption that there was, at one point an explosion or some outward force that is at the moment pushing us from the center.
Now, would you like to tell me, how using logical assumptions and observations that we have made using scientific facts to try to understand our universe is the same as believing in fairy tales?
Originally posted by Draenor Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
matter = energy
What if, in the begining of all of this, there was just a cloud of energy that started it all? Why does there have to be some sort of intelligent life form that made all of this? How do you know that matter wasn't just there to begin with? Because something is there doesn't mean there has to be a creator.
Originally posted by Xexima Originally posted by Draenor Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
matter = energy
What if, in the begining of all of this, there was just a cloud of energy that started it all? Why does there have to be some sort of intelligent life form that made all of this? How do you know that matter wasn't just there to begin with? Because something is there doesn't mean there has to be a creator. Agreed. It could of just been there to start with.
And also, how did the gods and goddesses get there? According to many, they were just there to begin with. ( I don't think so. )
Originally posted by hazmats Don't know if anyone said this... but that articles mentions that there was an extra set of fins that "could be the remains of back legs"So it's unfair to say they were definatly remains of legs. They were another set of fins...Of course i believe in evolution so i don't really care.. But just pointing that out.
Yes, it's been said before. We are discussing the fact that if they are actually legs, then it can be shown that evolution does exist.
Originally posted by Draenor Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
You know, I agree with you whole heartedly. So where did God come from?
Originally posted by Draenor Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
You know, I agree with you whole heartedly. So where did God come from?
The beauty of God is that he doesn't need to have come from anywhere
Xexima...The only way that I know of to prove that these fins were indeed legs at some point would be to somehow find information in the Dolphin's DNA that would allow them to actually manipulate the Dolphin's genes to the point that they are able to come up with a creature that has legs...which at this point in time is impossible as far as I know....but I have a suspision that Dolphins lack the gene to grow actual legs, pluss it would end up looking like Kyle's dad after his Dolphin plasty...which wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.
ps. The Colts still won.
And the fact that a "cloud of energy" simply appeared, isn't a very scientific explanation.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
True, especially considering that scientists have been unable to create amino acids that could begin life in even the most ideal of conditions...bottom line, you cannot create something from nothing...you cannot create life where there is none...unless you're God
Site the Miller experiment and I swear you will regret it...I have done my research on our buddy Miller
ps. Colts still won and my hands are shaking, which is why this thing probably has typos.
Ah, but the fact that they were able to create even the simplest of protiens under those conditions are highly promising.
When you have a half billion years or so in which amino acids formed and then eventually formed the first life, you cannot really test it inside of a few paltry years in a lab tube.
Originally posted by Draenor
Originally posted by modjoe86
Originally posted by Draenor Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
You know, I agree with you whole heartedly. So where did God come from?
The beauty of God is that he doesn't need to have come from anywhere
Xexima...The only way that I know of to prove that these fins were indeed legs at some point would be to somehow find information in the Dolphin's DNA that would allow them to actually manipulate the Dolphin's genes to the point that they are able to come up with a creature that has legs...which at this point in time is impossible as far as I know....but I have a suspision that Dolphins lack the gene to grow actual legs, pluss it would end up looking like Kyle's dad after his Dolphin plasty...which wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.
ps. The Colts still won.
And the fact that a "cloud of energy" simply appeared, isn't a very scientific explanation.
A.) It wasn't a "cloud" of energy, it was a point of infinite or near infinitely dense mass
B.) According to one principle of the chaos theory, anything at all can appear if given enough time, the above point, a god, a living breathing milk cow that immediately dies in the depths of space...
C.) Explaining how this is possible is of course going to involve a good bit of guesswork, it is after all working with something we cannot currently approach or see, much less test. One potential explaination involves one or more parralell universes to our own, filled with mass that in that case has always been there, occaisionally the breach between the dimensions is peirced, letting things through.
D.) As to the dolphin, that depends on how prominent the genes responsible are for this mutation. It is quite possible that by comparing DNA samples, we could be able to identify and activate suppressed genes in a test lab grown dolphin calf.
E.) Let us say that things happen the way the bible tells it, that god created himself. If it were possible for sufficiently powerfull beings to create themselves out of nothingness, why are we not neck deep in an infinate sea of deities?
F.) The thing about scientific theories is that they are not perfect, we accept that they cannot be perfect, and continually work to improve, or replace them with information that is closer to the absolute truth. Religion often sees itself as the truth to be accepted without question, without hesitation.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by Draenor Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
You know, I agree with you whole heartedly. So where did God come from?
