PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Community => Big Talk => Chit-Chat => Religion => Topic started by: Dilbert7 on Aug 26, 2011 at 01:12 PM
-
As human entered this generation where knowledge is at your finger tips (Internet), and vast information is available, almost at an instant it occurs, young generation, as always, tries to make a change against the establishment (meaning, the established beliefs and culture). It is just like Elvis Presley earned the ire of the conservatives against the excitement of the youth of his time.
So, religion has a battleground in almost all parts of the world. Social life (partnership) have their battle ground too.
Consequently, this subject (Creation & Evolution) have been in a battleground for some now now - though now likely to be raging.
Being a creationist, I am contributing this tract for a read.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf
-
1. HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?
It was by trial and error. Errors did not prosper while good combinations prospered.
2. HOW DID THE DNA CODE ORIGINATE?
Again by trial and error. What works proceeded to the next step while what does not work dies down.
3. HOW COULD MUTATIONS—ACCIDENTAL
COPYING MISTAKES (DNA ‘LETTERS’
EXCHANGED, DELETED OR ADDED, GENES
DUPLICATED, CHROMOSOME INVERSIONS,
ETC.)—CREATE THE HUGE VOLUMES OF
INFORMATION IN THE DNA OF LIVING THINGS?
Again by trial and error.
5. HOW DID NEW BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS,
WHICH INVOLVE MULTIPLE ENZYMES WORKING
TOGETHER IN SEQUENCE, ORIGINATE?
Just by changing a gene sequence would make a bird's beak point down. Again by trial and error based on need. If humans need later need four eyes, we will have four eyes, because if two eyes no longer work, those with two eyes dies while those with four eyes live. Just an example.
6. LIVING THINGS LOOK LIKE THEY WERE
DESIGNED, SO HOW DO EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW
THAT THEY WERE NOT DESIGNED?
Again based on trial and error. Conservationist wanted to protect zebras so they put them in an island without predators. In ten years time, they were all dead. All animals have their own role in nature. It is man who has no role.. Man was inserted into nature, while all the rest evolved..
7. HOW DID MULTI-CELLULAR LIFE ORIGINATE?
Again by trial and error. what works evolved to the next level.
8. HOW DID SEX ORIGINATE?
Trial and error again.
9. WHY ARE THE (EXPECTED) COUNTLESS
MILLIONS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS MISSING?
It may not be missing. It may not be discovered yet. We thought there was no life in deep see. Now we know there are living things thousand of meters below the sea.
10. HOW DO ‘LIVING FOSSILS’ REMAIN
UNCHANGED OVER SUPPOSED HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, IF EVOLUTION HAS
CHANGED WORMS INTO HUMANS IN THE SAME
TIME FRAME?
If it works then it will remain unchanged. Evolution initiates if there is a need. If there is no need, and a specie tries to evolve due to the trial and error,it will not proceed to the next level.
11. HOW DID BLIND CHEMISTRY CREATE
MIND/ INTELLIGENCE, MEANING, ALTRUISM AND
MORALITY?
Intel has developed a chip that mimics our brain. Maybe that chip will develop meaning and atruism. Let us wait and see.
12. WHY IS EVOLUTIONARY ‘JUST-SO’ STORYTELLING
TOLERATED?
It would depend on the situation. The appendix must have a use before, but now no more.. Before, men need to be aggressive, nowadays, men need to be wise, and hire aggressive men to protect him.. It is no longer brawn, it is brain that matters most.
13. WHERE ARE THE SCIENTIFIC
BREAKTHROUGHS DUE TO EVOLUTION?
It is bogged down on the ethics of stem cell research, cloning, etc..
14. SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
Evolution can now be don on the lab. Making a bird's beak point to the ground can be done by altering the genes.
15. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
By habit?
-
Nakikinita ko na 'to. Kung hindi gulo, away. :o
Threads like this are almost always closed by the moderators due to >:(. Same as the fate of "Sino ang mas maganda si Angel Locsin or Marian Rivera" threads. ;D
-
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie | June 18, 2002
(From Scientific American:) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
http://www.motownsports.com/forums/political-discussions/53313-intelligent-design-debate-2.html#post1254533
========================
15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1104
-
Roman Catholics believe in evolution.
Ewan ko lang sa mga ibang creationists. They appear to know more than the Pope. ;)
-
The Catholic Church has no official position about evolution, so I wouldn't directly say that it believes in evolution.
The Catholic Church has an open mind about it. However, according to the Catholic Church, if evolution is correct, then it occurred under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to Him.
Concerning human evolution, the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but man's soul was a special creation of God.
Pope Pius XII said, "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — (but) the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
-
The Catholic Church has no official position about evolution, so I wouldn't directly say that it believes in evolution.
The Catholic Church has an open mind about it. However, according to the Catholic Church, if evolution is correct, then it occurred under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to Him.
Concerning human evolution, the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but man's soul was a special creation of God.
Pope Pius XII said, "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — (but) the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
hmmm... is it tantamount to saying that the Book of Genesis is kuwento2 lang?
or baka naman hindi ko nainitindihan hehehe... teka mabasa nga ulit...
-
hmmm... is it tantamount to saying that the Book of Genesis is kuwento2 lang?
Hindi naman sir.
It only means the Catholic Church is open to different interpretations of Genesis. Pero may mga aspects pa rin sa Genesis kung saan non-negotiable ang official interpretation nila.
-
Concerning human evolution, the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but man's soul was a special creation of God.
Are they saying that the previous biological forms have no soul (e.g. bacteria)? When man evolved, suddenly God gave him soul? God's plan? Can we call this evolution since God already planned the final result to be man then give him a soul?
-
I am not a Catholic, but I'll try to give a respectful answer from the Catholic point of view.
Are they saying that the previous biological forms have no soul (e.g. bacteria)?
Catholics believe animals have a soul because Pope John Paul II said that "the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren."
When man evolved, suddenly God gave him soul?
Yes, that's right.
Can we call this evolution since God already planned the final result to be man then give him a soul?
Strictly speaking, that is not evolution as understood in science, because that's incompatible with scientific theory.
So my answer is no, we can't call that evolution in the scientific sense.
The belief that the evolution of man was guided by God is called "Theistic Evolution" or "Evolutionary Creation." This is the view that reconciles modern scientific understanding about biological evolution with traditional religious belief.
-
Both stood on the same ground! - on a theory.
Both stood as if their theory is correct without proof, and both gathers proof to support their respective theory.
Evolution in simple terms is that - man comes from simpler life form (meaning, not man). This is also a theory in itself.
Creation in simple terms is that - man is man from the beginning. Scientifically, this is also a theory in itself.
Theory, in science, is an idea not yet proven.
any evolution - theistic or whatever - is still a theory, and can not contaminate science nor scientific methodologies to qualify them as science.
Thus, whether you believe creation or evolution - that's it - a belief system.
But scientific methodologies/findings will continue the quest for knowledge independent of theories, and unfold lots of life mysteries. Whether the discoveries points to evolution theory or creation theory, is something all of us should take with an open mind. After all, a healthy belief system should be opened for correction, if it is really shown without a shadow of a doubt.
Thus, discussion can be healthy if we take the independent science expose their discoveries - and assess for ourselves if our belief system is not crumbling under us.
-
For my part,
Darwin's foundation for evolution were, during his time, are mere assumptions for the simple reasons that few things are known in those days about single-cell dynamics & composition.
With powerful microscope, scientists now can drill to the smallest parts of single cell microorganism - and is opening a new whole dimension of how single cell (if ever we came from them) operates.
Here is an item: bacterial flagellum. (in modern terms - it is a complex motor system, an engine as a whole, a car if you will, or a modern system like a personal computer - no, something higher than that, in that, it was able to assemble itself into a life form [which the PC can not] - not lifeless form [which the PC is])
See for yourself (google youtube and articles about the subject). I am reading about this, and I am amazed about its complexity, being a single-cell life.
Evolution sometimes attached to it "trial & error" - while creation attribute "life from a giver".
-
The problem with Creationism is that it is not science. And should not be taught as such. It belongs in religion classes, philosophy classes and literature classes. NOT SCIENCE CLASSES.
Evolution may not be perfect but it is scientific fact. It is a theory the same way the theory of GRAVITY is theory. It's not something that someone pulled out of their behind one day but it was observed and tested SCIENTIFICALLY.
I have no problem believing in God AND evolution. The Book of Genesis in the Bible is a metaphor, an allegory. Much like lots of stuff in the Bible (FACT: Only 1/3 of the Bible has proven historical and archaelogical facts backing it up). The Bible is not supposed to be used as a historical or scientific document. That's just foolishness.
-
The problem with Creationism is that it is not science. And should not be taught as such. It belongs in religion classes, philosophy classes and literature classes. NOT SCIENCE CLASSES.
Evolution may not be perfect but it is scientific fact. It is a theory the same way the theory of GRAVITY is theory. It's not something that someone pulled out of their behind one day but it was observed and tested SCIENTIFICALLY.
I have no problem believing in God AND evolution. The Book of Genesis in the Bible is a metaphor, an allegory. Much like lots of stuff in the Bible (FACT: Only 1/3 of the Bible has proven historical and archaelogical facts backing it up). The Bible is not supposed to be used as a historical or scientific document. That's just foolishness.
EVOLUTION - tested scientifically??? paano???
-
ang pagkakaalam ko pag THEORY di pa siya proven kaya hindi siya FACT
-
Evolution -- some call it a fact, some call it a theory. I call it a fairy tale. :D
EVOLUTION - tested scientifically??? paano???
This I'd like to see. ;)
-
Thus, whether you believe creation or evolution - that's it - a belief system.
Evolution is not a "belief system". Let's not confuse it with Faith.
Evolution can be observed over successive generations of a species. It is in this statement that evolution is a fact.
Evolution as a theory revolves around the idea that there are still many unknown concepts that need to be studied and empirically measured and observed.
This is similar to that of relativity and even plate tectonics. These definitely exist and are, in fact, observed but not yet fully understood.
-
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif)
-
ang pagkakaalam ko pag THEORY di pa siya proven kaya hindi siya FACT
Many theories that have been proven are still called theories. Theories are not just intelligent guesses. You need to bring in related facts before you can theorize.
-
Many theories that have been proven are still called theories. Theories are not just intelligent guesses. You need to bring in related facts before you can theorize.
There is still no definition of electricity. It can only be observed. So I guess it is still a theory..
-
Meron na bang nakapag observed ng evolution in process???
-
Kasama rin ba sa evolution theory ang life from non-living?
-
Meron na bang nakapag observed ng evolution in process???
Di ba basis ng theory of evolution ni Darwin was his observation in Galapagos Island. From his observation and evidences, he formulated the theory of evolution. Nowadays, scientist can jumpstart the evolution process by manually tweaking on the DNA.
-
Di ba basis ng theory of evolution ni Darwin was his observation in Galapagos Island. From his observation and evidences, he formulated the theory of evolution. Nowadays, scientist can jumpstart the evolution process by manually tweaking on the DNA.
Did Darwin observed the actual process of evolution? Darwin stayed in Galapagos Island for a brief period of time and he observed the actual evolution?
Ang nakita ni Darwin sa Galapagos Island is the diversity of animals and their adaptation to survive... What he saw - animals in their complete form (no missing limb, no missing tail, etc.. not even in stage of evolution)...
Ano ang proof ni Darwin any evolutionist to conclude that Human came from Ape?
believing in something without solid proof is simply a matter of 'FAITH'.
-
Ano ang proof ni Darwin any evolutionist to conclude that Human came from Ape?
believing in something without solid proof is simply a matter of 'FAITH'.
Anong proof ng mga relihiyoso that we are alone in the universe? Nalibot na ba nila buong universe? ;D
Kaya nga po theory pa lang. Di pa napo-prove.
-
Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.
-
Anong proof ng mga relihiyoso that we are alone in the universe? Nalibot na ba nila buong universe? ;D
kaya nga po... sabi ko... by 'FAITH' (with or without proof)
Kaya nga po theory pa lang. Di pa napo-prove.
LOL... there it goes... un naman pala eh... di pa naman pala napoprove... pero may naniniwala... ano tawag doon?
-
LOL... there it goes... un naman pala eh... di pa naman pala napoprove... pero may naniniwala... ano tawag doon?
Kasi po, based on known, accepted facts. Di naman yun tatanggapin ng mga academics kung hindi. It's very different from "ancient aliens" na speculative at best.
-
LOL... there it goes... un naman pala eh... di pa naman pala napoprove... pero may naniniwala... ano tawag doon?
To give you the benefit of a doubt, kahit ilang beses na naulit (kasi alam ko kailangan sa 'yo paulit-ulit din), In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
To put it another way, the Pythagoream Theorem is a mathematical theory, yet no one will say it requires 'faith' to understand or to put to good use everyday, in practically every field of construction and engineering on the planet.
The theory of gravity is 'just a theory', too. I guess if you don't believe in it, you'll fall (or levitate) off the planet?
-
Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.
I agree, this can be considered as an evidence of evolution.
