Do you believe in a God

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Drega

Originally posted by Aldaron

Originally posted by Drega

What? first considering how many species died from failure of ability to survive such cold conditions *stick your dog in sybiria straight from the US, it will be dead within a week from its primary food source being taken away, and no protection from the cold*. Those that did survive the initial shock of such a drastic change died over time and its countless generations to follow would know nothing else but the climate they had always been in. You make it sound like the ice age of a passing storm.

Ugh. I lost my post. But the point I was making was that you're not going to find a polar bear roaming around in texas.

What?

ok. Sorry. That was a little ambiguous. But what I'm saying is. If the ice age lasted as long as they said, and evolutionary theory existed. Either the creatures would die or adapt. If they adapt, then after the ice age ended. Wouldn't they then want to find a climate as cold as the one they were previously in?

Just like my example of a polar bear would prefer to be in alaska then texas.

Drega · May 2005

Yes if the species is migrational. Like a bird, or early humans. That follows its food or enviroment as the climate changes. But the more domesticated or establishs itself in an area rather than retain the ability to simply move to friendlier area its chances of survival are minimal if the enviroment it requires is removed. Cows are an easy example, if you were to put a cow raised on a farm in a building with open doors, light it on fire the cow will stay and die. If you were to do the same with a cow who grew up in the wild it will simply walk away.

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Boulderdash

I am not an expert myself but yes I believe plants existed before oxygen breathing (lungs) creatures.

Then what supplied the plants with carbon dioxide?

Drega · May 2005

It is part of the atmosphere, making up about 1% of the volume of dry air

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Drega

Yes if the species is migrational. Like a bird, or early humans. That follows its food or enviroment as the climate changes. But the more domesticated or establishs itself in an area rather than retain the ability to simply move to friendlier area its chances of survival are minimal if the enviroment it requires is removed. Cows are an easy example, if you were to put a cow raised on a farm in a building with open doors, light it on fire the cow will stay and die. If you were to do the same with a cow who grew up in the wild it will simply walk away.

So your saying they'd either move or die? Sort of like a cow?

Drega · May 2005

Yea, this is evident in most animals including humans. Just recently There was a rather large fire here in San Diego, destroyed alot of homes. Though a good number of people decided it was better to leave. There were people who refused to leave their homes, like my neighbor locked himself in his home even the fire was less than two blocks away.

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Drega

It is part of the atmosphere, making up about 1% of the volume of dry air

Yes. But what supplied it?

To my knowledge we get our oxygen from plants, and their carbon dioxide from us. Without one another we'd cease to exist.

Boulderdash · May 2005

Originally posted by Aldaron
ok. Sorry. That was a little ambiguous. But what I'm saying is. If the ice age lasted as long as they said, and evolutionary theory existed. Either the creatures would die or adapt. If they adapt, then after the ice age ended. Wouldn't they then want to find a climate as cold as the one they were previously in?

Just like my example of a polar bear would prefer to be in alaska then texas.

Its not only the cold, it has also to do with the amount of food available in the ecosystem. In the example of the polar bear. Their primary food source is seals and fish. That food source might have not been as badly affected as for instance berries or roots for a brown bear. The polar bear has already a physique that is perfectly adaptable to extreme cold. So it might have migrated to say the Canadian border. If after the end of the ice age it would still be able to find its food source and be able to procreate then I believe it would have stayed. But if its food source would have migrated more north for they also need food then the polar bear would have followed it. And the seal would only migrated north if its food source migrated north. The ecostystem is a very complex system and a lot of factors need to be considered when climate changes take place.

methane47 · May 2005

Man even some of the evolutionists don't understand the theory of evolution.
The missing link is called that way because even Scientists are having a hard time showing how Monkeys could mutate into Humans in one spurt...
Evolution as your scientists explain takes eons. And when a group of creatures evolve, it isn't the case that one or two or three of the thousands evolve and the rest weight to see what's gonna happen. All the creatures evolve together at around the same pace. So if there were 1000 humans in the year 2005 and death - birth rate was equal there would be 1000 superhumans in the year 5007. And that is usually specific to a certain area. So humans in Nepal would evolve at a different rate or evolve differently all together.
So unless the Monkeys(Pre-human) just died out all together before they could evolve into the missing link... there should be just as many Fossils of them...
And if a creature evolves according to your ideals they should be more suited to the environment then the previous.

Actually it should be even easier to find the missing link than all other pre human ancestors... since they would be covered under the least amount of Dirt......

Also another thing..... All Humans were Nomads as early as science records... this is because they had to follow the herds and animals that they fed off of. Humans couldn't possibly stay in one place because Horticulture wasn't implemented yet....