I have a better question.
Why are you trying to impose scientific laws on a supernatural being who by very definition could alter the laws of physics without batting a eye? Seems a bit silly doesn't it?
Originally posted by Aelfinn E.) Let us say that things happen the way the bible tells it, that god created himself. If it were possible for sufficiently powerfull beings to create themselves out of nothingness, why are we not neck deep in an infinate sea of deities?
I agree with your post. I just wanted to point out that we are neck deep in deities. This is why we have war.
To anyone that doesn't believe in science and thinks god is real. I would like to see some rock solid proof of god. Now to me that sounds like someting that is impossible to do. All we have to go on is the Bible. To me the bible is no different than greek mythology. This is why religion has had zero credibility with me. Telling me science is fake, because it isn't 100% accurate. While in the same breath they'll tell you the bearded, lightening chucking dude in the clouds is absolutely real.
Religion probably started out as something decent. But it was molested by people in power and used as a tool to keep the sheep in line. I also think christianity was the product of several different white lies.
"C'mon Joe..would I cheat on you? I swear an angel dropped down out of the sky and told me I would carry the son of um..umm. God. Yeah the angel said God"
Id be realy curious to see what the genetic density on this dolphin is. Its entirely possible that the base species of dolphins branched from 4 finned species. Under my understanding of degrading genetics if a base species was created, then over time the fins became useless then the fins would dissapear. It is entirely possible that the genetics could arise agian IF there was a enviromental stimulus. That could be a mutagen or a need for 4 fins. Species have never been shown to evolve but a species can pull up old genes from its full complete active shemactic as long as its close enough to the Active or Latent stages. My guess is this is a active sub-trait, its to complete for a mutational arisal.
Strictly speaking a growing number of genetisists are realizing there are species with more complete dna sequences without many Ntrons. These base species are to complex to have arisen from lower order species. The lower order species themselves can be shown to have come from species with more complete dna sequences.
Its actually quite easy to envision this system of inteligent design and use it to explain the species we see. Think of it this way, you create a bunch of base species and throw them on a planet. They degrade into a bunch of species similar to the base pattern. Progressively you introduce more and more base species which build a genetic matrix. Theres are base species alive. The Dna structure of several species are nearly complete with no mutations or ntrons. The species which descended from have nearly no new dna sequences. Just dna which went inactive. There new features can be created by the removal of dna. As far as Im concerned science has helped detect creative forces in species development. Not God.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by Draenor Correct, but one of the most basic laws of physics is the law of conservation of matter...you can't break it, you can't make it, you can only recycle it somehow...so by its own law, Science cannot deny the existance of a greater God somewhere along the lines to create the initial matter in the universe...even the most scientific of folks cannot reasonably deny the existance of a greater God.
You know, I agree with you whole heartedly. So where did God come from?
The beauty of God is that he doesn't need to have come from anywhere
Xexima...The only way that I know of to prove that these fins were indeed legs at some point would be to somehow find information in the Dolphin's DNA that would allow them to actually manipulate the Dolphin's genes to the point that they are able to come up with a creature that has legs...which at this point in time is impossible as far as I know....but I have a suspision that Dolphins lack the gene to grow actual legs, pluss it would end up looking like Kyle's dad after his Dolphin plasty...which wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.
ps. The Colts still won.
And the fact that a "cloud of energy" simply appeared, isn't a very scientific explanation.
The two in red go agaisn't eachother, you seem confused.
So I shall of course still go by what my religion and what I have taught myself and know that the planet is of couse over 10,000 years old. ( Sorry, impossible for it to be so young, and you haven't proved that it is so far. )
The gods and goddesses created the planets by starting evolution. They didn't mess with it, they let nature take it's course. And in the end, humans evolved. ^^
Originally posted by qotsa Originally posted by Aelfinn E.) Let us say that things happen the way the bible tells it, that god created himself. If it were possible for sufficiently powerfull beings to create themselves out of nothingness, why are we not neck deep in an infinate sea of deities?
I agree with your post. I just wanted to point out that we are neck deep in deities. This is why we have war.
