Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?

[Wii_Smurf]

Because their enviroment is basically just sticks. They're used to them...

 

[Brawny]

roflol, for some reason that post made me laugh.

 

[I_Dont_Know859]

Because their enviroment is basically just sticks. They're used to them...

animals use whatever is avialable in there niche to survive such as monkeys using sticks in there enivornment to oh lets say stick in a ant nest so it can eat ants off a stick. There is also a bird that lives in the city thats beak is to small to break the nut so it drops it on the street so a car runs over it then it flys down and eats the nut. What we are getting into now is adaption (changing ones behavior to achieve necessitys not biological makeup).

 

[Brawny]

Hey, i'm surprised you didn't find this thread sooner. What is your response to squall's thing though?

 

[I_Dont_Know859]

Hey, i'm surprised you didn't find this thread sooner. What is your response to squall's thing though?

well i've only glanced through evolution and dont know enough to give an opinion on it from a nonreligious point of view but i cant really give squall credit because most of his sources are all from wikipedia which is hard to use a credible evidence. I also looked into what coolsmile said about squall's evolution of the horse charts and it shows squall doesnt really knew what he was talking about in that area. Squall seems to get in over his head and contradicts himself from what i observed in our last debate thats why i didnt respond to it. For example he said

You see, this is the problem. You believe that what you believe is THE truth. Christianity is an idea, a belief, not an absolute truth. At least I accept that there is the minutest possiblity that I may be wrong, no matter how sure I am.

then he says

Well, to be fair, I'm 100% sure that you're wrong but that doesn't mean that I'm going to say "So I don't accept your religion, get over it. If you dont except mine fine." or "i know its absolute truth". Fact of the matter, is that you're not nearly being as tolerant as what Christianity preaches.

and

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not knocking you personally. I'm pointing out something in Christianity. Of course, some people have their own 'perceptions' of what Christianity is. Also, of course, you're 100% wrong.

so he says no matter how sure he is about something is accepts a small possibility i might be wrong yet he states twice that im 100% wrong, not 99.9% but 100%. I quit debating with him because of statements like this. Then he gets on to me about accepting my religion as absolute truth yet him saying i'm wrong 100% makes it an absolute truth.

 

[thewiirules123]

Guys, we know that this topic is very important in all of our lives but in this topic we do not seem to be getting anywhere. If your a religous you can't be convinced evolution is right and if your a evolutionist you can't be convinced that god is real. So guys this is getting a bit ridicolous.

 

[Brawny]

why don't you just unsubscribe and not read it?

IDK i laughed at you guys in the christians thread that died a while back. I still want your belief on how old the earth is though. Where'd coolsmile go now?

 

[Squall7]

Okay, to coolsmile and Squall, there are things wrong with both posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall
The "theory" of evolution stands more true than any answers that we (as a species) has come up with so far.

Um.....how about "intelligent design" I'll just say, if you walk into a woods and see a watch, do you think, maybe molecules randomly mutated into a watch, or did someome leave it there. Just a question.

That's a really bad example. The watch was known to be created by man. I get what you're saying, but once again, Evolution isn't designed to answer the question of the origins of life, merely to follow it through time.

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a God,[1] based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[2][3][4] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[12]

The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[13] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[14][15][16] and some have termed it junk science.[17][18] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[19]

Science is based around the concept of 'provability', or at least remotely trying to. Sure, there are 'theories' that are around, but even those are based upon evidence that science has gathered. It's possible that a "god" created the universe, but whose "god"? Likwise, is it not conceivable that the universe could have been created by something other than a concious and sentient being?

First, c-14 is only living things. Rocks aren't living.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.

Carbon-14 can also be produced in ice by fast neutrons causing spallation reactions in oxygen.

Second, coolsmile was correct about micro/macro evolution. Are you sure you have it correct Squall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall
Hmm, this clearly contradicts what you have said above...
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolsmile
Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)
Actually, He was correct and your wikipedia quote agrees with him mainly the AT part. Remember Darwin and the finches?

Really, read again...

Quote:
Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

The Bible doesn't teach directly 6000 years. I myself am a 6 billion kind of guy. (make a new thread for it coolsmile)

Fair enough. I realise that not all Christians believe in the whole 6 billion thing, but there are some devout followers that do (Once again, I bring up the name Kent Hovind)

And to Mitch, if you don't like these threads, get i0n to put it in the rules or just don't open them. (unless you have to mod them, then I laugh cuz Squall likes to post reeeeaaaallllyyyyy long posts.

I like to give my opinions on every aspect, true, but when the start of the thread is as long as this, am I really providing a suitable counterpoint if I only address a few of the topic issues?