In America, foxes are evolving. There was even a case where a young musician girl(i believe) was attacked and killed by them. They believe that this was a result of fox and wolf cross breeding.
-
To give you the benefit of a doubt, kahit ilang beses na naulit (kasi alam ko kailangan sa 'yo paulit-ulit din), In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
To put it another way, the Pythagoream Theorem is a mathematical theory, yet no one will say it requires 'faith' to understand or to put to good use everyday, in practically every field of construction and engineering on the planet.
The theory of gravity is 'just a theory', too. I guess if you don't believe in it, you'll fall (or levitate) off the planet?
and evolution is a hunch... based on fossils... evolutionist predict that we came from monkey... "PREDICT" !!!! or ASSUMED???? nakahukay lang ng maliit na bungo ng mukhang tao... pagaaralan... then... based on given facts, data... we great scientist... conclude that this is the missing link.... whaaaaaaaaat... a branch of science with a "missing link"...
that is not science... that is mere speculation...
sabi nga ng mga scientist kuno... they need proof to believe in God... yet... they cannot prove (only predict based on fossils etc) that we came from ape or one single cell....
whether they (evolutionist) like it or not... what they believe is simply by FAITH.
-
Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.
That is not evolution... that is adaptation...
it doesnt matter how many times they change their colours... still... fox pa rin ang mga yan...
-
The theory of gravity is 'just a theory', too. I guess if you don't believe in it, you'll fall (or levitate) off the planet?
This made me laugh. ;D
Baka kasi sabihin, "my faith in God keeps me from falling off the earth." ;D
-
That is not evolution... that is adaptation...
evolution is adaptation... ;D
-
evolution is adaptation... ;D
NOT... we adopt... but we dont evolve...
-
NOT... we adopt... but we dont evolve...
evolution is about changing something for the betterment of the species...
so if you change something physically to adapt to your new environment, then that is evolution.
-
Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.
They're all foxes. That's not evolution.
I agree, this can be considered as an evidence of evolution.
No, that's not evolution, that's adaptation.
Jumping to a conclusion that is clearly unsupported by the available evidence is not scientific.
Darwin did the same thing -- extrapolating far beyond the available evidence. Darwin looked at finches’ beaks, and from small changes he extrapolated to state that evolution from one group to another had occurred.
Evolutionsists point out that "microevolution" has been upheld by tests in the laboratory.
That's true. Creationists and evolutionists see the same variations in the plant and animal kingdoms that evolutionists see. Bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, yet they still are nothing but bacteria. Beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands do change. But to this day, they're still finches, reproducing other finches -- not ostriches, lemurs monkeys, gorillas, or apes.
Macroevolution -- changing from one kind of animal to another -- has been inferred, but never documented.
...They believe that this was a result of fox and wolf cross breeding.
I don't think they know what they're talking about.
Foxes and wolves cannot interbreed; or if they could, their offspring would be infertile.
Members of the dog genus Canis such as wolves and dogs cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family of the Canidae such as the fox (Genus Vulpes).
The reason is in their genetics. The wolf, dingo, dog, coyote, etc. all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridize and produce fertile offspring. Other members of the Canidae family, such as the red fox, which has 38 chromosomes, cannot hybridize with the wolf-like canids.
-
and evolution is a hunch...
Not a hunch, not at all.
based on fossils... evolutionist predict that we came from monkey... "PREDICT" !!!! or ASSUMED???? nakahukay lang ng maliit na bungo ng mukhang tao... pagaaralan... then... based on given facts, data... we great scientist... conclude that this is the missing link.... whaaaaaaaaat... a branch of science with a "missing link"...
that is not science... that is mere speculation...
I'll take you seriously when you've read up as much as the generations of paleo-biologists, archaeologists and geologists before you. Otherwise, you're just an armchair critic who doesn't even know the difference between the common language meaning of 'theory' vs. scientific or mathematical Theory, as you repeatedly demonstrate.
Nobody's predicting anything with evolution. Nobody's assumed anything either that isn't apparent from the fossil record. The 'theory' is a theory only because it's incomplete, not because it's not self-consistent.
On the other hand—a 6,000 year old earth is highly inconsistent with existing observations and calculations in physics, geology and astronomy. Go figure.
yet... they cannot prove (only predict based on fossils etc) that we came from ape or one single cell....
Again, you demonstrate ignorance fueled by emotion. We do come from a single cell (a zygote). You probably mean "complex, higher-order lifeforms evolve from simpler forms" but like I said, your arguments are hard to take seriously when you can't even articulate them properly.
whether they (evolutionist) like it or not... what they believe is simply by FAITH.
Does Pythagorean theorem, or the theory of gravity, or (statistics ka, di ba?) Cochran's theorem require faith?
-
Why is it that the common argument of people who do not believe in evolution is that no animal has spontaneously given birth to a completely new species? I think this is a very silly argument. Evolution is a process that takes millions of years. A dinosaur will not just suddenly give birth to a bird. Small adaptations that happen for millions of years in one species will eventually result in a completely new one. An analogy I'd like to us is stop motion animation. It takes hundreds of individual "shots" put together and run at a particular speed to give us the illusion of motion. But if you look at the individual shots you won't notice the movements in the frames even if you look at the frame before or after the one you're studying.
Others will argue that there isn't any proof of evolution in the fossil record (a species that evolves into a completely new one). It's because the fossil record is not totally complete. It takes a combination of environmental factors and luck to produce a fossil. Fossils were not placed by God for his amusement and our bewilderment.
-
I did not expect that I will be doing this. Here are the definitions of the contested words (accdg to Merriam Webster):
evolution- a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
adaptation- modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
As you can see, adaptation is part of evolution.
-
Yes, adaptation is part of microevolution. Microevolution is a fact. It is observable. It is non-controversial.
But microevolution is not the issue here. It's macroevolution.
Evidence of microevolution and adaptation is not evidence of macroevolution.
Show us evidence of macroevolution.
-
Yes, adaptation is part of microevolution. Microevolution is a fact. It is observable. It is non-controversial.
But microevolution is not the issue here. It's macroevolution.
Evidence of microevolution and adaptation is not evidence of macroevolution.
Show us evidence of macroevolution.
sige mag-usap uli tayo after 1000 years
-
Why is it that the common argument of people who do not believe in evolution is that no animal has spontaneously given birth to a completely new species? I think this is a very silly argument. Evolution is a process that takes millions of years. A dinosaur will not just suddenly give birth to a bird. Small adaptations that happen for millions of years in one species will eventually result in a completely new one. An analogy I'd like to us is stop motion animation. It takes hundreds of individual "shots" put together and run at a particular speed to give us the illusion of motion. But if you look at the individual shots you won't notice the movements in the frames even if you look at the frame before or after the one you're studying.
Others will argue that there isn't any proof of evolution in the fossil record (a species that evolves into a completely new one). It's because the fossil record is not totally complete. It takes a combination of environmental factors and luck to produce a fossil. Fossils were not placed by God for his amusement and our bewilderment.
please provide scientific facts for "Small adaptations that happen for millions of years in one species will eventually result in a completely new one"
if we believe in something that cannot be prove scientifically then it is by FAITH.
-
please provide scientific facts for "Small adaptations that happen for millions of years in one species will eventually result in a completely new one"
if we believe in something that cannot be prove scientifically then it is by FAITH.
Pwede na ba sayo to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur)
-
I think somebody has watched "Contact" far too many times.
It is like the joke (nga ba?) that many Filipinos think that "Exorcist" is a documentary.
-
if we believe in something that cannot be prove scientifically then it is by FAITH.
If we refuse to believe in something that is scientifically sound because of our faith, then what do you call that?
-
If we refuse to believe in something that is scientifically sound because of our faith, then what do you call that?
evolution !!! eerrrr! sound scientifically... but it is not scientific...
if scientist can prove scientifically that evolution exists... then I will consider this kind of idea ;)
(http://static.neatorama.com/images/2008-06/new-synthesis-evolution-creationism.gif)
-
Show us evidence of macroevolution.
Show me evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being.
-
Show me evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being.
That is why we called it "FAITH"... with or without evidence/proof... we believe in creation.
-
That is why we called it "FAITH"... with or without evidence/proof... we believe in Supreme Being.
And that's why it's useless to argue with you.
On evolution, you demand rigorous scientific explanation (never mind that most rational explanations just go over your head or you refuse to listen to them outright, see ethics).
On the Bible, you expect everyone else to just take your word for it.
-
And that's why it's useless to argue with you.
On evolution, you demand rigorous scientific explanation (never mind that most rational explanations just go over your head or you refuse to listen to them outright, see ethics).
On the Bible, you expect everyone else to just take your word for it.
since evolution cannot be explained scientifically (hindi porket ginamitan ng mga aparatus na pangscience scientific na)... can we now considered evolution as some sort of religion....
-
If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?
-
Would you rather have FAITH or TRUTH?
I wish someday when the origin of humanity will finally be settled once for all. The flaw in just having "FAITH" is that anybody can have their own belief and consider it as true. Christianity alone doesn't have the monopoly on origins of mankind. The origins of mankind would be decided by the majority and not by facts.
Creationism or evolution, it doesn't matter as long as we finally seek the truth in a scientific manner. We owe this ourselves >:(
-
since evolution cannot be explained scientifically (hindi porket ginamitan ng mga aparatus na pangscience scientific na)... can we now considered evolution as some sort of religion....
At least when it comes to science, evolution can be refuted. The real question is, can your "FAITH" in Creationism be swayed?
-
Would you rather have FAITH or TRUTH?
I wish someday when the origin of humanity will finally be settled once for all. The flaw in just having "FAITH" is that anybody can have their own belief and consider it as true. Christianity alone doesn't have the monopoly on origins of mankind. The origins of mankind would be decided by the majority and not by facts.
Creationism or evolution, it doesn't matter as long as we finally seek the truth in a scientific manner. We owe this ourselves >:(
scientific manner... you think evolution or big bang theory ... follow the steps of scientific methodology???
out from nowhere there was an explosion from golf size matter... an explosion that instead of creating chaos and disorder... created order and perfection (dna, human life, ecosystem, etc)... can we call this a scietific manner???
if origin of mankind will be decided by the majority alone... evolution is the winner... why... because nowadays... creation ay hindi na itinuturo sa mga universities...
if origin of mankind will be decided by facts and truth... no one will believe in evolution...
-
scientific manner... you think evolution or big bang theory ... follow the steps of scientific methodology???
out from nowhere there was an explosion from golf size matter... an explosion that instead of creating chaos and disorder... created order and perfection (dna, human life, ecosystem, etc)... can we call this a scietific manner???
You obviously have no idea what the big bang theory is and how it was formulated. I seriously suggest you read up on it. There is a lot of evidence (observable even) that the big bang did happen.
And by the way, it's called the scientific method.
if origin of mankind will be decided by the majority alone... evolution is the winner... why... because nowadays... creation ay hindi na itinuturo sa mga universities...
if origin of mankind will be decided by facts and truth... no one will believe in evolution...
There are absolutely no "facts" that support spontaneous creation.
And the reason why universities do not teach creationism is because it cannot be rationally proven without bringing in religion into the picture.
-
out from nowhere there was an explosion from golf size matter... an explosion that instead of creating chaos and disorder... created order and perfection (dna, human life, ecosystem, etc)... can we call this a scietific manner???
Yes, because Science started with other (flawed) assumptions, then based on observation and experimentation came up with the current theories. For example—for the longest time Science thought the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now Science knows better. That's the Scientific Method.
On the other hand—you start with a belief (Earth is young, man & animals magically appeared of out nowhere) and start looking for 'evidence' to back it up.
-
scientific manner... you think evolution or big bang theory ... follow the steps of scientific methodology???
out from nowhere there was an explosion from golf size matter... an explosion that instead of creating chaos and disorder... created order and perfection (dna, human life, ecosystem, etc)... can we call this a scietific manner???
if origin of mankind will be decided by the majority alone... evolution is the winner... why... because nowadays... creation ay hindi na itinuturo sa mga universities...
if origin of mankind will be decided by facts and truth... no one will believe in evolution...
Truth is stranger than fiction.... ::) It doesn't matter how absurd it is
since you said, the origin of mankind is already settled by facts and truth, can you refer to me please where can I learn about these "facts and truth". I was assuming you said the creationism is proved by "FAITH" alone
-
if origin of mankind will be decided by the majority alone... evolution is the winner... why... because nowadays... creation ay hindi na itinuturo sa mga universities...
if origin of mankind will be decided by facts and truth... no one will believe in evolution...
evolution is being explained by using physical data while creation takes a very big leap from physical to a spiritual realm exposition.
There no facts and truth in the spiritual domain. Faith is believing without reason.
-
Pwede na ba sayo to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur)
Wala yan sa lolo ko:
A chicken-sized dinosaur fossil found in China
may have overturned a long-held theory about
the origin of birds.
For 150 years, a species called Archaeopteryx has been regarded as the first true bird, representing a major evolutionary step away from dinosaurs.