In order to get from monkey to human they are missing something, because even scientists think that it would be stupid to assume that Monkeys just drastically changed shape in one jump.
It's like airport hoping... If i only have so much fuel I have to stop in airports to get refueled.
If I have 200 miles of fuel... It would be stupid to assume that the plane flew 5000 miles.
So this is why the missing link is the main problem with Darwinism

methane47 · May 2005

Originally posted by Drega
Boy you got the crap kicked out of you as a child. *no offense* but I thought I had I was lucky with amount of times the emergancy room saw me.

Oh i guess I didn't state it... I've never been to the hospital for anything serious. No broken bones, No surgery, No nothing... So you could consider me lucky.. i consider myself blessed

Razorback · May 2005

Alderon Im not trying to be sarcastic or offensive in any way. If I appeared that way I apologise.

You offer nothing more to challenge hundreds of years of scientific study than anyone before you.

Every argument you put up either makes no sense at all or has been used over and over in every creation vs evolution website and book ever written.

If you have read all my posts you will see that I describe myself as an evolution believer with a completely open mind. I constantly challenge my own beliefs by attending church and reading and re-reading the bible and other associated texts of thological instruction.

Despite this I have yet to read or hear anything that makes any sense in relation to the existence of a higher being or any of the associated trappings of that proposed reality. If it turned out that God existed I would not be at all surprised, however the arguments for his existence are based on nothing more than faith. They contain not a single argument that can be tested. Indeed to attempt to test them is seen as heracy and a denial of faith.

I have never been one to accept anything on the basis of "because he or she says it is so". I constantly seek explanations and in religion there are none. Even the question is offensive to religion. Any system that so completely insulates itself from scrutiny must have something to fear. That fear is real and justifiable because that fear is the existence of real truth. Truth that destroys any argument or preposition for the existence of the father the son or the so called holy ghost. If I ran a religion I would want to supress it to. Their existence as an organisation and as a business depends on surpressing logical and rational thought. Its completely understandable...

Science opens itself to question, indeed science is about constantly questioning. Which of these sytems is more likely to result in an answer ?

To address one of your points that I found completely unable to fathom and maybe you could explain it to me again...

If a species evolves from one form to another... there should be links ..... and these links are by definition of evolution superior to their predecessors.... (survival of the fittest)

Your lack of understanding of evolution theory is clearly displayed here. Evolution stems from mutations. Not all mutations are sucessfull. It DOES NOT follow that the steps taken from one form of being to another will all result in a "better" creature at each step.

Think about this....

In an ideal environment a creature may evolve to be less hardy because it does not need to be hardy in this environment. (we are doing this to ourselves right now) When the environment changes this will become a weakness. Some of this species may be able to withstand this change. Some will not. In the long term the existence of the current creature is evidence of those that made the successful transition. The fossils of the others are evidence of the ones that did not. In the old environment the creature may well have been superior to the creature that exists now. It is about the interaction between the creature and its environment. Not about clear cut notions of inferiority and superiority. I used the fish out of water example to make that crystal clear.

You acknowledge the existence of what you call "micro evolution". This IS evolution mate! your seeing it, you acknowledge it! yet you continue to struggle against reality. In every other system you want to name, the word micro is used to describe the small parts of the larger system, evolution is no different. Its happening in front of your eyes everyday in many many ways. You dont need to believe in anything other than your own senses to marvel at it.

The reason I keep an open mind is that nothing in science challenges the possible existence of God. It just makes the explanations given to us by men who claim to represent God seem more ridiculous and unsubstantiable. Indeed many top evolution scientists are christians, they do not see (as I do not) any mutual exclusiveness between the science of earths evolution and the faith of Gods universal creation. What they do see is a book being used as the be all and end all of all knowledge, a book written by men with so many flaws and contradictions that it serves to do nothing other than undermine the very systems it seeks to uphold.

Boulderdash · May 2005

Originally posted by Aldaron

Originally posted by Boulderdash

I am not an expert myself but yes I believe plants existed before oxygen breathing (lungs) creatures.

Then what supplied the plants with carbon dioxide?
Not all organism that produce oxygen need carbon dioxide. But I will get back to you on that (need to read up).

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Drega

Yea, this is evident in most animals including humans. Just recently There was a rather large fire here in San Diego, destroyed alot of homes. Though a good number of people decided it was better to leave. There were people who refused to leave their homes, like my neighbor locked himself in his home even the fire was less than two blocks away.

Then why aren't there only creatures with a affinity to a cold enviroment?

Originally posted by Boulderdash

Its not only the cold, it has also to do with the amount of food available in the ecosystem. In the example of the polar bear. Their primary food source is seals and fish. That food source might have not been as badly affected as for instance berries or roots for a brown bear. The polar bear has already a physique that is perfectly adaptable to extreme cold. So it might have migrated to say the Canadian border. If after the end of the ice age it would still be able to find its food source and be able to procreate then I believe it would have stayed. But if its food source would have migrated more north for they also need food then the polar bear would have followed it. And the seal would only migrated north if its food source migrated north. The ecostystem is a very complex system and a lot of factors need to be considered when climate changes take place.