To anyone that doesn't believe in science and thinks god is real. I would like to see some rock solid proof of god. Now to me that sounds like someting that is impossible to do. All we have to go on is the Bible. To me the bible is no different than greek mythology. This is why religion has had zero credibility with me. Telling me science is fake, because it isn't 100% accurate. While in the same breath they'll tell you the bearded, lightening chucking dude in the clouds is absolutely real.
Religion probably started out as something decent. But it was molested by people in power and used as a tool to keep the sheep in line. I also think christianity was the product of several different white lies.
"C'mon Joe..would I cheat on you? I swear an angel dropped down out of the sky and told me I would carry the son of um..umm. God. Yeah the angel said God"
"Ok" Wait, we believe God created Himself? Seriously? I could have sworn we thought He always existed. Silly me.
First of all, believing in God doesn't automatically mean we don't believe in science. It means we MAY reject some things that are accepted as true in the scientific community, but this is not something common only to Christians. There will always be differing opinions and theories within the scientific community, and the fact that this doesn't logically click in your brain as common sense honestly worries me. I agree with you that it's impossible to proof tha God exists until such time that He chooses to show Himself. You want rock solid proof of God? Well, there is none, and it's perfectly understandable that you would want proof in order to belief in something. That's why I see the atheist lifestyle as a perfectly rational, if not somewhat inconsequential, way to live your life. The thing with me personally is, I feel that if I actually knew God existed, it would actually hurt my faith. This may not make any sense, but there it is.
Seriously, I'm really growing tired of this "RELOGON CAUZES ALL DE WARZ ROLFMO!1!!" tripe. Not only does it trivialize the majority of the wars that have gripped this planet, but it shows a general lack of knowledge when it comes to the human phyche. War is the result of man's nature. We have a subconscious desire to suceed and a subconscious desire to destroy ourselves. If religion was eliminated from the world right now, we would still find some silly excuse to blow ourselfs up or sweep across countries stealing gold. It's simple human nature. Blaming religion simply because some people have distorted its purpose to further their own secular agenda, instead of actually placing blame on that person (and the idiots who followed him of course), is just mind-boggling moronic.
edit: Wait, so you actually believe in god and goddess LilithIshtar? I thought you were just calling "secular evolution" a religion to prove some vague point.
I was wondering how the Dolphins beat the Bears yesterday...They had more legs...surprized they weren't penalized for too many limbs on the field. I think the Dolphins should put the Darwin symbol on the side of their hemets. Also has anyone other than me thought about making little magnetic legs to put under the "Jesus Fishes" I mean that has got to be good for some laughs.
Maybe this god entity made it his will to let Miami win another game this year, that or he just hates Chicago. The White Sox made a deal with the devil to get their win last year, which is why they were out of it this year.
Soon they are going to have to start Carbon dating the records that show the Cubs have actually won a World Series. Although I am sure the New-Baseballers will state that they couldn't have because "We weren't alive back then."
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
Comments
Most observations that scientists make about evolution (IE legs which are not even exclusive to mamals) are wholely physical. And while physical characteristics are important... they are also a very subjective science.
The protrusions found were fins not legs... it's grasping at straws saying they WERE legs at some point in time...
-----------
In an unconnected question. I was under the impression that the evolution of sea mamals shows that their legs and arms turn INTO fins...?? Lets say for example that these fins were indeed the remnants of legs... Then This would be a mamal with 6 limbs.... which is quite odd for mamals
This leads me to even further to believe that this is just a crazy one off mutation caused by millions of japanese people peeing in the water..
Try "facts." There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
A.) urine has never had mutating effects, although the image was funny
B.) If it was the remnants of legs, it would make it a mammal with 4 limbs and a tail specialized for swimming through water, which is not at all odd.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
you clearly never drank urine before... i have 5 testicals or maybe i am the first evolved human
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
you clearly never drank urine before... i have 5 testicals or maybe i am the first evolved human
Everyone has their own problems I suppose.
Your proof provided is hardly worth the term, try again.No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years
ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very
similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
No I didn't realize that...that's why I put it in my post that he said it.
I'm too excited to deal with you right now though, Colts win baby.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
True, especially considering that scientists have been unable to create amino acids that could begin life in even the most ideal of conditions...bottom line, you cannot create something from nothing...you cannot create life where there is none...unless you're God
Site the Miller experiment and I swear you will regret it...I have done my research on our buddy Miller
ps. Colts still won and my hands are shaking, which is why this thing probably has typos.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
Im not a goddess, so I can't tell you that.