But the new fossil suggests this creature was just another feathery dinosaur and not the significant link that palaeontologists had believed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14307985
Relatives of Living Ducks and Chickens Existed
Alongside Dinosaurs More Than 65 Million Years Ago
Research by paleontologist Dr. Julia A. Clarke, an assistant professor in the marine, earth and atmospheric sciences department at NC State, and colleagues provides unprecedented fossil proof that some close cousins to living bird species coexisted with dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago.
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm
-
Show me evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being.
I believe in God and creation. But I admit that my belief is unprovable. So don't ask me for proof.
You believe in evolution. If you admit that evolution is unprovable, then I won't ask you for any proof either.
But if you believe that evolution is a provable fact, then go ahead and show us the evidence.
-
"To teach young people things we know are not true, is tantamount to abuse of young people in a classroom situation."
A priest rejects creationism --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQuvwQ4y-k&feature=player_embedded
-
I am neither pro creation nor pro evolution, I just keep an open mind with it.
I AM PRO ALIEN INTERVENTION!!! ;D
So now the question is, who made the aliens? :D
Seriously though, if you really believe in creation, where do you think the creator came from? Or who made the creator? Or WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR? and WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR... :D
-
Show me evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being.
(http://blog.newsok.com/nerdage/files/2011/07/SupermanII.jpg)
just kidding. ;D
Asking for evidence of existence of a Supreme Being is like asking if you really believe that your parents/gf/wife/kids really loves you. Their love for you doesn't have solid proof but still you believe and feel it.
:)
-
You believe in evolution. If you admit that evolution is unprovable, then I won't ask you for any proof either.
But if you believe that evolution is a provable fact, then go ahead and show us the evidence.
Evolution is NOT "unprovable". It may not be a PERFECT theory or a perfect concept but it's an ever changing, ever EVOLVING theory that's extrapolated from evidence that's been observed and experimented through the SCIENTIFIC method.
-
I am neither pro creation nor pro evolution, I just keep an open mind with it.
I AM PRO ALIEN INTERVENTION!!! ;D
So now the question is, who made the aliens? :D
Seriously though, if you really believe in creation, where do you think the creator came from? Or who made the creator? Or WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR? and WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR... :D
Me too. The most logical explanation to date. As to who made the creator, maybe another alien intervention?
-
Katulad na lang din to nga tanong na:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? ;D
Kasi kahit sa evolution perspective malabo din, san nagumpisa yung pinagumpisahan ng umpisa???? :D
-
evolution is being explained by using physical data while creation takes a very big leap from physical to a spiritual realm exposition.
Exactly. Creationism is going backwards—I believe in God, therefore, somehow there must be an explanation on how God magically created the earth and its denizens.
Science didn't even have Evolution to begin with. Instead, Science saw the fossil record, Mendel experimented with genetics, Darwin pondered on speciation, Watson and Crick deduced the double helix structure of DNA, geology uncovered a billion-year old Earth, and so on. Put those all together, and it paints a picture of simple life-forms early in Earth's history, gradually progressing towards greater and greater variety and complexity. What's the more likely conclusion, then?
a) All these things just magically happened, with some supernatural cause?
b) There is a mechanism, which we call "natural selection", by which Life, through successive generations and mutations, 'grew' toward greater variety and complexity?
There no facts and truth in the spiritual domain. Faith is believing without reason.
Not entirely true, though. One of the things they taught us back in college was the whole "faith seeking understanding" and "understanding seeking faith" thing. Yes, there are spiritual truths (according to theologists, of course). Except, they're still restricted to matters spiritual.
Once you go all meta-physical, then you run into trouble.
-
Katulad na lang din to nga tanong na:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? ;D
Kasi kahit sa evolution perspective malabo din, san nagumpisa yung pinagumpisahan ng umpisa???? :D
that golf-ball-size matter that explode???
hmmm... scientifically speaking... they just came from nowhere.... :)
-
that golf-ball-size matter that explode???
hmmm... scientifically speaking... they just came from nowhere.... :)
Wrong again. Science, specifically, the Big Bang cosmological theory, does not speculate on where the Universe came from or what came before it. That, for now, is metaphysics.
(May I suggest you read and read some more until you get the hang of reading and comprehension.)
-
that golf-ball-size matter that explode???
hmmm... scientifically speaking... they just came from nowhere.... :)
is nowhere a place? ;D
where did nowhere came from?
from nothing? what is nothing? :D
-
The BBC discussion on whether creationism should be taught in schools. The post I made above is an excerpt from this lengthier video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2f_CZsXbyk&feature=related
-
I wonder how many pro-Creationism are good in Math.
-
is nowhere a place? ;D
where did nowhere came from?
from nothing? what is nothing? :D
science cannot answer that I think... they still gathering information, datas, maybe 50-1K years from now... they can answer that... sa ngayon... let just be satisfied for this explanation...
basta... may sumabog na matter million/billion/trillion years ago... and through random luck of combination... universe now is perfectly set...
-
basta... may sumabog na matter million/billion/trillion years ago... and through random luck of combination... universe now is perfectly set...
You can read up on M Theory for the latest on what caused the Big Bang.
-
Evolution is NOT "unprovable". It may not be a PERFECT theory or a perfect concept but it's an ever changing, ever EVOLVING theory that's extrapolated from evidence that's been observed and experimented through the SCIENTIFIC method.
LOL... really?
-
LOL... really?
Itatanong ko dito yung itinanong dun sa napanood ko --
Where did the chihuahua come from? Or to make it simpler, where did the domesticated dog come from?
-
basta... may sumabog na matter million/billion/trillion years ago... and through random luck of combination... universe now is perfectly set...
Define 'perfectly set'?
I think you're exhibiting anthropic bias—where you think the Universe is perfectly suited for you or for Life. The inverse, in fact, is more logical—that extant Life is perfectly suited for the Universe.
It's entirely plausible (though, of course, untestable) that in an alternate Universe, with different physical constants or entirely different physical laws, that the hypothetical life that arises there would be just as 'perfectly fit' for whatever that Universe is like.
Put it another way: you see cacti in the dessert, and they thrive in the absence of water and harsh sunlight.
Which is the more rational worldview:
Some "random combination of luck" caused the dessert to form 'perfectly' so that cacti could live there?
Or—cacti evolved (from other, less-hardy plants), to be able to survive in the harsh dessert?
-
I wonder how many pro-Creationism are good in Math.
How many pro-Creationism would answer all their science quizzes as "GAWA NI GOD" or "GAWA YAN NI PAPA JESUS"?
-
Evolution is NOT "unprovable". It may not be a PERFECT theory or a perfect concept but it's an ever changing, ever EVOLVING theory that's extrapolated from evidence that's been observed and experimented through the SCIENTIFIC method.
I was asking for the evidece. You merely restated the conclusion.
Merely restating the conclusion is begging the question. That's not proof.
If you say evolution is provable, then go ahead and prove it. Start with the facts, then connect those facts to the conclusion.
I will show you that your so-called extrapolation is actually the same error Darwin made -- extrapolating far beyond the available evidence.
If the conclusion is too far removed from the evidence, that is not an acceptable extrapolation, that's speculation. Conclusions based on speculation are pure conjecture, not science.
-
Wolves and chihuahuas.
-
Wolves and chihuahuas.
Chinese, Africans, Australians, Asians... different races... pero human pa rin...
wolves, chihuahuas, bulldog, ... different breed... pero aso pa rin...
siamese, persian, different breed... pero pusa pa rin...
cross breeding is not equal to evolution
-
I will show you that your so-called extrapolation is actually the same error Darwin made -- extrapolating far beyond the available evidence.
If the conclusion is too far removed from the evidence, that is not an acceptable extrapolation, that's speculation. Conclusions based on speculation are pure conjecture, not science.
Who's to say an extrapolation is too far beyond or just enough? Darwin simply didn't have enough science or evidences at the time to prove his claims but it doesn't mean he just speculated. If Darwin's over-extrapolation compromised his theory, then it would be easy to disprove him today. The thing is, the evolution theory is still very much alive.
-
Second law of Thermodynamics...
Law of Biogenesis...
-
Who's to say an extrapolation is too far beyond or just enough? Darwin simply didn't have enough science or evidences at the time to prove his claims but it doesn't mean he just speculated. If Darwin's over-extrapolation compromised his theory, then it would be easy to disprove him today. The thing is, the evolution theory is still very much alive.
Can you now prove that Human came from ape?
Can you now prove that living things came from non-living things?
animal kingdom is very diverse... millions of species recorded... yet no fossils found to prove macroevolution... yet no fossils found to prove that chihuahua came from wolf (vice versa)... no fossils found transition stage of ape-human...
sa dinami dami ng hayop sa mudno... bakit walang makitang fossils na nagpapatunay directly ng macroevolution...
-
Can you now prove that Human came from ape?
Kaya nga theory pa lang e. Kumbaga, work in progress. Ikaw naman tanungin ko, merong bang proof na mali, or counter evidences?
Can you now prove that living things came from non-living things?
Carbon is non-living. Nuff said?
animal kingdom is very diverse... millions of species recorded... yet no fossils found to prove macroevolution... yet no fossils found to prove that chihuahua came from wolf (vice versa)... no fossils found transition stage of ape-human...
sa dinami dami ng hayop sa mudno... bakit walang makitang fossils na nagpapatunay directly ng macroevolution...
Bakit, madali bang maghanap ng fossils? Lahat ba ng nalilibing, nagfo-fossilize? Theory pa lang, dpogs, di pa proven. There are evidences for it. If you want it dismissed, pakita ka ng evidence against it.
-
Chinese, Africans, Australians, Asians... different races... pero human pa rin...
wolves, chihuahuas, bulldog, ... different breed... pero aso pa rin...
siamese, persian, different breed... pero pusa pa rin...
cross breeding is not equal to evolution
Pero san nga sila galing? All from the original pair onboard Noah's Ark?
-
animal kingdom is very diverse... millions of species recorded... yet no fossils found to prove macroevolution...
Because not every step in the speciation has fossils. Yet somehow, everything magically appearing at once is more rational or likely?
Again—rather than just keeping on trying to 'disprove' Evolution. What's your theory? Magical thinking?
sa dinami dami ng hayop sa mudno... bakit walang makitang fossils na nagpapatunay directly ng macroevolution...
Because macroevolution happens on geologic time scales, and it doesn't matter that we have a feathered reptiles or neolithic humanoid because you're completely convinced those are hoaxes, or wrongly dated, and that they don't indicate small steps on a long process of evolution.
What's your theory, really, for the existence of the variety and complexity of Life as we know it? Not belief. Theory. Falsifiable. Observable/experimentable. Consistent with other scientific knowledge (genetics, micro-evolution/speciation, natural selection, etc.)
Meron nga ba?
-
the bible said it very simple... "life begats life"... ang isang buhay ay nagsisimula sa isang buhay...
if you can prove that life started from nothing then i will consider evolution.
may tanong lang ako sa mga evolutionist... what are the odds na magkaroon ng life on earth?
alam natin ang odds ng six-sided dice...
alam natin ang odds ng 6-42 lotto...
or what are the odds that an explosion can create galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc...
-
(http://animal kingdom is very diverse... millions of species recorded... yet no fossils found to prove macroevolution... yet no fossils found to prove that chihuahua came from wolf (vice versa)... no fossils found transition stage of ape-human...)
You don't need to go to the fossil record to find the connection between wolves and dogs, it's in their DNA. Various studies have shown that wolves and dogs are related, with others saying that dogs evolved from wolves. Now, if you look at a wolf and a chihuahua -- do they look related? No, because speciation already happened. And speciation is one of the proofs of evolution.
But of course you won't believe this hard fact as well, so really what's the point.
-
if you can prove that life started from nothing then i will consider evolution.
That's not what Evolution is about.
When you have a better understanding of what Evolution is (versus, say, abiogenesis) then maybe we can talk? Until then, trying to keep discrediting Evolution by merely parroting what other Creationists say is just... pointless.
may tanong lang ako sa mga evolutionist... what are the odds na magkaroon ng life on earth?
100%.
or what are the odds that an explosion can create galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc...
Again, not what Evolution is about.
You still haven't elaborated on your own theory.
-
the bible said it very simple... "life begats life"... ang isang buhay ay nagsisimula sa isang buhay...
if you can prove that life started from nothing then i will consider evolution.
may tanong lang ako sa mga evolutionist... what are the odds na magkaroon ng life on earth?
alam natin ang odds ng six-sided dice...
alam natin ang odds ng 6-42 lotto...
or what are the odds that an explosion can create galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc...
If you're talking about odds, let's talk about lotto. Do you know the odds of getting a winning number in lotto? For a lottery with 49 numbers its almost 1 in 14,000,000. And yet someone still gets that number right? Probability within the context of an infinite universe dictates that a confluence of factors will result in life. In fact, thinking that life only exists on earth is arrogant at best.
But then Dawkins said it best, arguing with a creationist is just giving them undue status.