@squall7
Ahh, finally, I knew there would be at least 1 knowledgeable person...

Err, thanks...

First off, NEVER get your data from wikipedia, it can easily be edited and can be false, that is one of the worst sorces you can get data from.

We're not talking in academic terms here. Likewise, academia (whether its literature or scientific documents), they can still be just as false. Likewise, one cannot ignore information based upon it's source. Just because wikipedia is user-created, doesn't mean that the writer knows nothing.

Second, can you show me the actual fossil records on the horses. Just so you know, there is no fossil records of the stage where a reptile becomes a bird... and I'm not sure that there is one on those horses.

What, you want me to send you actual fossil records, just to try and disprove you? I'd also like to ask you for your evidence that there are no fossil records where a reptile becomes a bird. You're basically asking me for the evidence for evidence...

But with progression, you would be explaining Micro Evolution. Natural Selection doesn't change a species...

Depends on the species boundaries... Surely you believe that Chickens are a different species to other birds, even though they haven't lost their wings (despite not actually using them to fly like other birds). What is your evidence for 'Natural selection' not being able to change a species?

Going on with natural selection: It does't change a species, it changes characteristics of species

Ergo, we could have originally been much like another species, like the ape. Change some characteristics like removing hair, taking away the tail, walking upright (obviously these changed over time) etc... and you'll eventually get to something that looks remotely human.

I'm a non-denominational christian

When did I claim that I'm so knowledgeable on the subject?

Are you claiming that you're not-knowledgable about the subject (ergo, you're writing about something you don't know too much about)?

Then how is it possible to accurately get the age of a rock? It isn't...

Since all green plants use carbon as basic building blocks during the process of photosynthesis, C-14 is present plant materials and animals who directly or indirectly depend on them. Once an animal or plant dies, the amount of C-14 in their tissues is not replaced. The C-14 begins to diminish at a constant rate. After 5730 years, half of the original amount has changed into N-14.

This means that the animal dies and the transfer between C-14 and other carbon atoms stop.

U234 has a half life longer than the age of the earth? How do you know the half life then if you don't know the age of the earth.

Actually, it was:

uranium-238 has such a long half life, 4.5x109 years

Sorry, I forgot that the copy and paste thing will not show up the 9 in a smaller number. It's 4.5 x 10 to the power of 9 (not 4.5 x 109).

Alpha Radiation? Yes

Well, it quite blatantly said it was one of the most widely used. And even if it wasn't, and it was hidden that they only found the earth to be 6000 years old, why would they tell the public a lie? To cover up the truth that there is a God? Surely this kind of conspiracy would be counter-productive to them actually getting into heaven?

This is against the rules

A lot of what people are posting are against the rules. It's just a big argument about does God exists, I beleive it, but what I'm trying to accomplish has nothing to do with religon...

Err, that comment was based around the the rule that says that you cannot advertise a similar site on these forums. It is considered spamming.

Are you sure that those horses are evolved or that they are just different variation of eachother, and by natural selection get rid of the others.

Pretty wide variation if it is... If you do not consider carbon dating as a viable way of telling how old something is, then you could come to that conclusion. However, one may also have to consider that they are from different eras, even if you don't believe in carbon dating. In the end, if you don't accept carbon-dating, then there's still a chance that the fossils may be from different eras.

Take the early humans for example. Lucy the australopithecus for example, s/he was more like an ape then a human. s/he didn't have the locking mechanism in the knees humans do and the never found her/his feet, showing that we don't know that s/he was bipedal. Lucy had long arms and short legs like apes. The early humans are bogus...

The "carrying angle" can also be stated as "weight bearing axis" as shown below (Zihlman 2000). The chimpanzee, which is a quadruped, has a femur that comes straight out of the hip socket, while Lucy and the modern human exhibit the bipedal carrying angle.

-images removed at the request of anthro4n6, due to bandwidth restrictions-

@DeathHand
Then evolution isn't science, there are no facts in evolution, it's just evidence...

Facts are established upon evidence. Gravity is a fact because Newton provided evidence and came up with a theory. Something cannot be a fact unless it's backed up by evidence. However, I do think that evolution may be a theory, as it's something that is still being debated. However, when one considers a grand (large) idea like evolution, you're always going to find that it's more debatable because it's basis is reliant on quite a bit of time, and since we're getting more and more advanced over time, we're using the older methods of measurement less and less - and even disputing its reliability.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to the horses, this has been proved incorrect many years ago. Othniel Marsh made this Horse Evolution up by gathereing fossils of animals from all over the world and arranged them in order in the way that he thought that the horse evolved. He didn't find those fossils to form one of those horses in one place, but in many different places...

