1730 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

Ok Darwin's finches, everyone knows that their beak "evolved" based on the needs of the bird at that time but did you know that the beaks all eventually changed back to their original shape and size later in the year?

Why have we NEVER seen a beneficial mutation since Darwin introduced is theory?

If evolution is true then shouldn't there be billions of dead animals rather than few we do find?

If monkeys evolved into humans why are there still monkeys around today? And where are all of the supposed in-between steps?

I don't know enough about Darwin's finches to comment on that one.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight.



Monkeys didn't evolve into humans at all...we have a common ancestor.

[Gargar]

I don't know enough about Darwin's finches to comment on that one.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight.



Monkeys didn't evolve into humans at all...we have a common ancestor.

Please read my edit about blood clotting, that's the topic I enjoy discussing most.

Of course time is the magic wand evolutionists use, with time anything could have been possible. Time seems to bypass the fact of statistical impossibilities.

Where is said common ancestor? Why don't we find fossils? If we came from a common ancestor then why are monkeys primitive and humans are intelligent?

[Adam]

I think you misunderstood what ever verse you're referring to.
God knows that we are far from perfect that's why he sent his son to die for us.

Matthew 5:48 (New International Version)

48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Dont think I misunderstood anything.

[Sweeney]

Ok Darwin's finches, everyone knows that their beak "evolved" based on the needs of the bird at that time but did you know that the beaks all eventually changed back to their original shape and size later in the year?

That's not from Darwin's study, that's from a far more recent paper. One that I have, in fact, actually read. The changes were brought about by a drought following an El Nino event, which reduced food supplies, and intensified competition. Smaller seeds were rapidly consumed, and only birds that could survive on the larger, tougher seeds survived. This led to an evolved higher average beak size in following generations.

Once the drought was over, the larger beak made it harder to handle the smaller, more abundant seeds, and hence a smaller beak size became the advantage. Thus, the birds evolved smaller beaks again, in successive generations.

This is called time-differentiated antagonstic pleiotropy, and is a prediction of evolutionary theory. Not a failing.

Why have we NEVER seen a beneficial mutation since Darwin introduced is theory?

This is a lie.
To name but one example off the top of my head, have you ever heard of the common cold? Do you know why it can't be immunised against?
Because it mutates so damn often that there's no point in building an immunity to it, because the next time you catch a cold, it'll be totally different.

If evolution is true then shouldn't there be billions of dead animals rather than few we do find?

Fossilisation is a rare process. And we still have shitloads of fossils.

If monkeys evolved into humans why are there still monkeys around today? And where are all of the supposed in-between steps?

We didn't evolve from modern monkeys, we evolved from old monkeys. Ancestors of modern monkeys.
The "inbetweenies" are everywhere. Here's a list of hominid fossils for you:
Australopithecus ramidus (4.45 Mya)
Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 Mya)
Australopithecus afarensis (3.8 Mya)
Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3.5 Mya)
Australopithecus africanus (3.0 Mya)
Australopithecus garhi (2.5 Mya)
Paranthropus aethiopicus (2.5 Mya)
Paranthropus boisei (1.6 Mya)
Paranthropus robustus (1.6 Mya)
Paranthropus crassidens (awaiting determination as of 2000)
Homo rudolfensis (2.0 Mya)
Homo habilis (1.8 Mya)
Homo ergaster (1.8 Mya)
Homo antecessor (0.8 Mya)
Homo heidelbergensis (0.5 Mya)
Homo neanderthalensis (0.2 Mya)
Homo Sapiens (0.2 Mya)

How could we have gradually evolved? Take a look at blood clotting. If you take ANY part or step out of the very complicated process of blood clotting then blood wouldn't clot and everyone would eventually bleed to death.

Another lie.
The probable evolutionary pathway for evolving blood clotting was deduced by real scientists, not the charlatans you've apparently been reading:
Davidson, C. J., E. G. Tuddenham, and J. H. McVey. 2003. 450 million years of hemostasis. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 1: 1478-1497.

Well said ..
Thats everything I would have say if I responded on that topic.

Well said?
You're both remarkably ignorant on a scientific theory you've dismissed out of hand...

[Gargar]

Matthew 5:48 (New International Version)

48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Dont think I misunderstood anything.

I see what you mean that's a very confusing verse. I'm not expert but I belive something gets lost in translation from the original to english.
I would hope you could find someone who knows more about this verse than I do and ask them.

[Waser Lave]

Please read my edit about blood clotting, that's the topic I enjoy discussing most.

Of course time is the magic wand evolutionists use, with time anything could have been possible. Time seems to bypass the fact of statistical impossibilities.