-
Check this out.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F1Xkl8lkL._SS500_.jpg)
This is a great kid's book about evolution. However, adults will also find it well worth reading. While it explains the substance of evolution in the straight forward way typical of a "children's" book, it presents illustrations, explanations, and examples useful for those of us who do not happen to be a biologist, geologist or similar type of scientist. The last chapter discusses many of the misconceptions about evolution without being condescending or "preachy." Many books on evolution are fairly technical and often rather dry. This book is neither. For some of us, this could be the "missing link" enabling us to better understand more comprehensive writing and discussions on evolution. Buy it for your kids but read it before you give it to them!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1554534305/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_g14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=1FG3F29JA9X58RFZY121&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938811&pf_rd_i=507846
-
Who's to say an extrapolation is too far beyond or just enough? Darwin simply didn't have enough science or evidences at the time to prove his claims but it doesn't mean he just speculated. If Darwin's over-extrapolation compromised his theory, then it would be easy to disprove him today. The thing is, the evolution theory is still very much alive.
Stop generalizing.
Give us the specific data so we can discuss how far the extrapolation actually goes.
If you want to discuss genetic mutation in Stephen Jay Gould's fruit flies and bacteria, cite it and let's discuss it. Don't confine yourself to conclusions without citing the data from which the conclusions are based.
-
I wonder if arguments/movements exist where the premise is God created Evolution.
I'm sure there are scriptural concepts that can be shoehorned to support it. Evidence will probably not be there, I suppose.
-
the bible said it very simple... "life begats life"... ang isang buhay ay nagsisimula sa isang buhay...
if you can prove that life started from nothing then i will consider evolution.
may tanong lang ako sa mga evolutionist... what are the odds na magkaroon ng life on earth?
alam natin ang odds ng six-sided dice...
alam natin ang odds ng 6-42 lotto...
or what are the odds that an explosion can create galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc...
Ang problema lang dito, babalik ka pa din sa tanong na, pano nagumpisa yung pinakaunang buhay na pinanggalingan ng buhay na sinasabi mo na gagawa ng isa pang buhay? ;D
-
I wonder if arguments/movements exist where the premise is God created Evolution.
I'm sure there are scriptural concepts that can be shoehorned to support it. Evidence will probably not be there, I suppose.
The difference lies in whether or not the claimant admits that his belief is unprovable.
If someone believes in "Theistic Evolution" or "Evolutionary Creation," yet admits that his belief is unprovable, then evidence is not required.
If someone believes in macroevolution, but admits that his belief is unprovable, then evidence is not required either.
However, if someone asserts that macroevolution is a provable fact, then that's very different. In that case, it is incumbent upon him to prove his assertion.
-
Here's another physical evidence strengthening the evolution concept:
Feathers found in amber offer glimpse of early birds, dinosaurs
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/dinosaurs-feathers-amber.html
How about the creation concept, are there physical evidences? Is it all---it is in the bible--end of story?
-
How can they provide any evidence when they don't even have a theory to begin with?
Say we have a kitchen, and in it are several dirty pots and pans, and several cakes of various flavors and in various states—uncooked, half cooked, burnt, dry, a couple of well cooked cakes, and a cake in the oven.
The scientist walks into the kitchen and thinks, "There's this thing called baking, and it's messy and sometimes unpredictable, but the well-cooked cake represents the pinnacle of baking, and the cake in the oven is how the thing happens. All that must've taken several hours at least."
The Creationist sees all that and says, "God created everything that way a minute earlier."
-
What do you guys think of marsupials?
Don't you think their occurence is a result of evolution from the ordinary mammals?
-
Here's another physical evidence strengthening the evolution concept:
Feathers found in amber offer glimpse of early birds, dinosaurs
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/dinosaurs-feathers-amber.html
Those feathers are about 70 million years old. That's a relatively young specimen.
Feather discoveries are not new.
The first feather discovery was from an Archaeopteryx (lived in the Late Jurassic Period around 150 million years ago), unearthed in 1860, only one year after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.
The Archeopteryx is a bird. Thus, evolutionary ornithologist Allan Feduccia wrote in Science magazine:
I conclude that Archaeopteryx was arboreal and volant [i.e., possessing extended wings for flight], considerably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of flapping, powered flight to at least some degree. Archaeopteryx...was, in the modern sense, a bird (1993, 259:792).
The fossil remains of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (i.e., approximately 225 million years old) were found in 1986 by Sankar Chatterjee and colleagues from Texas Tech University, which Chatterjee named as Protoavis texensis (first bird from Texas).
The discovery has caused evolutionists severe problems because Protoavis appeared at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, which means that if it is accepted as genuine, then birds certainly could not have evolved from dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestor of modern birds.
After looking at the evidence for Protoavis, Larry Martin, paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center (University of Kansas) suggested: “There’s going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face” (as quoted in Anderson, 1991, 253:35).
The discovery of an old bird feather does not prove evolution. All it proves is the discovery of an old bird.
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most influential paleontologists of the twentieth century, who was also a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis, said:
This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants (1944, p. 105).
Paleontologist David Kitts said:
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…. (1974, 28:467).
-
darwin admits... without fossils of transition stage... hanggang assumption lang ang evolution.. :)
-
darwin admits... without fossils of transition stage... hanggang assumption lang ang evolution.. :)
Rather than keeping on trying to attack the current theory, where's yours?
Rabbit come out of a magic hat?
-
Rather than keeping on trying to attack the current theory, where's yours?
Rabbit come out of a magic hat?
hmmm... i think they came from magic soup billion years ago... :)
-
hmmm... i think they came from magic soup billion years ago... :)
Funny how you still can't tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.
Um—before we go on—what's your theory for the diversity and complexity of extant Life? Did somebody breed the different species of marine mammals from a land-based mammal?
(Magically appearing out of nowhere on day 5 isn't even a theory.)
-
It's kinda good that there is not much on the NBA scene right now... otherwise, we would have dpogs and his "Lakers bashing" on that thread as well. ;D
Keep him busy here first. hehe.
nbc
-
It's kinda good that there is not much on the NBA scene right now... otherwise, we would have dpogs and his "Lakers bashing" on that thread as well. ;D
Keep him busy here first. hehe.
nbc
ha ha ha... kung hindi lang lck out ngaun sa NBA... malamang lamang... bokya na yang Lakers na yan... pambihirang lakers yan...
some scientist debunk creation for lack of facts and finiding.. no enough evidence nga kungbaga... parang iyong spiritual hindi puwedeng isama sa physical na nangyayari dito sa mundo.... they cant accept the spiritual world so they need to produce sor look for ideas that will negate the creation...
evlutionist says that we cant prove creation... creation is impossible since we cant explain it scientificically... and yet they cant prove that evolution really happens... all they did is to jump into conclusion without further experimentation... thus evolution is an assumption....
-
The problem with Creationism is that it is not science. And should not be taught as such. It belongs in religion classes, philosophy classes and literature classes. NOT SCIENCE CLASSES.
Evolution may not be perfect but it is scientific fact.
Evolution is a theory - not a fact! If you believe this even without a solid evidence, then it becomes a religion!
Gravity is a fact - not a theory! Unless of course, you have some other explanation for the "gravity" - which can explain better the theory of gravity!
Evolution as a theory revolves around the idea that there are still many unknown concepts that need to be studied and empirically measured and observed.
If it is yet to be studied, then you can not be sure it will support evolution THEORY! Unless of course, you will tailor fit it to prove Evolution THEORY - like in the past!
-
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif)
You obfuscate your idea!
The Evolutionist does the same thing! ;) They have to have faith in evolution to stand on it at this point in time!
Di ba basis ng theory of evolution ni Darwin was his observation in Galapagos Island. From his observation and evidences, he formulated the theory of evolution. Nowadays, scientist can jumpstart the evolution process by manually tweaking on the DNA.
Now you support the concept of manipulator (designer) - it ceases to be evolution - drum-beating intelligence in mere chemicals choosing what to do! LOL
-
Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.
But they are still brown foxes - and not brown birds, is that right?
This is not evolution - case closed!
sige mag-usap uli tayo after 1000 years
Baka you mean - million of years, base on the faith of evolutionists? Nice Alibi though!
To put it another way, the Pythagoream Theorem is a mathematical theory, yet no one will say it requires 'faith' to understand or to put to good use everyday, in practically every field of construction and engineering on the planet.
a Theorem is a statement accepted when proven!
This is in contrast with Postulate (a statement accepted without proof)
Evolution is not a theorem - because it is not yet proven!
So no need to invoke faith in Pythagorean theorem! It was proven!
If we refuse to believe in something that is scientifically sound because of our faith, then what do you call that?
Unscientific at best - I mean faith in evolution! :)
-
since lengthy discussion have been made with evolution.... how about creation whats the proof behind it? to those experts here please provide insights or proof that negates evolution?
-
Evolution is NOT "unprovable". It may not be a PERFECT theory or a perfect concept but it's an ever changing, ever EVOLVING theory that's extrapolated from evidence that's been observed and experimented through the SCIENTIFIC method.
like changing positions? or changing reasons because the earlier ones are now debunked? or changing lineage stories because new tools show otherwise?
Me too. The most logical explanation to date. As to who made the creator, maybe another alien intervention?
logical?
a chemical falling in love with another chemical - and became a living organism? That was not repeated in any laboratory!
I know the answer (courtesy of Dorian) - lets wait millions of years! By faith, of course!
-
a) All these things just magically happened, with some supernatural cause?
b) There is a mechanism, which we call "natural selection", by which Life, through successive generations and mutations, 'grew' toward greater variety and complexity?
Not entirely true, though. One of the things they taught us back in college was the whole "faith seeking understanding" and "understanding seeking faith" thing. Yes, there are spiritual truths (according to theologists, of course). Except, they're still restricted to matters spiritual.
Once you go all meta-physical, then you run into trouble.
as if chemical meets chemical became a life is not MAGIC?
I wonder how many pro-Creationism are good in Math.
The same applies to pro-Evolutionism!
How many pro-Creationism would answer all their science quizzes as "GAWA NI GOD" or "GAWA YAN NI PAPA JESUS"?
Lalo naman di sasabihin ng pro-evolutionists sa quiz nila na galing sa chemical na nasa estero!
-
Who's to say an extrapolation is too far beyond or just enough? Darwin simply didn't have enough science or evidences at the time to prove his claims but it doesn't mean he just speculated. If Darwin's over-extrapolation compromised his theory, then it would be easy to disprove him today. The thing is, the evolution theory is still very much alive.
So does Creation very much alive! what's the difference?
Okay, he did not speculate - maybe he fantasize!
-
parang iyong spiritual hindi puwedeng isama sa physical na nangyayari dito sa mundo.... they cant accept the spiritual world so they need to produce sor look for ideas that will negate the creation...
It's not that the we can't accept the spiritual world. It's that, by it's very nature, the supernatural/spiritual is metaphysical or outside the physical world and hence can't be observed or tested. Unless the next thing you're going to say is you can measure how much an angel's feather weighs?
evlutionist says that we cant prove creation... creation is impossible since we cant explain it scientificically...
Wrong again. We can't explain something scientifically doesn't mean it's impossible—it just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of what it is and how it happens.
Put it another way—science can't fully explain how the Universe came into being. Does that mean the Universe doesn't exist?
and yet they cant prove that evolution really happens... all they did is to jump into conclusion without further experimentation... thus evolution is an assumption....
It's a deduction inferred from hundreds, maybe thousands of other indicators that are observable, testable, can be explained through nuclear/chemical/physical means, even reproducible, and so on.
An assumption (not the school) is this: I assume that light travels fast.
An observation is this: light travels very fast (has been observed and computed to be almost 300,000 km/s). Stars in the Milky Way have been measured to be billions of kilometers away.
A logical deduction therefore: The Milky Way is quite old (it must've taken thousands of years for light to get here from distant stars).
-
Evolution is a theory - not a fact! If you believe this even without a solid evidence, then it becomes a religion!
If you believe it without fully understanding it then you're just taking a leap of faith, sure.
However, if you look at all the indicators as a whole, then Evolution becomes a likely conclusion.
Gravity is a fact - not a theory! Unless of course, you have some other explanation for the "gravity" - which can explain better the theory of gravity!
Wait—ano ba talaga? Fact or theory?
-
as if chemical meets chemical became a life is not MAGIC?
It's not. It happens everyday.
To someone who doesn't understand anything about DNA, chromosome pairs, protein-folding and so on then the formation of a zygote from two gametes will, of course, seem magical. To the rest of the scientific world, it's a well studied and understood scientific fact.
-
a Theorem is a statement accepted when proven!
This is in contrast with Postulate (a statement accepted without proof)
Evolution is not a theorem - because it is not yet proven!
So no need to invoke faith in Pythagorean theorem! It was proven!
Why is it called the "Theory of Gravity"? Is it because gravity hasn't been proven?
No wait. Never mind.
What's your theory of gravity? What's your theory on gravitational lensing? Some Watchmaker put it all there?
Can you disprove the Watchmaker?
Can you disprove general relativity?
-
Those feathers are about 70 million years old. That's a relatively young specimen.
Feather discoveries are not new.
The first feather discovery was from an Archaeopteryx (lived in the Late Jurassic Period around 150 million years ago), unearthed in 1860, only one year after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.