You make it sound like he pieced the creatures together. If you were to consider that natural selection means that if an animal with specific characteristics are better suited to a spacific type of environment, and another type of animal to another, is it not conceivable that the animals migrated to different places.
Also, I'd love to know you're evidence for this 'doctoring' of the evolution of the horse...

And that "small horse" that is 4 toed isn't a horse, but it is alive in Turkey, it is carnivorous also... It's not even a horse :mad2:

What do you define as a horse? Also, how can you say that:
a) species do not evolve into other species, and
b) these two creatures, are two seperate species (ergo, these two seperate animals are significantly different enough to be considered two seperate species, yet still hold a common form - and certain characteristics. Remember, the polar bear is still a bear even though it's ).

The Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) is the largest and most formidable land predator on the planet, though to categorise it as a land animal does scant justice to how well adapted it is to the marine environment. It is not uncommon for adult males to weight in excess of 1,500 pounds (700 kilos), though the average is around 1,000 pounds ( 450 kilos), while females are about half that size. The polar bear's great weight is due in no small part to the 4 inch (10cm) thick layer of fat it stores to keep warm. It is well adapted to life on the Arctic ice and its famous white coat is in fact made up of hollow, translucent hairs which act as excellent insulators, trapping radiating body heat from the black skin beneath. Light reflected from the coat gives the illusion of white colouration. In fact that only parts of a polar bear that radiate heat are the eyes and nose, and when sleeping it covers these with its fur covered paws.

B. Body shape.

Compared to other bears, polar bears have elongated bodies and long slender necks.

Also, I've tried not to quote from wikipedia. Though when to comes down to accessibility of information, its usually quite good (going from article to article rather than having to search the web again if the exact question isn't answered).

 

[Wii_Smurf]

Evolutionist?

Thats a harsh name. I prefer Atheist. I was tought Evolution at school and to me it seems correct and I'll stick by it. I used to go to a C.O.E Primary School and I thought it was all bollocks so thats my opinion.

BUT if he says people who are 'Evolutionists' can't have their minds changed why do I get Jehovah’s Witnesses to my door all the time. They always try and convince me but thats what the door was there for xD

And the way Evolution works to me is theres always going to be an animal thats different in some way [A giraffe with a longer neck than the rest] and due to changes it could survive [Getting to more leaves] and if it mates with others of the same animal it's genes could be passed on causing [In my example] more giraffes with longer necks and then the rest of the giraffes will eventually get like this causing a tad bit of evolution

 

[GOD]

Guys, we know that this topic is very important in all of our lives but in this topic we do not seem to be getting anywhere. If your a religious you can't be convinced evolution is right and if your a evolutionist you can't be convinced that god is real. So guys this is getting a bit ridiculous.

A very good point

By the way, I fixed up the spelling mistakes in your post, see-ridiculous and religious above

Because i care :thumbsup:

 

[Elitist]

I'm not proving GOD exists, it's impossible, I'm proving that evolution is wrong!!!

Hahahahaha! Haha... Ha.

Macro Evolution: One kind of animal changes into another kind (ex: a microorganism to a bird)
Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)

The first 5 of these have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting them. If you think there is, go ahead and try to prove me wrong

Wolves and Dogs aren't of the same species, IE Macroevolution. Rethink your example, maybe?

There's also this. See what I did there? An actual source from which information can be found, instead of, y'know... Just stating things and acting like they're real just because it's in words.

Lets start with the carbon dating method:
There are many problems with dating with carbon 14. First off, there isn't a high percentage of C-14 in rocks.

Second It assumes 3 things:
1. The only decay of C-14 is from time <-Bad
2. All the C-14 that is measured is from the rock
3. The rate of decay is constant

Third, it's half life is only 5,730 years so... (bear with me here)
Lets say the earth is 6.4 billion years old, if you used C-14 dating to date a rock that old it would have gone through 1,116,928 half lives. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, there would be no C-14 left, but there is still some C-14 left! C-14 is not detectable after only 17 half lives! That means no rock with C-14 could be older than 97,410 years!

C-14 is found both in the atmosphere and in biological matter, not just rocks... Exponential decay, while not technically constant, isn't random...

C-14 only detectable after 17 half lives? That depends on how much C-14 you had to begin with. The more C-14 there was initially, the more will be left after any number of half-lives [including 17]. Albeit it would have to be a rather large source of C-14, it is quite possible to have a detectable ammount of C-14 after 17 half lives. In essence, you're wrong.