Where is said common ancestor? Why don't we find fossils? If we came from a common ancestor then why are monkeys primitive and humans are intelligent?

Didn't see that blood clotting thing. From what I recall, blood clotting (as we know it in humans) didn't just pop up one day in full working order. In fact you don't even need the full clotting system for clotting to take place, there are animals like turtles who only have certain parts of the system and clot perfectly fine for their blood pressure, it just takes a bit longer to happen.

Of course we can also turn the question around and say if God designed the clotting system then why do haemophiliacs exist at all? Is God's design imperfect?

Time allows for small mutations to build up into significant changes, evolution inherently requires several generations to take place for changes to become established in a species.

Probably somewhere in Africa. And we're intelligent and monkeys are primitive because we took different evolutionary paths.

[nox]

Ok Darwin's finches, everyone knows that their beak "evolved" based on the needs of the bird at that time but did you know that the beaks all eventually changed back to their original shape and size later in the year?

Why have we NEVER seen a beneficial mutation since Darwin introduced is theory?

If evolution is true then shouldn't there be billions of dead animals rather than few we do find?

If monkeys evolved into humans why are there still monkeys around today? And where are all of the supposed in-between steps?

How could we have gradually evolved? Take a look at blood clotting. If you take ANY part or step out of the very complicated process of blood clotting then blood wouldn't clot and everyone would eventually bleed to death.

Please read my edit about blood clotting, that's the topic I enjoy discussing most.

Of course time is the magic wand evolutionists use, with time anything could have been possible. Time seems to bypass the fact of statistical impossibilities.

Where is said common ancestor? Why don't we find fossils? If we came from a common ancestor then why are monkeys primitive and humans are intelligent?

wow...take a biology class..

Edited by nox, 03 March 2009 - 06:19 PM.

[Gargar]

wow...take a biology class..

I'm not claiming to be an expert at all, I'm just bringing up some problems I see in the theory
If you want to correct me please do, provide something productive to the conversation and don't treat me like an idiot.

I belive evolution to be false in the same way I belive the idea of the world being flat false. Real science is a long history of mistakes and misconceptions.

I really don't get why I get treated as if I'm ignorant or an idiot based on my beliefs, I thought people were better than that.

[Gargar]

I wouldn't even bother wasting energy to respond to him. He seems to troll everyone with opposing views to his with useless posts intended to offend the OP w/o ever actually providing any constructive information.

I'm done with this topic.

[The Dirty Filipino]

I'm not claiming to be an expert at all, I'm just bringing up some problems I see in the theory
If you want to correct me please do, provide something productive to the conversation and don't treat me like an idiot.

I belive evolution to be false in the same way I belive the idea of the world being flat false. Real science is a long history of mistakes and misconceptions.

I really don't get why I get treated as if I'm ignorant or an idiot based on my beliefs, I thought people were better than that.

I feel like the only reason he posts like that is because he thinks it's common knowledge.

But to combat your point about real science, modern science hasn't been around that long. And it's hard to argue against religion just because it was written in a completely different period than our modern science is.

You're not being treated as ignorant, just religion seems to be one of those topics that people are either totally for or totally against, and there's no real middle ground because of all the "strong supporting evidence" swaying a person to either side.

[nox]

I wouldn't even bother wasting energy to respond to him. He seems to troll everyone with opposing views to his with useless posts intended to offend the OP w/o ever actually providing any constructive information.

???????????????

I would advise taking a philosophy course at your local college if you honestly believe religion was "invented" to explain natural phenomenon not yet understood by ancient peoples.

[Sweeney]

I'm done with this topic.

I don't know why you ignored my last post. You've posted after it several times.
Perhaps if I repost it here, you'll address it. Thanks.

Ok Darwin's finches, everyone knows that their beak "evolved" based on the needs of the bird at that time but did you know that the beaks all eventually changed back to their original shape and size later in the year?

That's not from Darwin's study, that's from a far more recent paper. One that I have, in fact, actually read. The changes were brought about by a drought following an El Nino event, which reduced food supplies, and intensified competition. Smaller seeds were rapidly consumed, and only birds that could survive on the larger, tougher seeds survived. This led to an evolved higher average beak size in following generations.

Once the drought was over, the larger beak made it harder to handle the smaller, more abundant seeds, and hence a smaller beak size became the advantage. Thus, the birds evolved smaller beaks again, in successive generations.

This is called time-differentiated antagonstic pleiotropy, and is a prediction of evolutionary theory. Not a failing.

Why have we NEVER seen a beneficial mutation since Darwin introduced is theory?

This is a lie.
To name but one example off the top of my head, have you ever heard of the common cold? Do you know why it can't be immunised against?
Because it mutates so damn often that there's no point in building an immunity to it, because the next time you catch a cold, it'll be totally different.