The Archeopteryx is a bird. Thus, evolutionary ornithologist Allan Feduccia wrote in Science magazine:
I conclude that Archaeopteryx was arboreal and volant [i.e., possessing extended wings for flight], considerably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of flapping, powered flight to at least some degree. Archaeopteryx...was, in the modern sense, a bird (1993, 259:792).
The fossil remains of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (i.e., approximately 225 million years old) were found in 1986 by Sankar Chatterjee and colleagues from Texas Tech University, which Chatterjee named as Protoavis texensis (first bird from Texas).
The discovery has caused evolutionists severe problems because Protoavis appeared at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, which means that if it is accepted as genuine, then birds certainly could not have evolved from dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestor of modern birds.
After looking at the evidence for Protoavis, Larry Martin, paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center (University of Kansas) suggested: “There’s going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face” (as quoted in Anderson, 1991, 253:35).
The discovery of an old bird feather does not prove evolution. All it proves is the discovery of an old bird.
Unless the feathers are not from a bird but from a reptile. Reptiles having feathers actually prove that there are signs of transition from one species to the next.
Protoavis may have feathers but there is reason to believe that this species is not avian.
As more and more fossils are discovered, what will be seen will be that the distinction between dinosaurs and birds will be more muddled. It may even get so muddled that identifying a clear transitionary species may prove impossible, especially if the transitions (ergo, evolution) occur over different phyla in different timelines and environments.
A look at the bigger picture clearly shows that there are transitions happening across the board over millions of years, and from one taxonomic group to another, at that. This is definitely evolution. :D
-
I believe in God and creation. But I admit that my belief is unprovable. So don't ask me for proof.
You believe in evolution. If you admit that evolution is unprovable, then I won't ask you for any proof either.
But if you believe that evolution is a provable fact, then go ahead and show us the evidence.
If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify. Do you just mean evolution is not yet proven but you allow for its possibility or not at all? But you're not a young earth believer diba? Or are you?
-
If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify. Do you just mean evolution is not yet proven but you allow for its possibility or not at all? But you're not a young earth believer diba? Or are you?
Yes, I'm open to the possibility of evolution, because I always try to keep an open mind.
However, since the available evidence does not support it, I have to disagree with those who insist that evolution is a "fact."
If they say it's possible, but not yet proven, then that's OK. But if anyone says that evolution is already a proven fact, then he should be prepared to back up that statement.
No, I'm not a young earth creationist. That one is really bad pseudoscience.
The ones who insist on that view have a vested interest. They believe that 6,000 years after the creation of man, Jesus Christ will return to rule the earth for 1,000 years.
That's why they refuse to believe that the earth is millions of years old --- because that view will not fit their religious beliefs.
-
Unless the feathers are not from a bird but from a reptile. Reptiles having feathers actually prove that there are signs of transition from one species to the next.
he transitions (ergo, evolution) occur over different phyla in different timelines and environments.
A look at the bigger picture clearly shows that there are transitions happening across the board over millions of years, and from one taxonomic group to another, at that. This is definitely evolution. :D
Yes, your post agrees with another article:
In the study, parallels were drawn between the structures of the feathers and those of the earliest non-flying dinosaurs. However, the feathers could have still been of flying dinosaurs. "The feathers display pigmentation and adaptations for flight and diving," researchers reported.
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20110916/215173_colorful-feathers-dinosaurs-canada-museum-research.htm
-
Yes, I'm open to the possibility of evolution, because I always try to keep an open mind.
However, since the available evidence does not support it, I have to disagree with those who insist that evolution is a "fact."
If they say it's possible, but not yet proven, then that's OK. But if anyone says that evolution is already a proven fact, then he should be prepared to back up that statement.
No, I'm not a young earth creationist. That one is really bad pseudoscience.
The ones who insist on that view have a vested interest. They believe that 6,000 years after the creation of man, Jesus Christ will return to rule the earth for 1,000 years.
That's why they refuse to believe that the earth is millions of years old --- because that view will not fit their religious beliefs.
Okay. I'm not well versed enough to defend evolution as a fact. But if you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, what's an alternative explanation for the diversity of life? Was all life, including man, created 3 billion (or whenever) years ago? Or did God create each species independently for every period of time? i.e. cambrian, these set of animals, cretaceous, these set of animals, and so on.
-
If you believe it without fully understanding it then you're just taking a leap of faith, sure.
However, if you look at all the indicators as a whole, then Evolution becomes a likely conclusion.
Wait—ano ba talaga? Fact or theory?
Interesting!
I believe my religion and fully understood it in the same way you believe evolution and fully understood it!
And evolution is still a theory in spite of the fact that you understood it. Understanding it does not make it any more than a theory!
The fact is, I understood evolution, and where Darwin is coming from (he has TOTAL ignorance of what goes on in a single-cell organism!) - that's why I do not believe them (faith system). But science discoveries are in a different league.
PS. We did not call Theory of Gravity in Physics. We call it Law of gravity! Please adjust your question and open a new thread to debate on it.
It's not. It happens everyday.
;D really?
it can not be done in laboratory!
a chemical meets a chemical and suddenly there is a DNA programming how the cells should be develop into a life!
Where did it happen?
Maybe you now have a new story-line than Darwin.
Once, there was DNA and chromosomes etc etc - not just chemicals - which knew how to assemble themselves because they are programmed to be somewhat, although the evolutionist is not aware of! I like that!
-
since lengthy discussion have been made with evolution.... how about creation whats the proof behind it? to those experts here please provide insights or proof that negates evolution?
Okay, let's give it a simple try.
THEORY 1: The tenets of creation believes (the first) man begats man.
THEORY 2: The tenets of evolution believes something lower than man begats man.
SCIENCE: In scientific methodology, we should be able to reproduce the above.
the former is easy - its what happens daily that's why we have RH bill (incognito) ;D
the latter is somehow magic to us! oh no, there's millions of fossils to support it (ahah!) Not really, we need to watch it millions of years to happen (duh!)
Now going back to faith system, it will take me 6000 years of faith only to go with the former statement than millions of years faith to believe the latter.
-
I invite the believers ;D of the evolutionist THEORY (also of CREATION camp) to cite here the most compelling proof of their respective THEORIES - I mean, beyond the shadow of a doubt :D.
Then probably we can discuss together intelligently - or non-intelligently ( pwede minimized ;) )
Not in the name of CREATION nor in the name of EVOLUTION but for SCIENCE sake, an open mind is healthy.
-
THEORY 1: The tenets of creation believes (the first) man begats man.
Per my understanding, that thread is about this:
creationism—the biblical notion that God created Earth and its life forms thousands of years ago
-
Bible states that every living things
1. reproduce after their own kind : proof/evidence: your parents are human not apes. look around you... bacteria still a bacteria...
2. human body formed from dust : proof/evidence: all elements found in soil can be found also in human body...
3. earth is round : (kung nagbasa lang sana ng Bible ang mga so called scientist noon... hindi na sna nila inantay si magellan para malaman na bilog ang mundo.
4. life suddenly created: proof/evidence: sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record (still uptodate... no fossils found to prove macroevolution note: microevolution is not macroevolution)
note: evolutionist said that creation is supernatural thus it is not scientific that life suddenly appears... well... meron na bang evolutionist na nakapagexplain scientifically how life begins??? if no evolutinist can explain scientifically how nonliving matter became livingmatter... then evolution is not scientific...
science : A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments. (can we observe evolution today? can evolution be experimented repeatedly?)
what can we observe today is that living things reproduce afther their own kind - that is what the Bible says.
scientist experimented on bacteria (those with rapid growth rate) to observe evolution... pero hanggang ngayon... bacteria pa rin sila... no macroevulotion happens... all are assumptions...
scientific evidence: Something that has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible physical explanations...
animal kingdom and plants kingdom are so diverse and sobrang dami nila... thus the probapbility of having fossils in their transitional stage of evolution must be high... pero sa kabila ng sangkatutak na digging.... wala pa ring fossils na nahuhukay that will prove macroevoluton really exists.
-
^^ I wonder where all these definitions come from (along with the "conjecture" that goes along with it)? ::)
-
Bible states that every living things
1. reproduce after their own kind : proof/evidence: your parents are human not apes. look around you... bacteria still a bacteria...
2. human body formed from dust : proof/evidence: all elements found in soil can be found also in human body...
3. earth is round : (kung nagbasa lang sana ng Bible ang mga so called scientist noon... hindi na sna nila inantay si magellan para malaman na bilog ang mundo.
4. life suddenly created: proof/evidence: sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record (still uptodate... no fossils found to prove macroevolution note: microevolution is not macroevolution)
note: evolutionist said that creation is supernatural thus it is not scientific that life suddenly appears... well... meron na bang evolutionist na nakapagexplain scientifically how life begins??? if no evolutinist can explain scientifically how nonliving matter became livingmatter... then evolution is not scientific...
science : A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments. (can we observe evolution today? can evolution be experimented repeatedly?)
what can we observe today is that living things reproduce afther their own kind - that is what the Bible says.
scientist experimented on bacteria (those with rapid growth rate) to observe evolution... pero hanggang ngayon... bacteria pa rin sila... no macroevulotion happens... all are assumptions...
scientific evidence: Something that has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible physical explanations...
animal kingdom and plants kingdom are so diverse and sobrang dami nila... thus the probapbility of having fossils in their transitional stage of evolution must be high... pero sa kabila ng sangkatutak na digging.... wala pa ring fossils na nahuhukay that will prove macroevoluton really exists.
So, where are the Bible quotations? In fairness to Magellan, he's a Catholic, So who's fault is it then, the Church?
-
PS. We did not call Theory of Gravity in Physics. We call it Law of gravity! Please adjust your question and open a new thread to debate on it.
Which "law" of gravity are you talking about? Newton's?
Please use a more recent physics textbook and read up on Einstein's theories of general & special relativity and how they solve particular problems with Newton's model (such as how gravity can "act at a distance" instantaneously under Newton's laws, or how the force of gravity is transmitted).
it can not be done in laboratory!
a chemical meets a chemical and suddenly there is a DNA programming how the cells should be develop into a life!
Where did it happen?
Happens everyday in labs through IVF and cloning/genetics experiments.
In case you haven't noticed: DNA are just 'chemicals'.
Besides, what do any of these have to do with evolution?
-
THEORY 1: The tenets of creation believes (the first) man begats man.
THEORY 2: The tenets of evolution believes something lower than man begats man.
Neither of the above is a proper theory.
What's your theory on how the first man came into being?
"Let there be Man."?
-
I invite the believers ;D of the evolutionist THEORY (also of CREATION camp) to cite here the most compelling proof of their respective THEORIES - I mean, beyond the shadow of a doubt :D.
Before we can do that, somebody from the Creationist camp has to answer my question first:
What's your theory?
-
1. reproduce after their own kind : proof/evidence: your parents are human not apes. look around you... bacteria still a bacteria...
That's not proof. Plus, a mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.
2. human body formed from dust : proof/evidence: all elements found in soil can be found also in human body...
OMG that's not even a theory, much less proof. I'm sorry, but I have to stop myself from laughing.
All the elements found in water (H20) are also found in the human body. That must be proof that we were actually made from water by Neptune.
All the elements found in air (CO2, O2, N) are also found in the human body. Now that must be proof that we were actually from air by fairies.
3. earth is round : (kung nagbasa lang sana ng Bible ang mga so called scientist noon... hindi na sna nila inantay si magellan para malaman na bilog ang mundo.
Yup, like "clay under a seal" (Job 38:14). Meaning—a circle (not a sphere). And flat.
4. life suddenly created: proof/evidence: sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record (still uptodate... no fossils found to prove macroevolution note: microevolution is not macroevolution)
Oh, wait. Now suddenly the fossil record is valid?
You know—there're a bunch of rusting ships buried under the sea all over the Philippines. That must be effin' 'proof' that they magically appeared out of nowhere.
note: evolutionist said that creation is supernatural thus it is not scientific that life suddenly appears... well... meron na bang evolutionist na nakapagexplain scientifically how life begins??? if no evolutinist can explain scientifically how nonliving matter became livingmatter... then evolution is not scientific...
I see you still haven't learned how to read. That's not what Evolution is about.
Before we go on, What's your theory?
Life in all its various forms suddenly appeared out of thin air?
-
evolution theory was created by the Illuminati to discredit the catholic church who were killing Christians in the name of "Jesus"
-
evolution theory was created by the Illuminati to discredit the catholic church who were killing Christians in the name of "Jesus"
i may agree on this...
-
Before we can do that, somebody from the Creationist camp has to answer my question first:
What's your theory?
I think only the Pope, is authorized to make a theory about creation and NOT dpogs :D
-
That's not proof. Plus, a mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.
OMG that's not even a theory, much less proof. I'm sorry, but I have to stop myself from laughing.
that is not evolution... that is crossbreeding... if you want to use that argument as a proof of evolution you should think twice... all (if not most of them) mules are infertile because of different number of chromosomes...
sana meron "hunkey"... crossbreed ng human at monkey... pero hanggang ngayon... missing link pa rin daw ang ganitong klase ng fossils...
All the elements found in air (CO2, O2, N) are also found in the human body. Now that must be proof that we were actually from air by fairies.