Going on with dating methods
There are about 160 Geophysical Clocks (methods of dating rocks/earth)
Over 90% give an earth that would give a date less than 1 million years! Oddly, scientists don't use these methods...
One method that isn't used is using detecting the hydrogen from Radioactive decay which is much more accurate, but isn't used due to the low dates it produces

I'm interested in your source for this.

Now with the "Early Humans"
Lucy the australopithecus for example, s/he was more like an ape then a human. s/he didn't have the locking mechanism in the knees humans do and the never found her/his feet, showing that we don't know that s/he was bipedal. Lucy had long arms and short legs like apes. The early humans are bogus...

That said fossil set was more like an ape than a human doesn't make it 'bogus'; rather, one could say that it only means that it was further back in time on the evolutionary chain.

Also, unless you're insinuating that we've stumbled upon a land-roaming animal that has two legs with flippers attached, it's pretty safe to assume there were feet at the end of those legs.

You might be familiar with this image:


Now with the horses, this has been proved incorrect many years ago. Othniel Marsh made this Horse Evolution up by gathereing fossils of animals from all over the world and arranged them in order in the way that he thought that the horse evolved. He didn't find those fossils to form one of those horses in one place, but in many different places...

Source nao? Simply stating that the evolutionary chart for the modern horse was reached by improper means doesn't actually make for an argument unless you have something to back it up.

 

[Squall7]

well i've only glanced through evolution and dont know enough to give an opinion on it from a nonreligious point of view but i cant really give squall credit because most of his sources are all from wikipedia which is hard to use a credible evidence. I also looked into what coolsmile said about squall's evolution of the horse charts and it shows squall doesnt really knew what he was talking about in that area. Squall seems to get in over his head and contradicts himself from what i observed in our last debate thats why i didnt respond to it. For example he said then he says and so he says no matter how sure he is about something is accepts a small possibility i might be wrong yet he states twice that im 100% wrong, not 99.9% but 100%. I quit debating with him because of statements like this. Then he gets on to me about accepting my religion as absolute truth yet him saying i'm wrong 100% makes it an absolute truth.

Ok, let me put this another way:

You see, this is the problem. You believe that what you believe is THE truth. Christianity is an idea, a belief, not an absolute truth. At least I accept that there is the minutest possiblity that I may be wrong, no matter how sure I am.

Well, to be fair, I'm 100% sure that you're wrong but that doesn't mean that I'm going to say "So I don't accept your religion, get over it. If you dont except mine fine." or "i know its absolute truth". Fact of the matter, is that you're not nearly being as tolerant as what Christianity preaches.

Ok, now imagine this. You're in an arguement with somebody that is soo self assured that they cannot even accept that anything else could be right. Now imagine that you still want you point heard. What do you do? Do you:
a) Continue to say "well it's just your perspective" and still not be listened to,
b) Forget the arguement, admit your defeat (as the other person won't accept what you say anyway), or
c) Give him a taste of his own medicene - be as dogmatic as he is so that the debate ends in a stalemate.
I chose C as this is the only way I could see of getting out of an improvable debate without looking like I lost the debate.

so he says no matter how sure he is about something is accepts a small possibility i might be wrong yet he states twice that im 100% wrong, not 99.9% but 100%. I quit debating with him because of statements like this. Then he gets on to me about accepting my religion as absolute truth yet him saying i'm wrong 100% makes it an absolute truth.

What's 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999 rounded up? Besides, like I said earlier, I was being as dogmatic as you were. I was 'acting' or 'playing' if you will, as to show you what I am up against - somebody who says their way is the truth and denies that any other version is as "correct".

Also, it's better to have some evidence (even if it is user-created) than no evidence (at least in backing up your own ideas anyway). Sure it wouldn't do in an academic setting, but this is hardly what I call academic. Take or leave it, this place is only a forum anyway, it hardly decides the fate of the dominant scientific way of thinking.

I also looked into what coolsmile said about squall's evolution of the horse charts and it shows squall doesnt really knew what he was talking about in that area.

I was merely disputing that microevolution happned only in an animal that changes the species.

Change in allele frequency in a popuation is called microevolution. Microevolution can take place over a relatively short time periods (even one or only a few generations of a population).

 

[coolsmile]

You make it sound like he pieced the creatures together. If you were to consider that natural selection means that if an animal with specific characteristics are better suited to a spacific type of environment, and another type of animal to another, is it not conceivable that the animals migrated to different places.
Also, I'd love to know you're evidence for this 'doctoring' of the evolution of the horse...