How the universe was created in the first place, or how the matter got there, is something we will NEVER know or figure out. It's impossible. Only the gods and goddesses know.
Did "Adam" or "eve" appear out of no where? My religion tells me no, they came from ape like creatures through evolution.
Your religion tells you they appeared out of no where.
You think I'm wrong.
I think you're wrong.
But the bottem line is, we'll never know for sure. Till we die at least and our gods tell us, or don't tell us, thats up to them. ;D
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
One of the best facts that shows how evolution is probably is that of sea faring mammals. The fins in these mammals contain bones just like hands and feet do. Here is a good picture of this:
Dolphins and all other sea mammals have hair, lungs, bones, and brain structure that are akin with land mammals.
Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, and some were found with the remnants of feathers embedded in the rock. This shows how certain dinosaurs were the common ancestors of modern birds.
Why is it so hard to believe that over hundreds of millions of years and through millions of generations of animals that mutations that adapted animals to their environments occured, and changed them. Whether they added or lost dna or not, we can not tell, just because we cannot trace DNA back that far.
People are saying that dating techniques are flawed because of a few very minor cases of it being very inaccurate, to those people I say that you don't understand accuracy. if you test, and the results come back very far off from the mainstream tests of other fossils of that time, then you go back and re-test it. A few inaccurate tests doesn't mean a thing, it happens all the time in science, mostly due to human error.
To answer your question: It's not hard to believe that we evolved over millions of years, especially when you aren't very educated on the actual facts regarding evolutionary science.
and about why there are no remnants of modern humans from 60,000 years ago...that's because there were no humans 60,000 years ago, problem solved
I'm really not going to get into another debate regarding the accuracy of modern dating techniques, because I feel that I have already proven my point that "scientific" dating techniques are shoddy at best...pluss the Colts game just got out of Half Time.
You do realize he never said that there were "modern" humans around 60,000 years ago...
" There were no remnants of modern human bones before 60,000 years ago. But, there were bones found of early primates that had very similar bone structure. Fact."
There were of course primates that we evolved from. Slowly of course, it takes thousands to sometimes millions of years for a creature to evolve into something very different from what it once was.
Sorry, but we didn't appear out of thin air. If you think we did, than explain how our cells just "appeared" out of thin air as well than. Or in this case, how Adam and Eve just "appeared" like magic. Very far fetched. Sure, I believe in magic. But making something, let along a live creature appear out of no where and out of nothing is..well far fetched. And impossible.
And I already said man NEVER walked during or with the Dino's during their era's. We did during the Ice Age time, or at least towards the end of it. Good luck explaining the Dino's part, and how long the Ice Age was. Heh. So hence why the planet CANT be 10,000 years old. That is impossible.
I also like how you ignored my time line for the planet. Lol?
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
I don't think, well, actually I know, that we don't possess enough technology and knowledge to even guess how the earth started. But we do know that we are here, and we got here some how, some way. The most obvious explanation, using the amount of technology and knowledge that we do possess is that we, and every other living being on earth evolved from simple single celled organisms over the course of a very long time. We also know that the universe is expanding, which leads us to the assumption that there was, at one point an explosion or some outward force that is at the moment pushing us from the center.
Now, would you like to tell me, how using logical assumptions and observations that we have made using scientific facts to try to understand our universe is the same as believing in fairy tales?
What if, in the begining of all of this, there was just a cloud of energy that started it all? Why does there have to be some sort of intelligent life form that made all of this? How do you know that matter wasn't just there to begin with? Because something is there doesn't mean there has to be a creator.
What if, in the begining of all of this, there was just a cloud of energy that started it all? Why does there have to be some sort of intelligent life form that made all of this? How do you know that matter wasn't just there to begin with? Because something is there doesn't mean there has to be a creator.
Agreed. It could of just been there to start with.
And also, how did the gods and goddesses get there? According to many, they were just there to begin with. ( I don't think so.
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
Don't know if anyone said this... but that articles mentions that there was an extra set of fins that "could be the remains of back legs"
So it's unfair to say they were definatly remains of legs. They were another set of fins...
Of course i believe in evolution so i don't really care.. But just pointing that out.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
The beauty of God is that he doesn't need to have come from anywhere
Xexima...The only way that I know of to prove that these fins were indeed legs at some point would be to somehow find information in the Dolphin's DNA that would allow them to actually manipulate the Dolphin's genes to the point that they are able to come up with a creature that has legs...which at this point in time is impossible as far as I know....but I have a suspision that Dolphins lack the gene to grow actual legs, pluss it would end up looking like Kyle's dad after his Dolphin plasty...which wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.
ps. The Colts still won.