Did you read the next sentence... "God breathed into Adam's nostrils..." :)
Oh, wait. Now suddenly the fossil record is valid?
in the context of creation... all fossils found states that all animals/human before were composed (or have) complex form, perfect and no extra limb or showing parts in a transition stage... can you honestly say that a single skull found in a cave determines the origin of human? scientifically... without assumption... can you prove that?
You know—there're a bunch of rusting ships buried under the sea all over the Philippines. That must be effin' 'proof' that they magically appeared out of nowhere.
No... a bunch of rusting ships as well as found fossils... only prove that there is Someone who magnifecently and intilgently created the ship (or created life on earth)... those bunch of ship you're talking about... they were not built out of luck and randomization... someone created that ships... can you honestly say that by just mere luck and randomization over billion of years a ship will come out from shipyard???
those fossils evolutionist found in their perfect and complex form only state that they were created....
Before we go on, What's your theory?
Life in all its various forms suddenly appeared out of thin air?
I have no theory... I have only facts: Creation.
Life in all its varoius forms doesnt suddenly appeared out of thin air... they/we are created.
Dont ask me to prove it... because until now... evolutionist cannot prove that macroevolution really exist.
note: microevolution is not macroevolution.
-
You know—there're a bunch of rusting ships buried under the sea all over the Philippines. That must be effin' 'proof' that they magically appeared out of nowhere.
hmmm.... that must be effin' 'proof' that those ship evolved from simple form of ship like 'bangka' or 'balsa' because if we examined closely those rusting ship buried under the sea... they have similarity from 'bangka'/'balsa'... if we study them close enough and based on the information and time of their existence... i think they really evolved from kariton... and because 70% of earth surface are water... nawala ang gulong ng kariton at naging bangka and then several billion years later... they became a ship.
-
OT:
So, where are the Bible quotations? In fairness to Magellan, he's a Catholic, So who's fault is it then, the Church?
yup. the Church... who purposedly forbid any person (unless you are a priest) to have a copy of the Bible... that is why so many scientist before (even priest) were so ignorant on what really the shape of the earth.
Yup, like "clay under a seal" (Job 38:14). Meaning—a circle (not a sphere). And flat.
please try to study the hebrew meaning of circle... there is no hebrew word back then for sphere... only circle...
hint: mula dito sa earth... kapag tiningnan mo ang buwan (fullmoon state)... ano nakikita mo - sphere o circle? ang mga picture ng earth taken from space... is it sphere or circle???
Contrary to what most people think, the Earth was known to be spherical in ancient times. The ancient Greeks even calculated its circumference with surprising accuracy. it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth.
-
The Princess and the Frog
1. Scenario 1: The beautiful princess kisses the frog which instantly changes into handsome prince. WE CALLED IT FAIRYTALE
2. Scenario 2: The beautiful princess kisses the frog and have to wait billion of years to become handsome prince. WE CALLED IT THEORY
-
The Princess and the Frog
1. Scenario 1: The beautiful princess kisses the frog which instantly changes into handsome prince. WE CALLED IT FAIRYTALE
2. Scenario 2: The beautiful princess kisses the frog and have to wait billion of years to become handsome prince. WE CALLED IT THEORY
The Princess and the Frog
1. Scenario 1: The Brothers Grimm write a short story about a cursed, shapeshifting creature, who turns into a prince after the princess angrily slams it against a wall. MODERN REVISIONISTS CHANGE THE PLOT AND CALL IT A FAIRYTALE. ::)
2. Scenario 2: Modern revisionists write a fairytale about a cursed frog, who turns into a prince after the princess kisses it. ANONYMOUS POSTER ON PINOYDVD DOES ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT REVISIONISM AND EQUATES THIS WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (but the plot is poorly thought out this time, so it probably won't catch on).
-
in the context of creation... all fossils found states that all animals/human before were composed (or have) complex form, perfect and no extra limb or showing parts in a transition stage... can you honestly say that a single skull found in a cave determines the origin of human? scientifically... without assumption... can you prove that?
YOU ARE RIGHT! :D
It is quite true that a single specimen cannot determine "the origin of human". Education teaches us that we must look into multiple specimens, do comparative analyses and draw our conclusions from there.
Did you read the next sentence... "God breathed into Adam's nostrils..."
BUT WAIT? ???
If you believe this, does it mean that you're basing your assumptions on just one account from a book that is not even proven to be based on factual events?
I have no theory... I have only facts: Creation.
You do not have a fact. What you have is an assumptive premise that was handed down to you through a book, which somebody else wrote. Somebody from around 500 BC.
I hope you read more books. Let me recommend a simple one which I'm sure you will be able to understand.
Allow me to repost:
Check this out.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F1Xkl8lkL._SS500_.jpg)
This is a great kid's book about evolution. However, adults will also find it well worth reading. While it explains the substance of evolution in the straight forward way typical of a "children's" book, it presents illustrations, explanations, and examples useful for those of us who do not happen to be a biologist, geologist or similar type of scientist. The last chapter discusses many of the misconceptions about evolution without being condescending or "preachy." Many books on evolution are fairly technical and often rather dry. This book is neither. For some of us, this could be the "missing link" enabling us to better understand more comprehensive writing and discussions on evolution. Buy it for your kids but read it before you give it to them!
-
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif)
Reposting...
-
BUT WAIT? Huh
If you believe this, does it mean that you're basing your assumptions on just one account from a book that is not even proven to be based on factual events?
I'm still waiting for Bible quotations to support dpog's creationism stand :(
-
that is not evolution... that is crossbreeding... if you want to use that argument as a proof of evolution you should think twice... all (if not most of them) mules are infertile because of different number of chromosomes...
It's not. It's a counter-argument to your assertion that "like begets like". You do know what a counter-argument is, right?
Did you read the next sentence... "God breathed into Adam's nostrils..." :)
Yes. That's still not 'proof'.
No... a bunch of rusting ships as well as found fossils... only prove that there is Someone who magnifecently and intilgently created the ship (or created life on earth)... those bunch of ship you're talking about... they were not built out of luck and randomization... someone created that ships... can you honestly say that by just mere luck and randomization over billion of years a ship will come out from shipyard???
No, and that's not an argument for evolution either.
That's another counter-argument to your inane statement that "here's some buried bones." Look, they must've appeared out of nowhere?
No you know how the rusting ships came to be at the bottom of the ocean. See? There's a rational, logical chain of cause and effect.
Where did the buried fossils come from?
I have no theory... I have only facts: Creation.
Then all you are is making noise trying to discredit the current most likely Theory, but unable to produce an alternative.
Life in all its varoius forms doesnt suddenly appeared out of thin air... they/we are created.
How? How did a whale not exist one day, then exist the next?
Dont ask me to prove it... because until now... evolutionist cannot prove that macroevolution really exist.
In other words—take your word for it. Now, whose word should we take? There are literally hundreds of creation myths from different cultures around the world.
Personally, don't ask me to prove it but like I think Man was created out of pasta by TFSM, Bless his noodly appendages. My proof is that the same elements found in pasta (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.) are all found in the human body.
-
hmmm.... that must be effin' 'proof' that those ship evolved from simple form of ship like 'bangka' or 'balsa' because if we examined closely those rusting ship buried under the sea... they have similarity from 'bangka'/'balsa'... if we study them close enough and based on the information and time of their existence... i think they really evolved from kariton... and because 70% of earth surface are water... nawala ang gulong ng kariton at naging bangka and then several billion years later... they became a ship.
No, you got it all wrong.
God created kariton and bangka out of diamonds on days 5 and 6 (if I'm not mistaken). Yes, out of diamonds because all the elements in diamonds (carbon) are in wood.
-
Yes, your post agrees with another article:
In the study, parallels were drawn between the structures of the feathers and those of the earliest non-flying dinosaurs. However, the feathers could have still been of flying dinosaurs. "The feathers display pigmentation and adaptations for flight and diving," researchers reported.
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20110916/215173_colorful-feathers-dinosaurs-canada-museum-research.htm
You're focusing on the conclusion without analyzing the facts from which those conclusions were based.
The article says they found 4,000 feathers preserved in amber. Not dinosuars with feathers --- just feathers. Out of those 4,000 feathers, only 11 samples were considered.
So, 3989 samples were bird feathers, but at least they're sure that the remaining 11 samples were definitely dinosaur feathers?
Unfortunately, they're not even sure about those 11 feathers.
The article says, "Although scientists are unable to decide which feathers of the 11 specimens belonged to birds or dinosaurs, the filament structures are similar to other non-avian dinosaur fossils found before."
About those other "non-avian dinosaur fossils found before," there is still a controversy as to whether or not they're really non-avian.
So, their only basis for saying that the 11 feathers might be non-avian is an alleged similarity to feathers that may or may not be avian.
This is the best that evolutionists can give us?
Protoavis may have feathers but there is reason to believe that this species is not avian.
There is more reason to believe that it is avian. For example, one of the fragments of Protoavis is a keeled sternum, found only in strong flying birds.
Unless the feathers are not from a bird but from a reptile. Reptiles having feathers actually prove that there are signs of transition from one species to the next.
Dinosaurs with feathers are still controversial.
There have been many excavations that claim to have discovered dinosaurs with feathers. While there is no evidence rejecting the idea that there could have been feathered dinosaurs, there is also no strong evidence proving that there were.
While many evolutionists believe that dinosaurs are ancestors to our modern day birds, there is no evidence to prove it, but all the evidence against it.
When dinosaur fossils are extracted, some are found very detailed. For some fossils thought to be feathered dinosaurs, there are dark filaments found with them. Although they could possibly be actual feathers, a scientist cannot rule out other possibilities.
For example, those filaments could be plant remains buried alongside the animal (as in the case of the Ckanowskia rigida fossil). There is also a chance that these filaments could be actual bird feathers fossilized alongside the dinosaur (as in the case of the Pterorhynchus fossil).
The situation becomes problematic where true birds are found among fossils in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors, as in the case of the Liaoning province fossils.
There are many alleged examples of dinosaurs with feathers, but none of them are supported with conclusive evidence. For example:
The Caudipteryx (120 -136 m. years) was a flightless bird.
The Protarchaeopteryx (120-150 m. years), also a flightless bird.
Sinosauropteryx and Sinocalliopteryx (140 - 120 m. years) were dinosaurs. Structures described as “protofeathers” in the Sinosauropteryx and Sinithosaurus fossils are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures bearing no obvious resemblance to feathers. It now appears likely that these filaments (often referred to as “dino-fuzz”) are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin.
Microraptor gui (128-124 m. years) was a four winged animal. But there are reasons to question the validity of the find. All but one of the Microraptor gui fossils were purchased from a dealer. Given the proven fake fossil business in China, such fossils are suspect without extensive study, such as X-Ray and UV light analyses. The one fossil actually found by the discoverers of Microraptor gui had only one feather, and there seems to be some doubt about it actually being part of the fossil.
Shuvuuia - A small flightless bird with badly preserved integument. Chemical analyses have supported these as feathers, but the conclusion reached was that Shuuvia was a bird.
Reptiles having feathers actually prove that there are signs of transition from one species to the next.
No, dinosaurs with feathers don't prove signs of transition, since it does not discount the possibility that when dinosaurs first appeared, some of them were feathered and some non-feathered.
For convincing signs of transition, there should first be fossils presenting a transitional stage of a scale to a feather.
Dinosaurs, being reptiles, have scales which are folds in the epidermis. Birds have feathers which grow out of follicles. Feathers and scales are completely different in make-up and appearance.
There are no known fossils presenting a transitional stage of a scale to a feather. All they have are the so-called "protofeathers," but they're actually patterns of decomposed skin resembling feathers, or plants contaminating the sample. Small, fluffy feathers could indicate that they are simply bird feathers that came from a chick.
However, scales to feathers aren't the only characteristics needed for a dinosaur to evolve --- it must also gain flight muscles, hollow bones, and a complex lung system.
The digits in the forelimbs of a theropod dinosaur and those in the wings of birds are also different. Though at first scientists believed that they both shared the same digits, I-II-III, it has recently been proven otherwise. New findings have shown that birds actually have digits II-III-IV in their wings unlike their supposed prehistoric counterparts. While the theropods lost digits IV and V, the birds lost digits I and V. Through evolution the theropods would have had to morphologically regenerate. While evolving into a bird, they would have lost digit I and then regain digit IV.
The avian lung is structurally unlike any other organism's. It is considered to be an irreducibly complex system, in which every part must function properly in order for it to work. The lung is dependent on both the parabronchi system and the air sac system for full working capabilities. This poses a problem for the step-by-step process of evolution because there is no possible way for an avian lung to survive the process with only certain parts. Through evolution all three systems would not be in full working order for each organism, and if not, the organism wouldn't be able to survive.
It is clear that the evolutionist's conclusions are based not on the evidence but on wishful thinking.