I love the way that you think I'm getting this information out of nowhere...

a) species do not evolve into other species, and
b) these two creatures, are two seperate species (ergo, these two seperate animals are significantly different enough to be considered two seperate species, yet still hold a common form - and certain characteristics. Remember, the polar bear is still a bear even though it's ).

a) I never said that and we have not seen in nature evidence in evolution...
b) No I was saying that scentists were taking 2 different species and showing how 1 evolved into another

Concerning the horse
I got that information from a book, but here is a website that says similar things: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

With that picture about lucy and humans...
Just because they found the legs doesn't mean that lucy was bipedal. The locking mecanism that humans have isn't there. How do they know what the feet look like? They never found lucy's teeth...
How can the cranial capacity be determined when a lot of the skull has deteriorated?

 

[Brawny]

Okay, I will comment on the macro/micro evolution and the definition of species. Darwin describes in his book that the finches all had different beaks. They would all have the same GENUS but different SPECIES. Wolf to Dog is changing higher than the GENUS but coolsmile was trying to say species. He should have used like the different between english labrador and american labrador. You bolded the or below part. Include AT OR BELOW. So, giraffes getting longer necks is micro and one anscestral finch split into different species is micro.

Wikipedia is good

You say alot that evolution has to do with development, not creation. So why can't God have created it and controls evolution?

The way I see it is this: God is above everything. He created science. science is used to explain his creation, not to explain him. I need to draw a picture or something.

 

[Squall7]

I love the way that you think I'm getting this information out of nowhere...

Please do prove said information then (preferably from decent sources).

a) I never said that and we have not seen in nature evidence in evolution...
b) No I was saying that scentists were taking 2 different species and showing how 1 evolved into another

So, do you believe that one species can change into another? At what state does an organism change so radically from it's peers that it can be considered another species? Also, they're not taking two different species, they're taking similar structures with differences between them, and providing a bridge between one species and another providing many interims. Usually though, when species are quite close together (for example, homoerectus and homosapien), one usually ends up catagorising samples that seem to be in between them two as either one or the other. Thus, any minor developments in it's evolutional terms would not constitute a big enough change to place into a seperate group.

Concerning the horse
I got that information from a book, but here is a website that says similar things: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

So you get your evidence about this from a source that has an invested interest in proving evolution wrong? Heck, you may as well get all of your information about the PS3 being bad from a Nintendo or Xbox forum.

With that picture about lucy and humans...
Just because they found the legs doesn't mean that lucy was bipedal. The locking mecanism that humans have isn't there. How do they know what the feet look like? They never found lucy's teeth...
How can the cranial capacity be determined when a lot of the skull has deteriorated?

Two things:
a) the said missing items could have been removed during the lifetime.
b) she may have been born without said items - a mutation (especially since we've found no other 'animals' quite like her).

Okay, I will comment on the macro/micro evolution and the definition of species. Darwin describes in his book that the finches all had different beaks. They would all have the same GENUS but different SPECIES. Wolf to Dog is changing higher than the GENUS but coolsmile was trying to say species. He should have used like the different between english labrador and american labrador. You bolded the or below part. Include AT OR BELOW. So, giraffes getting longer necks is micro and one anscestral finch split into different species is micro.

But coolsmile said from dog=>wolf. He didn't include below the species line.

Wikipedia is good

Yes, it's quite entertaining. Also, it provides many different viewpoints. The only reason it can be considered 'a bad source' is because it's user created - however it is edited by a great number of people - if one edit is incorrect, it is changed. Not even accademia does it this good, as it doesn't always said when the writing is biased or not (which wikipedia does - it provides warnings when something may be of a particular bias).

You say alot that evolution has to do with development, not creation. So why can't God have created it and controls evolution?

Because the Big Crunch theory does not require the existence of a God. When things cannot be explained without a God, then the improbable concept will most likely be correct. Until then, the concept of science should not be mingled with religion unless it's stipulated that it's strictly a possibility (i.e. We cannot say there is definately a creator until it is proven that we cannot exist without one).

The way I see it is this: God is above everything. He created science. science is used to explain his creation, not to explain him. I need to draw a picture or something.

Interesting. Also, as far as I can see, Intelligent Design is a way of trying to combine science with religion. Not neccessarily a bad thing, but the two are often opposed...

Of course, all these theories are based upon very contemporary ideas. In the future, I'm sure we'll see how wrong we are right now (even if it is found that we cannot exist without a form of sentient creator).

To Coolsmile, What is your relationship with Kent Hovind, because I've heard all of this before. Are you actually Kent Hovind? Are you somebody that has been taught or influenced by him? Do you just use his arguements? Or is all this stuff merely coincidental that it's so close to Hovind's original arguement?