And the fact that a "cloud of energy" simply appeared, isn't a very scientific explanation.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Explain how matter just appeared to create the universe as we know it.
The creation of Adam & Eve in biblical terms is definitely no more far fetched than an evolutionist's way of describing the beginning of the universe.
True, especially considering that scientists have been unable to create amino acids that could begin life in even the most ideal of conditions...bottom line, you cannot create something from nothing...you cannot create life where there is none...unless you're God
Site the Miller experiment and I swear you will regret it...I have done my research on our buddy Miller
ps. Colts still won and my hands are shaking, which is why this thing probably has typos.
Ah, but the fact that they were able to create even the simplest of protiens under those conditions are highly promising.
When you have a half billion years or so in which amino acids formed and then eventually formed the first life, you cannot really test it inside of a few paltry years in a lab tube.
You know, I agree with you whole heartedly. So where did God come from?The beauty of God is that he doesn't need to have come from anywhere
Xexima...The only way that I know of to prove that these fins were indeed legs at some point would be to somehow find information in the Dolphin's DNA that would allow them to actually manipulate the Dolphin's genes to the point that they are able to come up with a creature that has legs...which at this point in time is impossible as far as I know....but I have a suspision that Dolphins lack the gene to grow actual legs, pluss it would end up looking like Kyle's dad after his Dolphin plasty...which wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.
ps. The Colts still won.
And the fact that a "cloud of energy" simply appeared, isn't a very scientific explanation.
A.) It wasn't a "cloud" of energy, it was a point of infinite or near infinitely dense mass
B.) According to one principle of the chaos theory, anything at all can appear if given enough time, the above point, a god, a living breathing milk cow that immediately dies in the depths of space...
C.) Explaining how this is possible is of course going to involve a good bit of guesswork, it is after all working with something we cannot currently approach or see, much less test. One potential explaination involves one or more parralell universes to our own, filled with mass that in that case has always been there, occaisionally the breach between the dimensions is peirced, letting things through.
D.) As to the dolphin, that depends on how prominent the genes responsible are for this mutation. It is quite possible that by comparing DNA samples, we could be able to identify and activate suppressed genes in a test lab grown dolphin calf.
E.) Let us say that things happen the way the bible tells it, that god created himself. If it were possible for sufficiently powerfull beings to create themselves out of nothingness, why are we not neck deep in an infinate sea of deities?
F.) The thing about scientific theories is that they are not perfect, we accept that they cannot be perfect, and continually work to improve, or replace them with information that is closer to the absolute truth. Religion often sees itself as the truth to be accepted without question, without hesitation.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I have a better question.
Why are you trying to impose scientific laws on a supernatural being who by very definition could alter the laws of physics without batting a eye? Seems a bit silly doesn't it?
To anyone that doesn't believe in science and thinks god is real. I would like to see some rock solid proof of god. Now to me that sounds like someting that is impossible to do. All we have to go on is the Bible. To me the bible is no different than greek mythology. This is why religion has had zero credibility with me. Telling me science is fake, because it isn't 100% accurate. While in the same breath they'll tell you the bearded, lightening chucking dude in the clouds is absolutely real.
Religion probably started out as something decent. But it was molested by people in power and used as a tool to keep the sheep in line. I also think christianity was the product of several different white lies.
"C'mon Joe..would I cheat on you? I swear an angel dropped down out of the sky and told me I would carry the son of um..umm. God. Yeah the angel said God"
"Ok"
Id be realy curious to see what the genetic density on this dolphin is. Its entirely possible that the base species of dolphins branched from 4 finned species. Under my understanding of degrading genetics if a base species was created, then over time the fins became useless then the fins would dissapear. It is entirely possible that the genetics could arise agian IF there was a enviromental stimulus. That could be a mutagen or a need for 4 fins. Species have never been shown to evolve but a species can pull up old genes from its full complete active shemactic as long as its close enough to the Active or Latent stages. My guess is this is a active sub-trait, its to complete for a mutational arisal.
Strictly speaking a growing number of genetisists are realizing there are species with more complete dna sequences without many Ntrons. These base species are to complex to have arisen from lower order species. The lower order species themselves can be shown to have come from species with more complete dna sequences.