If evolution is true then shouldn't there be billions of dead animals rather than few we do find?

Fossilisation is a rare process. And we still have shitloads of fossils.

If monkeys evolved into humans why are there still monkeys around today? And where are all of the supposed in-between steps?

We didn't evolve from modern monkeys, we evolved from old monkeys. Ancestors of modern monkeys.
The "inbetweenies" are everywhere. Here's a list of hominid fossils for you:
Australopithecus ramidus (4.45 Mya)
Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 Mya)
Australopithecus afarensis (3.8 Mya)
Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3.5 Mya)
Australopithecus africanus (3.0 Mya)
Australopithecus garhi (2.5 Mya)
Paranthropus aethiopicus (2.5 Mya)
Paranthropus boisei (1.6 Mya)
Paranthropus robustus (1.6 Mya)
Paranthropus crassidens (awaiting determination as of 2000)
Homo rudolfensis (2.0 Mya)
Homo habilis (1.8 Mya)
Homo ergaster (1.8 Mya)
Homo antecessor (0.8 Mya)
Homo heidelbergensis (0.5 Mya)
Homo neanderthalensis (0.2 Mya)
Homo Sapiens (0.2 Mya)

How could we have gradually evolved? Take a look at blood clotting. If you take ANY part or step out of the very complicated process of blood clotting then blood wouldn't clot and everyone would eventually bleed to death.

Another lie.
The probable evolutionary pathway for evolving blood clotting was deduced by real scientists, not the charlatans you've apparently been reading:
Davidson, C. J., E. G. Tuddenham, and J. H. McVey. 2003. 450 million years of hemostasis. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 1: 1478-1497.

Well said ..
Thats everything I would have say if I responded on that topic.

Well said?
You're both remarkably ignorant on a scientific theory you've dismissed out of hand...

[phalkon]

don't think i've responded in this thread, and i'm too lazy to look through it.

so in response to the main question asked: "yes, i do." and "faith"

[Mr. Hobo]

To Christians/Jews:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

2 Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

To Muslims:

5:51 "Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. ... He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them."

8:39 "Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah."

The disbelievers are an open enemy to you. 4:101

How can you believe in a religion that says things like this? Or do you chose to ignore these parts? If so, why? Or do you support mass eradication of non-believers?

[Tetiel]

I do not know for sure, but I'm pretty certain you are not stating the context which is what is important

[nox]

If you're taking the "pick and choose" as a literal statement, meaning that one person picks or chooses an interpretation based on various evidences, then you are correct. However, if you are implying that people pick and choose based on what suits them best, then you are incorrect, at least to the point where that is common (meaning it's not a common thing people do). Furthermore, picking and choosing a verse based on how it fits one's life is not the original intention of the Bible. Just because you think sex was more prevalent "back then" doesn't mean a verse stating sexual immorality as a sin is no longer relevant. Just because drunkenness was a sin back then doesn't mean now all the sudden it's not a sin anymore. When we talk of interpretations we are talking about trying to understand the author's original point, not trying to figure out if it applies to "today's" life.

of course they do, most churches & religious schools teach the bible through modern interpretations because the bible contains so much archaic and barbaric culture it would never pass in modern society. it can't be "common sense" if there are a hundred interpretations for every line in the damn book. various interpretations are what fueled the different sects of christianity, various religion wars, racist groups, etc. religious texts are vague enough to be used as a vehicle for justifying almost any action.

i would love to hear your common sense interpretations of these various biblical quotes:

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)<

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

Edited by nox, 09 March 2009 - 07:19 PM.

[Tetiel]

Those words were written by man in a society which was cursed with slavery. At that time it was the best way for society to function. Fortunately, we've broken away from that.

[nox]

Those words were written by man in a society which was cursed with slavery. At that time it was the best way for society to function. Fortunately, we've broken away from that.

wait what.. who's the man you are talking about? and did you just use efficiency as an excuse to own another human being

Nox, you've already ruined your reputation here for me. Sorry.

did i insult you josh...aww well im sorry....i didn't meant to offend and i sincerely meant what i said. no need to answer if you dont want to, the "common sense biblical interpretation" argument is far from new .