-
You do not have a fact. What you have is an assumptive premise that was handed down to you through a book, which somebody else wrote. Somebody from around 500 BC.
what facts evolutionist have to prove the transitional stage of every living things??? what evolutionist have is an assumptinve premise that was handed down to you through a book (can you observe evolution??? if not... then all your arguments also based on books) somebody else pretending to be scientific... somebody who claimed that without transitional fossils evolution is just but assumption - Charles Darwin
-
No, you got it all wrong.
God created kariton and bangka out of diamonds on days 5 and 6 (if I'm not mistaken). Yes, out of diamonds because all the elements in diamonds (carbon) are in wood.
i think it is more valid reason than to wait billion of years of luck and randomization para magkaroon ng ship out from woods... hmmm... sound scientific huh?
why not put it in experiment to be more scientific... let put woods in a close chamber (shipyard for example) ... and then lets wait billion years ago... let's see kung magkakaroon ng ship after billion of years... :) :) i thinks that how evolutionist describes evolution scientifically... waiting and hoping for that missing link... or ika nga ng iba... lets talk after 1000 years :).
-
A friend of mine from Cebu texted me that their local parish priest preached in a mass that evolution is a lie created by the devil.
Rubbish!
-
i think it is more valid reason than to wait billion of years of luck and randomization para magkaroon ng ship out from woods... hmmm... sound scientific huh?
Natural selection isn't random, nor does it involve luck. Try harder.
why not put it in experiment to be more scientific... let put woods in a close chamber (shipyard for example) ... and then lets wait billion years ago... let's see kung magkakaroon ng ship after billion of years... :) :) i thinks that how evolutionist describes evolution scientifically... waiting and hoping for that missing link... or ika nga ng iba... lets talk after 1000 years :).
The difference is we know how ships are made.
How did the first bird come into existence?
An invisible being made them out of thin air?
What's your theory?
-
Natural selection isn't random, nor does it involve luck. Try harder.
then... where is your proof??? where is your structural model (not just artist imagination or drawings of family tree)...
The difference is we know how ships are made.
Yup. That is the difference... now does evolutionist know how dna formed from that so called magic soup??? or did the evolutionist know how simple form of life become complex???
hmmm let me guess... macroevolution??? what macro??? that really happens??? where is the evidence???
How did the first bird come into existence?
Can you answer that... using scientific explanation??? paano nagkaroon ng simplest form of life??? or how did the simple form of life formed???
hindi lang iyong assumption na nanggaling sila sa magic soup... where's the model??? where is the evolutionist structural model on how chemicals become a dna???
let me guess again... the bird came from dinosaur... then saan galing ang dinosaur... so on and so forth... hanggang sa pumunta na nga sa tinatwag nila or assumed "magic soup" where all life forms begins... just what i think... all assumption... without even solid proof that it really happened... or any model na puwedeng ipresent ng mga evolutionist kung paano nagkaroon ng simplest form of life???
-
Dont ask me to prove it... because until now... evolutionist cannot prove that macroevolution really exist.
I think this is a cop-out, you're basically saying "unless you give proof to your theory, I won't give mine", which I also interpret as "I actually don't have a clue but thank you for giving me an excuse to hide this fact."
-
In my parents house in a shelf sits a 1979 encyclopaedia britanica.
My parents bought it for us to help us educate ourselves.
At the time it's information was relevant.
If we turn to it now, we are bound to find the following;
- information that is lacking
- information that has been updated with progress done since 1979
- information that is now wrong.
Kinda summarizes my thinking about this topic. Ages ago creationist theory was accepted widely but in time was supplanted by scientific theory.
-
if i remember correctly what satan told eve on the garden of eden is that by eating the forbidden fruit she will be like god and will know good from evil.
evolution is basically proving satan was right that man will constantly evolve into god
so if you believe satan then evolution is a fact
but if you believe in god you know that will never ever happen ;)
-
then... where is your proof???
If Evolution was random, then we'd have organisms that breathe methane or are completely sensitive to UV here on Earth.
You know why we don't have them on Earth? Because Earth's atmosphere isn't methane and Earth's atmosphere lets significant amount of UV through.
You make the obvious, naive mistake of thinking that natural selection is purely random. Like I said, try (reading and understanding) harder, if you can, please.
or did the evolutionist know how simple form of life become complex???
hmmm let me guess... macroevolution??? what macro??? that really happens??? where is the evidence???
At the very least evolution is falsifiable or testable.
Just live a billion years.
OTOH, What's your Theory?
God created Man out of clay on day 6? How do you falsify or test that?
For all your fire and brimstone, do you even have anything substantial to say?
hindi lang iyong assumption na nanggaling sila sa magic soup... where's the model??? where is the evolutionist structural model on how chemicals become a dna???
Abiogenesis is just one among several theories on the origins of Life—all of which are orthogonal to Evolution per se.
let me guess again... the bird came from dinosaur... then saan galing ang dinosaur... so on and so forth... hanggang sa pumunta na nga sa tinatwag nila or assumed "magic soup" where all life forms begins... just what i think... all assumption... without even solid proof that it really happened... or any model na puwedeng ipresent ng mga evolutionist kung paano nagkaroon ng simplest form of life???
So, what's your alternative theory?
Where did the first bird come from?
Is all you can do is dodge the question?
-
So, what's your alternative theory?
Where did the first bird come from?
Is all you can do is dodge the question?
ang kulit...
created nga...
-
ang kulit...
created nga...
From thin air?
How about my pasta theory: Man was created from pasta by The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What's wrong with that?
-
Why do I find this discussion funny now??? ;D
Maybe because you all seem so sure about your stands, but in fact, noone is right or wrong. Maybe the best ending to all these is for both parties to accept that if take a closer look maybe you are both right. Here is the question:
If you believe in Creation, where did the creator came from?
If you believe in evolution, wouldn't it be possible that at certain point we were genetically modified to produce a better being?
So if you really think about it, you're probably both right. ;)
-
If you believe in Creation, where did the creator came from?
That's any easy one.
I can answer in "The Religion Thread," but only if you're interested in studying the Bible. If you're not interested in the Bible, then my answer won't make much difference anyway.
===============================
Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/
YouTube:
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dU-4LkUCjbA/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-4LkUCjbA
-
if i remember correctly what satan told eve on the garden of eden is that by eating the forbidden fruit she will be like god and will know good from evil.
evolution is basically proving satan was right that man will constantly evolve into god
so if you believe satan then evolution is a fact
but if you believe in god you know that will never ever happen ;)
You got your scripture mixed up. A serpent tempted Eve and not Satan.
There is no direct quote from the book of Genesis about any "Satan".
-
Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/
Yup. Exogenesis (whatever the means or mechanism) or Panspermia is another valid theory as to how life began on Earth. Of course, we also (currently) have no means of testing that—unless we encounter aliens or Life on other planets that share the same molecu-biological structures (e.g., DNA).
On the other hand—on a universal scale that just shifts the question: where did life elsewhere in the Universe come from?
-
Thanks for posting the terminology.
They're new to me.
-
Happens everyday in labs through IVF and cloning/genetics experiments.
In case you haven't noticed: DNA are just 'chemicals'.
Besides, what do any of these have to do with evolution?
Ah, yes!
man is "operating" as mini-god in that laboratory; directing and manipulating the chemicals - where the chemicals are not left alone to form the DNA - as the evolution THEORY suggested! Good proof then :P
It supports CREATION theory sir - where the resulting life / non-life is directed/manipulated by the designer in that lab! 8)
they have the full DNA to start with - thus, doing a work on top of another's work (because they can not reproduce one by chance)! ;D
Only now, they tried to reverse-engineer it (so they can produce the specific life's fore-runner specie) :D, and see whether they can make new sub-DNA creature (and offer as proof of evolution THEORY). Carry on!
-
Reposting...
You missed the third cartoon frame
- the evolution THEORY
- the scientist carry the DARWIN book
- asking the same question ;D
Both EVOLUTION & CREATION THEORIES' defenders are doing the same trick! :P Denials! ;D
-
man is "operating" as mini-god in that laboratory; directing and manipulating the chemicals - where the chemicals are not left alone to form the DNA - as the evolution THEORY suggested! Good proof then :P
Didn't say it was a 'proof' of evolution.
Do you also need an explanation as to what a counter-argument is?
Let me refresh. You said, "chemical meets chemical cannot form life".
I counter, "DNA is chemicals".
Try harder.
It supports CREATION theory sir - where the resulting life / non-life is directed/manipulated by the designer in that lab! 8)
Really?
Can we test your theory? I mean—can we observe God designing life, as you suggest?
No?
What's your theory?
-
You got your scripture mixed up. A serpent tempted Eve and not Satan.
There is no direct quote from the book of Genesis about any "Satan".
Satan disguised itself as a serpent to trick Eve
-
why not put it in experiment to be more scientific... let put woods in a close chamber (shipyard for example) ... and then lets wait billion years ago... let's see kung magkakaroon ng ship after billion of years... :) :) i thinks that how evolutionist describes evolution scientifically... waiting and hoping for that missing link... or ika nga ng iba... lets talk after 1000 years :).
you dont even need a wood to begin with
just any chemicals - carbon, oxygen, any - I wonder where they came from!
but for sure, per DARWIN and believers (by faith), it will become a ship (not the one that we know) ;D
But the most amazing part of their THEORY is that, it (the unusual ship) will start to BREATH! ;D
it will have a DNA (a programming of sort how it should start developing, and how it would end up as a live system) of its own, so that it can reproduce more on its own (now more easily) without repeating the difficult million years of chances it tried to develop itself!
Nice story line, isn't it!
-
Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/
YouTube:
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dU-4LkUCjbA/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-4LkUCjbA
This is bound to happen since evolution THEORY got so many problems - from the very FOUNDATION - "where did it all start?". To solve it - another THEORY should be added to complete the picture.
Changing story line, that is!
He even addressed the Creator some other name - ALIEN - just so he could somehow subscribe to Science "methodological naturalism", and yet difficult to prove such another THEORY.
He sounded like a creationist, isn't he? Something seeded the earth! ;D
-
Didn't say it was a 'proof' of evolution.
Do you also need an explanation as to what a counter-argument is?
Let me refresh. You said, "chemical meets chemical cannot form life".
I counter, "DNA is chemicals".
Try harder.
Really?
Can we test your theory? I mean—can we observe God designing life, as you suggest?
No?
What's your theory?
You can not test even if I hold the THEORY of creation - it is already in the realm of belief system. Even if I told you less than 6,000 years ago how we came into being, I will not be able to prove it - since both of us can not go back 6000 years ago when "possibly" our life began.
In the same token, even if you hold evolution THEORY - it is in the realm of your belief system, because it is not yet proven, and all talks of evidences are "mere articulation" of "questionable evidences". However, you may invite me to jump to faith much harder to believe Dario by having faith on million/billion of years of events - which for both of us are x times more impossible than the 6000 years. ;D
Anyway, I did not intend the thread to prove both THEORIES. Just provide scientific facts to discuss and lets dissect whether it reinforced creation or evolution.
-
you dont even need a wood to begin with
just any chemicals - carbon, oxygen, any
After billions of years, yes, then Life will likely emerge. After all, it's already happened once.
I wonder where they came from!
That's a different debate altogether. Care to start a new topic?
but for sure, per DARWIN and believers (by faith), it will become a ship (not the one that we know) ;D
Not faith. Observation. You and I are alive, aren't we? The Earth (and the rest of the Universe) is calculated to be billions of years old (scientifically, and this theory is falsifiable). And so on and so forth.
-
Changing story line, that is!
In case you've forgotten your history—Science is all about newer discoveries and better models or theories supplanting earlier, flawed ones.
From aether to electromagnetism and radio waves. From evil spirits causing illness to micro-organisms and modern pathology. From a geocentric model of the solar system, to Kepler's laws, to Newton's law of universal gravity, to Einstein's theories on general & special relativity (which predicts/fits Mercury's orbit better than the Newtonian model). From spontaneous generation to Evolution.
-
Satan disguised itself as a serpent to trick Eve
That is your interpretation. The book of Genesis does not contain your version of the events.
Therefore, your conclusion is suspect.
-
You can not test even if I hold the THEORY of creation - it is already in the realm of belief system.
It's not testable or falsifiable. Therefore, it's not a proper theory. It's just a belief or an opinion.
Even if I told you less than 6,000 years ago how we came into being, I will not be able to prove it
Except you can't tell me because, let's be honest, you have no idea, do you? You just believe that living beings suddenly appeared fully formed out of nowhere. That's your belief, and you're entitled to it. Just don't go around feeling like Science and the Theory of Evolution are personally attacking your beliefs.
In the same token, even if you hold evolution THEORY - it is in the realm of your belief system, because it is not yet proven, and all talks of evidences are "mere articulation" of "questionable evidences".
At least Evolution has evidence pointing to it, whether or not you believe it. We have indicators like a gradual progression from simpler to more complex and more abundant fossils, a billions of years old Earth, and so on.
Also, Evolution is falsifiable: if every species existed alongside each other, then the fossil record should show fossils of modern dogs alongside fossils of ancient trilobites in the same Cambrian-age strata.
If every extant species magically came unto being in the first 6 days after the Earth was formed, then why do we have fossils of simpler organisms in deeper and older strata, and more complex fossils in shallower, younger strata?