But if all creatures evolved as theorized. Then they'd move together. Thus the food source, as well the predator. Would move together. In essence the eco system would be creatures with an affinity to cold.

At least I think that's logically so.

Drega · May 2005

Originally posted by methane47
Originally posted by Drega
Boy you got the crap kicked out of you as a child. *no offense* but I thought I had I was lucky with amount of times the emergancy room saw me.

Oh i guess I didn't state it... I've never been to the hospital for anything serious. No broken bones, No surgery, No nothing... So you could consider me lucky.. i consider myself blessed

wouldnt that in essense be the same thing?

Razorback · May 2005

Originally posted by Aldaron

Originally posted by Drega

Yea, this is evident in most animals including humans. Just recently There was a rather large fire here in San Diego, destroyed alot of homes. Though a good number of people decided it was better to leave. There were people who refused to leave their homes, like my neighbor locked himself in his home even the fire was less than two blocks away.

Then why aren't there only creatures with a affinity to a cold enviroment?

Originally posted by Boulderdash

Its not only the cold, it has also to do with the amount of food available in the ecosystem. In the example of the polar bear. Their primary food source is seals and fish. That food source might have not been as badly affected as for instance berries or roots for a brown bear. The polar bear has already a physique that is perfectly adaptable to extreme cold. So it might have migrated to say the Canadian border. If after the end of the ice age it would still be able to find its food source and be able to procreate then I believe it would have stayed. But if its food source would have migrated more north for they also need food then the polar bear would have followed it. And the seal would only migrated north if its food source migrated north. The ecostystem is a very complex system and a lot of factors need to be considered when climate changes take place.

But if all creatures evolved as theorized. Then they'd move together. Thus the food source, as well the predator. Would move together. In essence the eco system would be creatures with an affinity to cold.

At least I think that's logically so.

Nope your trying to over simplify things again.

There are may populations of similar creature spread throughout the world now just as there have always been. Like African and Indian Elephants for example. What happens to one does not necessarily affect the other, however elephants continue to exist as a creature even if one or more of their sub species dies out.

Whales exist in areas exclusively like the Arctic as well as in temperate waters like my Australia. Theoratically they all contain the same basic genetic material that links them. If one species dies out it could theoratically re-evolve from the remainder under the right conditions... but this is as likely as winning the lottery while being struck by lightning about 5 times in the same day. But that is a pretty good description of the odds of all life and how it came to be.

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Razorback
If a species evolves from one form to another... there should be links ..... and these links are by definition of evolution superior to their predecessors.... (survival of the fittest)

Your lack of understanding of evolution theory is clearly displayed here. Evolution stems from mutations. Not all mutations are sucessfull. It DOES NOT follow that the steps taken from one form of being to another will all result in a "better" creature at each step.

I never claimed to be an expert. Although I'll say I've never heard of in evolution theory superior begats inferior, inferior begats being of superiority even more so then inferio's predecessor.

Think about this....

In an ideal environment a creature may evolve to be less hardy because it does not need to be hardy in this environment. (we are doing this to ourselves right now) When the environment changes this will become a weakness. Some of this species may be able to withstand this change. Some will not. In the long term the existence of the current creature is evidence of those that made the successful transition. The fossils of the others are evidence of the ones that did not. In the old environment the creature may well have been superior to the creature that exists now. It is about the interaction between the creature and its environment. Not about clear cut notions of inferiority and superiority. I used the fish out of water example to make that crystal clear.

Through our intelligence we adapt to our enviroment. You have people living in every corner of the earth. We may not be as strong as a lion, or as dexterous as a cat. But we use our wits to overcome, not our physique. Which in the end, makes us on the top of the food chain. Which says that we are superior.

You acknowledge the existence of what you call "micro evolution". This IS evolution mate! your seeing it, you acknowledge it! yet you continue to struggle against reality. In every other system you want to name, the word micro is used to describe the small parts of the larger system, evolution is no different. Its happening in front of your eyes everyday in many many ways. You dont need to believe in anything other than your own senses to marvel at it.

Adaptation(micro evolution) is completely different then mutation (macro evolution).

A horse when bred for stamina, will be born with innately better stamina. But it will not be born with an extra lung, and bigger muscles. And that is macro evolution.

The reason I keep an open mind is that nothing in science challenges the possible existence of God. It just makes the explanations given to us by men who claim to represent God seem more ridiculous and unsubstantiable. Indeed many top evolution scientists are christians, they do not see (as I do not) any mutual exclusiveness between the science of earths evolution and the faith of Gods universal creation. What they do see is a book being used as the be all and end all of all knowledge, a book written by men with so many flaws and contradictions that it serves to do nothing other than undermine the very systems it seeks to uphold.