Its actually quite easy to envision this system of inteligent design and use it to explain the species we see. Think of it this way, you create a bunch of base species and throw them on a planet. They degrade into a bunch of species similar to the base pattern. Progressively you introduce more and more base species which build a genetic matrix. Theres are base species alive. The Dna structure of several species are nearly complete with no mutations or ntrons. The species which descended from have nearly no new dna sequences. Just dna which went inactive. There new features can be created by the removal of dna. As far as Im concerned science has helped detect creative forces in species development. Not God.
The beauty of God is that he doesn't need to have come from anywhere
Xexima...The only way that I know of to prove that these fins were indeed legs at some point would be to somehow find information in the Dolphin's DNA that would allow them to actually manipulate the Dolphin's genes to the point that they are able to come up with a creature that has legs...which at this point in time is impossible as far as I know....but I have a suspision that Dolphins lack the gene to grow actual legs, pluss it would end up looking like Kyle's dad after his Dolphin plasty...which wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.
ps. The Colts still won.
And the fact that a "cloud of energy" simply appeared, isn't a very scientific explanation.
The two in red go agaisn't eachother, you seem confused.
So I shall of course still go by what my religion and what I have taught myself and know that the planet is of couse over 10,000 years old. ( Sorry, impossible for it to be so young, and you haven't proved that it is so far.
The gods and goddesses created the planets by starting evolution. They didn't mess with it, they let nature take it's course. And in the end, humans evolved. ^^
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
To anyone that doesn't believe in science and thinks god is real. I would like to see some rock solid proof of god. Now to me that sounds like someting that is impossible to do. All we have to go on is the Bible. To me the bible is no different than greek mythology. This is why religion has had zero credibility with me. Telling me science is fake, because it isn't 100% accurate. While in the same breath they'll tell you the bearded, lightening chucking dude in the clouds is absolutely real.
Religion probably started out as something decent. But it was molested by people in power and used as a tool to keep the sheep in line. I also think christianity was the product of several different white lies.
"C'mon Joe..would I cheat on you? I swear an angel dropped down out of the sky and told me I would carry the son of um..umm. God. Yeah the angel said God"
"Ok"
Wait, we believe God created Himself? Seriously? I could have sworn we thought He always existed. Silly me.
First of all, believing in God doesn't automatically mean we don't believe in science. It means we MAY reject some things that are accepted as true in the scientific community, but this is not something common only to Christians. There will always be differing opinions and theories within the scientific community, and the fact that this doesn't logically click in your brain as common sense honestly worries me. I agree with you that it's impossible to proof tha God exists until such time that He chooses to show Himself. You want rock solid proof of God? Well, there is none, and it's perfectly understandable that you would want proof in order to belief in something. That's why I see the atheist lifestyle as a perfectly rational, if not somewhat inconsequential, way to live your life. The thing with me personally is, I feel that if I actually knew God existed, it would actually hurt my faith. This may not make any sense, but there it is.
Seriously, I'm really growing tired of this "RELOGON CAUZES ALL DE WARZ ROLFMO!1!!" tripe. Not only does it trivialize the majority of the wars that have gripped this planet, but it shows a general lack of knowledge when it comes to the human phyche. War is the result of man's nature. We have a subconscious desire to suceed and a subconscious desire to destroy ourselves. If religion was eliminated from the world right now, we would still find some silly excuse to blow ourselfs up or sweep across countries stealing gold. It's simple human nature. Blaming religion simply because some people have distorted its purpose to further their own secular agenda, instead of actually placing blame on that person (and the idiots who followed him of course), is just mind-boggling moronic.
edit: Wait, so you actually believe in god and goddess LilithIshtar? I thought you were just calling "secular evolution" a religion to prove some vague point.
I was wondering how the Dolphins beat the Bears yesterday...They had more legs...surprized they weren't penalized for too many limbs on the field. I think the Dolphins should put the Darwin symbol on the side of their hemets. Also has anyone other than me thought about making little magnetic legs to put under the "Jesus Fishes" I mean that has got to be good for some laughs.
Maybe this god entity made it his will to let Miami win another game this year, that or he just hates Chicago. The White Sox made a deal with the devil to get their win last year, which is why they were out of it this year.
Soon they are going to have to start Carbon dating the records that show the Cubs have actually won a World Series. Although I am sure the New-Baseballers will state that they couldn't have because "We weren't alive back then."
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)