PS you are disobeying jesus christ by abandoning a confused infidel (me)

[nox]

Quite the opposite. You're throwing a temper tantrum because I won't argue with you due to past experiences and are attempting to pull the "well if he won't argue with me I must be right" card. You're not a confused infidel, more like an ignorant and antagonistic fool.

there is no argument and im not pulling any cards. you don't need to respond to my posts because responses are not necessary;the post was made to incite questions from others, not you. i couldn't give a shit what you have to say because all of your arguments are VERY tired and circular.

and wow man will you please just go away and keep it movin already? you've said you'd stop replying to my posts like 4 times already in this thread, don't you have better things to do? i don't mind the "holier than thou" attitude but jeez man you're making yourself look like a dumbass

[Tetiel]

wait what.. who's the man you are talking about? and did you just use efficiency as an excuse to own another human being

No, because that's just silly. The man is whoever wrote those books at the time which is several different men. I said man as in species. Slavery was so common that honestly, it was unthinkable to not own slaves if you were wealthy enough. It is just how things were. However, the founding fathers used efficiency as an excuse not to debate the ideals of slavery when they were trying to form the United States of America. It doesn't mean it's right.

[nox]

No, because that's just silly. The man is whoever wrote those books at the time which is several different men. I said man as in species. Slavery was so common that honestly, it was unthinkable to not own slaves if you were wealthy enough. It is just how things were. However, the founding fathers used efficiency as an excuse not to debate the ideals of slavery when they were trying to form the United States of America. It doesn't mean it's right.

im aware that slavery was commonplace in that time, it makes perfect sense why condemnation of slavery isn't found within the bible. just as you said, it would be unthinkable for a wealthy man to not own slaves, it was engraved in the culture and was a normal part of a functioning society. however, the bible is said to be the word of god, so am i wrong to read those passages and infer that god has no problem with christians owning slaves?

there is no argument and im not pulling any cards. you don't need to respond to my posts because responses are not necessary;the post was made to incite questions from others, not you. i couldn't give a shit what you have to say because all of your arguments are VERY tired and circular.

and wow man will you please just go away and keep it movin already? you've said you'd stop replying to my posts like 4 times already in this thread, don't you have better things to do? i don't mind the "holier than thou" attitude but jeez man you're making yourself look like a dumbass

i would love to hear your common sense interpretations of these various biblical quotes:

i said "your" because it was your post i was responding to, you are not the only person the question was directed at. if i wanted your personal opinion i'd PM you, i posted that to incite questions and further debate from people who are actually willing to discuss this subject (rather than continuing to whine like a little fucking baby)

will you please just go away and keep it movin already?

[Tetiel]

im aware that slavery was commonplace in that time, it makes perfect sense why condemnation of slavery isn't found within the bible. just as you said, it would be unthinkable for a wealthy man to not own slaves, it was engraved in the culture and was a normal part of a functioning society. however, the bible is said to be the word of god, so am i wrong to read those passages and infer that god has no problem with christians owning slaves?

I highly doubt he had no problem, but it's difficult to say what God does and does not have a problem with in a new culture. I suppose, I have a different philosophy compared to most Christians, but I think slavery was allowed for the same reason slavery was allowed pre-civil war America. It would be impossible to recruit new cultures at that time to christianity if they did not allow some things. The old testament if you've noticed is very rule oriented because that's how the times required it to be. It's what the culture was. It's how all other civilizations needed to be to survive.

In the new testament things did change and it gave the people more freedom. At the time also Israel was ruled by Romans and the religion needed to adapt, to free the people. Through the eras the wording changed in the bible to help recruit gentiles into the religion. The different gospels are a great example of this. Some were written to be a roman audience and others were meant for a strictly Jewish audience. Everything in the bible is meant to hold together a society peacefully. That's why I believe everything needs to be taken into context. Just quoting things without giving the background really doesn't give a good perspective on the religion.

[nox]

I highly doubt he had no problem, but it's difficult to say what God does and does not have a problem with in a new culture. I suppose, I have a different philosophy compared to most Christians, but I think slavery was allowed for the same reason slavery was allowed pre-civil war America. It would be impossible to recruit new cultures at that time to christianity if they did not allow some things. The old testament if you've noticed is very rule oriented because that's how the times required it to be. It's what the culture was. It's how all other civilizations needed to be to survive.

In the new testament things did change and it gave the people more freedom. At the time also Israel was ruled by Romans and the religion needed to adapt, to free the people. Through the eras the wording changed in the bible to help recruit gentiles into the religion. The different gospels are a great example of this. Some were written to be a roman audience and others were meant for a strictly Jewish audience. Everything in the bible is meant to hold together a society peacefully. That's why I believe everything needs to be taken into context. Just quoting things without giving the background really doesn't give a good perspective on the religion.

definitely agree with you here, minus the part with god having anything to do with it . early christians did what they had to do to advance their religion and wrote the bible accordingly. too bad it further aided religiously-fueled racism and screwed black people outta nearly 2000 years of culture and growth

Edited by nox, 09 March 2009 - 10:47 PM.

[Frizzle]

The world anal comes to mind in this topic.