These contradictions I'd like to see. Usually any contradictions people give are either mis-translations, or the people's ignorance of what it even speaks about.

Boulderdash · May 2005

Originally posted by Boulderdash

Originally posted by Aldaron

Originally posted by Boulderdash

I am not an expert myself but yes I believe plants existed before oxygen breathing (lungs) creatures.

Then what supplied the plants with carbon dioxide?
Not all organism that produce oxygen need carbon dioxide. But I will get back to you on that (need to read up).

Please read this for the question above http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html

pyrofreak · May 2005

This started out as a simple poll...

Why'd it turn into a 75 page debate?

FilipinoFury · May 2005

Woops double post sorry.....
Real post below

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Razorback

Nope your trying to over simplify things again.
There are may populations of similar creature spread throughout the world now just as there have always been. Like African and Indian Elephants for example. What happens to one does not necessarily affect the other, however elephants continue to exist as a creature even if one or more of their sub species dies out.
Whales exist in areas exclusively like the Arctic as well as in temperate waters like my Australia. Theoratically they all contain the same basic genetic material that links them. If one species dies out it could theoratically re-evolve from the remainder under the right conditions... but this is as likely as winning the lottery while being struck by lightning about 5 times in the same day. But that is a pretty good description of the odds of all life and how it came to be.

And that makes next to no sense to me. If after a while living in a cold enviroment. Adapting to it. The creature would then feel most comfortable in a cold enviroment. If they then moved to a warm enviroment, it'd be like a polar bear moving to mexico.

FilipinoFury · May 2005

Evolution

Ok, so clearly we can now measure mankind's sad advance through history in a simple way:

Before

After

The careful observer will note that the Hamburger Helper is a lefty, whereas Arby's Mr. Mitt, or whatever his name is, is a righty. Now THAT is political commentary if I ever saw it.

I weep for the future.

Razorback · May 2005

Ah yes the last refuge of the non accpetance of biblical contradictions is that "the unbeliver does not understand the interpretation of the word". Wow the old chesnuts are always the best huh ?

Thanks for remaining completely predictable, you are a living example of the very things that keep me questioning and stop you from doing the same.

Thats enough for me... I guess I will just have to settle for arguing with people who at least present something new because this is just too yawn inducingly old hat for my tastes...

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Razorback

Ah yes the last refuge of the non accpetance of biblical contradictions is that "the unbeliver does not understand the interpretation of the word". Wow the old chesnuts are always the best huh ?

Actually I was talking universally. Most people actually don't look at the original translation or the context and history of what it was spoken in.

But it's fine. If you ever want i'm always up for a friendly debate.

Boulderdash · May 2005

Originally posted by Aldaron

Through our intelligence we adapt to our enviroment. You have people living in every corner of the earth. We may not be as strong as a lion, or as dexterous as a cat. But we use our wits to overcome, not our physique. Which in the end, makes us on the top of the food chain. Which says that we are superior.

We are one of the more succesful species on earth. But on top of the food chain, I don't agree. On top means their are no predators that use you as a natural food source. On a daily basis people are being killed for food. Not in large numbers, luckily, because we are clever enough to think of things to avoid that. Weapons, large communities, protective vehicles. A gazelle can avoid being killed but that does not mean it has been promoted in the food chain. Neither are we beneath a predetor that kills us, for we can kill it and eat it. In nature its more like a food net than a food chain, branches are intertwined(sp?).

Boulderdash · May 2005

Originally posted by Aldaron

Originally posted by Razorback

Nope your trying to over simplify things again.

There are may populations of similar creature spread throughout the world now just as there have always been. Like African and Indian Elephants for example. What happens to one does not necessarily affect the other, however elephants continue to exist as a creature even if one or more of their sub species dies out.

Whales exist in areas exclusively like the Arctic as well as in temperate waters like my Australia. Theoratically they all contain the same basic genetic material that links them. If one species dies out it could theoratically re-evolve from the remainder under the right conditions... but this is as likely as winning the lottery while being struck by lightning about 5 times in the same day. But that is a pretty good description of the odds of all life and how it came to be.

And that makes next to no sense to me. If after a while living in a cold enviroment. Adapting to it. The creature would then feel most comfortable in a cold enviroment. If they then moved to a warm enviroment, it'd be like a polar bear moving to mexico.

Life tries to find the easiest way to survive. This could mean mutation or adaptation if a current state of equillibrium is being changed.

The example given be razorback does not state that the specie is moving towards a harder way to survive.

Howdy, Stranger!

Do you believe in a God

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Do you believe in a God

Comments