However, you may invite me to jump to faith much harder to believe Dario by having faith on million/billion of years of events - which for both of us are x times more impossible than the 6000 years.
On the contrary. Evolution to current diversity taking place over only 6,000 years is less likely because that's hardly enough time even for a single species to emerge. Over billions of years it's more likely.
It's simple math. If the probability of something occurring once a day is 1/x, then it's more likely to occur or have occurred over 10 years than in 10 days. Tanong mo kay dpogs statistics graduate 'yan.
Anyway, I did not intend the thread to prove both THEORIES. Just provide scientific facts to discuss and lets dissect whether it reinforced creation or evolution.
What facts have you put forth to support species suddenly appearing out of thin air 6,000 years ago?
-
What facts have you put forth to support species suddenly appearing out of thin air 6,000 years ago?
ikaw talaga alistair! e ano pa, e di ALIEN! ;D ;D
Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/
YouTube:
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dU-4LkUCjbA/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-4LkUCjbA
But Dawkins is not the original - he just plagiarized! :D
In 1960s, a molecular biologist named Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA in 1953, became concerned with the origins of life. He (who has more credibility than people saying DNA is JUST a "CHEMICAL") believed the DNA molecule was too complex to have evolved by Dario, and must have been "designed". Along with Leslie Orgel, he proposed the theory of "directed panspermia" which is the ALIEN design and SEEDING of earthly life.
Isn't it wonderful! :P
-
In case you've forgotten your history—Science is all about newer discoveries and better models or theories supplanting earlier, flawed ones.
From spontaneous generation to Evolution.
I do not have a bit of problem in Science.
But evolution THEORY got so much problems!
Not faith. Observation. You and I are alive, aren't we? The Earth (and the rest of the Universe) is calculated to be billions of years old (scientifically, and this theory is falsifiable). And so on and so forth.
I observed that my mom & pop are humans like me.
I observed that my mom's mom & pop & my pop's mom & pop are of same DNA like mine.
They also showed me the family tree and I observed all of us are pretty much the same (not blackish hairy)
Nobody told me that we have more before the family tree that resembles something else!
Yeah - sorry! can not fathom the billion of years story telling. If it is a history of events, where are the missing links proving that those histories took place, as you said!
Don't worry - I still agree with you evolution is still a THEORY, though not yet a fact - it can still be correct, provided it can be proven. So bring out the proof.
-
On the contrary. Evolution to current diversity taking place over only 6,000 years is less likely because that's hardly enough time even for a single species to emerge. Over billions of years it's more likely.
It's simple math. If the probability of something occurring once a day is 1/x, then it's more likely to occur or have occurred over 10 years than in 10 days. Tanong mo kay dpogs statistics graduate 'yan.
What facts have you put forth to support species suddenly appearing out of thin air 6,000 years ago?[
i can say... 100% kaya nga buhay tayo ngayon eh...
hmmm... honestly... statistically speaking the probability is NA... error... since creationist cannot provide the denominator factor...
1 divided by what possible outcomes?
unfortunately for evolutionist... they dont have also... since the outcome still unknown...
1 divided by what possible outcome? (for evolutionist) - in other words what are the possible outcome (or combination of chemicals) in order those chemical in magic soup results to simpler form??? can evolutionist enumerate them so that we can get the exact probability that an species (or simple form of life) will appear ...
-
1 divided by what possible outcomes?
Does it matter?
We're only talking about whether something is less likely to happen after a longer time period.
Dilbert7 makes the erroneous statement that the longer the time frame, the less likely something will occur.
Moving on... What's the possibility that a bird will appear out thin air?
-
Does it matter?
We're only talking about whether something is less likely to happen after a longer time period.
Dilbert7 makes the erroneous statement that the longer the time frame, the less likely something will occur.
Moving on... What's the possibility that a bird will appear out thin air?
100% percent.
proof: look around you... birds everywhere... :)
anyway... you can olny say that an event will less likely to happen if possible outcomes are given... we cannot conclude that number 7 will appear in a 6 sided dice... even in billion of years rolling the 6-sided dice... we wont get seven (7) - promise...
papaano ginawa ng mga evolutinist scientist na sabihing that an event (like chimecal process) results to simpler form if they dont know the correct/exact combination of DNA/whatsover... statistically speaking... evolution is NA. no probability only assumption...
-
For Bumblebee’s math problem, any modern computer can beat the average human chess player, but it took a massive supercomputer to beat Kasparov in 1997. Much resistance to evolution in the past has come from mathematicians and engineers who have complained about its probability.
Dario can only open his mouth wide at that time because there is no powerful microscope to drill down into what he thought as single (simple) living cell. So biologist, educated with evolution in mind, just accept in passing that THEORY.
But Science, being a truth ally, with the use of powerful microscope & computers, paved for the discovery and much learning about of DNA of basic cellular unit by Biologists – that it is enormously complex. Far more complex than the latest Intel CPU if you will. And yet, evolutionist like alistair will just brush aside this complexity and refer to it as mere “chemical”!
Vast understanding of “single cell” and of DNA and of complexity in simple life is undeniable! Antony Flew, an atheist scientist after the methodological naturalism of Science & who for many decades flew the flag for atheism, recently declared in an interview in 2008:
I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.
It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that... the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Dawkin says:
"I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that [Intelligent Design] if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer".
So, here are 2 guys, coming from same origin, talking of the same thing! Only for Dawkins, the design originated from an ALIENs that evolved yet million, no billion, no zillion of years ahead of the life on earth! ;D
Don’t mistook this post as a proof of Creation THEORY. Rather, that evolution is still a THEORY – only now, struggling as Science discoveries soar to new heights!
-
100% percent.
proof: look around you... birds everywhere... :)
Sometimes I wonder if you're just trying to be funny, or if you really think different. Special, even.
papaano ginawa ng mga evolutinist scientist na sabihing that an event (like chimecal process) results to simpler form if they dont know the correct/exact combination of DNA/whatsover...
Except—what you're describing isn't Evolution. For the 100th time.
If you want to debate abiogenesis vs exogenesis vs. spontaneous generation or whatever, I think that deserves its own thread entirely.
-
Creation siyempre. Galing ako sa magulang ko. Iyung magulang ko naman galing sa magulang nila and so on and so forth. Iyung nauna naman si Adam at si Eba.
Mahirap isipin iyung evolution dahil hindi maipaliwanag ng evolution bakit nagkakaroon ng buhay. Paano ba nagkakaroon ng buhay? Palagay ko kahit bigyan mo pa si Darwin ng isang toneladang abo at isang bilyong taon eh hindi pa rin siya makakalikha ng isang buhay na halaman o hayop.
-
Why is the sky blue? Is it because God made it so or is it because of Rayleigh scattering?
When we turn on the TV, where does it get power? From God?
Why does an iron rod become a magnet when coiled with wires? Si God pa rin ba?
Of course, si God. Now, if your children ask you these questions, you know the answer. Good luck with that.
-
Creation siyempre. Galing ako sa magulang ko. Iyung magulang ko naman galing sa magulang nila and so on and so forth. Iyung nauna naman si Adam at si Eba.
Mahirap isipin iyung evolution dahil hindi maipaliwanag ng evolution bakit nagkakaroon ng buhay. Paano ba nagkakaroon ng buhay? Palagay ko kahit bigyan mo pa si Darwin ng isang toneladang abo at isang bilyong taon eh hindi pa rin siya makakalikha ng isang buhay na halaman o hayop.
hindi na raw evolution yang sinasabi mo sir... ibang usapan na raw yan... ibang thread na raw yan... pag usapan lang daw natin sa thread na ito ang evolution... huwag na nating pag-usapan kung paano nagsimula ang evolution...
bakit kaya hindi na lang gumaya ang mga evolutionist kay Antony Flew... an atheist that recognize the existence of God because of compleiity of things on earth.
-
Why is the sky blue? Is it because God made it so or is it because of Rayleigh scattering?
When we turn on the TV, where does it get power? From God?
Why does an iron rod become a magnet when coiled with wires? Si God pa rin ba?
Of course, si God. Now, if your children ask you these questions, you know the answer. Good luck with that.
nay... tay... saan ako galing... anak sa unggoy ka galing... Good luck naman dyan...
pero anak... kung susunda mo ang kanunununuan mo... lolo ng lolo ng lolo ng lolo ng lolo (multiply mo yan ng billlion of years)... anak galing ka sa butete...
-
It's not testable or falsifiable. Therefore, it's not a proper theory. It's just a belief or an opinion.
Except you can't tell me because, let's be honest, you have no idea, do you? You just believe that living beings suddenly appeared fully formed out of nowhere. That's your belief, and you're entitled to it. Just don't go around feeling like Science and the Theory of Evolution are personally attacking your beliefs.
At least Evolution has evidence pointing to it, whether or not you believe it. We have indicators like a gradual progression from simpler to more complex and more abundant fossils, a billions of years old Earth, and so on.
You got that wrong. Creation in this thread was not presented a fact!
The evolutionists in this thread claimed the THEORY of evolution is a fact - so you have to prove it!
I do not felt attacked, on the contrary - the evolution THEORY fact is the one attacked! Not only by rhetorics but actual findings of high-tech Science - witnessed by debunked "evidences" coupled with story-telling (a lie).
On the contrary. Evolution to current diversity taking place over only 6,000 years is less likely because that's hardly enough time even for a single species to emerge. Over billions of years it's more likely.
It's simple math. If the probability of something occurring once a day is 1/x, then it's more likely to occur or have occurred over 10 years than in 10 days. Tanong mo kay dpogs statistics graduate 'yan.
Mere Speculation is not a proof! ;D Mathematicians already put out their opposition to the THEORY! :P
Even Darwin himself can not escape his brand of Science, and declared himself an agnostics - because he has to stand within the Methodological Naturalism of Science!
I think you are the one echoing and parroting erroneous claims, not Darwin, not Dawkins!
Flew, like Charles Darwin, rejected atheism. “Since the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us,” Darwin explains, “I for one must be content to remain an agnostic”. Flew agrees: “The origin of life cannot be explained if you start with matter alone”.
Dawkins loves his ALIEN! ;D
He is now the top defender of Atheism! and MYSTIFICATION!
Richard Dawkins’ deductive logic in The Selfish Genes edged Flew to the tipping point. Dawkins had gone beyond the bounds of science and into myth building, as had Ernst Haeckel during the ninteenth century. Flew notes, “Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Genes was a major exercise in popular mystification.” The history of evolution follows a legacy of fraud.
-
Why is the sky blue? Is it because God made it so or is it because of Rayleigh scattering?
When we turn on the TV, where does it get power? From God?
Why does an iron rod become a magnet when coiled with wires? Si God pa rin ba?
Of course, si God. Now, if your children ask you these questions, you know the answer. Good luck with that.
Hindi ka naman galit ano?
-
Not only by rhetorics but actual findings of high-tech Science - witnessed by debunked "evidences" coupled with story-telling (a lie).
Citations, please. Those published in a peer-reviewed journal. Because if you have such categorical 'proof' that Evolution didn't happen then you deserve a Nobel Prize.
Don’t mistook this post as a proof of Creation THEORY.
And what theory is that again?
How does it compare to my belief that The Flying Spaghetti Monster made us out of pasta? My 'proof': We're here, aren't we? And all the elements in pasta are found in the human body.
-
nay... tay... saan ako galing... anak sa unggoy ka galing...
Kayo lang po ang nagsasabi na galing ang anak mo sa unggoy. Hindi po iyan ang sinasabi nang modern evolutionary model.
But again, thanks for trying. Again, try harder.
-
hindi na raw evolution yang sinasabi mo sir... ibang usapan na raw yan... ibang thread na raw yan... pag usapan lang daw natin sa thread na ito ang evolution... huwag na nating pag-usapan kung paano nagsimula ang evolution...
Yup.
The problem is that you guys are conflating several issues:
1. The origin (and age) of the Earth (and by extension the Universe)
2. The origin of Life (the first self-replicating molecular structures considered 'alive')
3. The mechanism by which the various, complex forms of life on Earth came to be about
I opened a new thread for the first. The 3rd is what Evolution talks about.
As to the origin of Life itself, we can really only speculate for now. There are several, competing theories or models.
However, only one of them claims that all the above happened 'magically' with no adequate physical mechanism, with no cause & effect, in the blink of an eye. And we can't falsify that because it's only a belief.
bakit kaya hindi na lang gumaya ang mga evolutionist kay Antony Flew... an atheist that recognize the existence of God because of compleiity of things on earth.
Bakit hindi na lang gumaya sa insert random authority here, a born-again Christian who turned into an Atheist because he grew tired of all the inconsistencies in the Bible?
-
Why is the sky blue? Is it because God made it so or is it because of Rayleigh scattering?
When we turn on the TV, where does it get power? From God?
Why does an iron rod become a magnet when coiled with wires? Si God pa rin ba?
Aka, God of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)
-
nay... tay... saan ako galing... anak sa unggoy ka galing... Good luck naman dyan...
Natawa naman ako dito ;D Balitaan mo kami ;D
-
Kayo lang po ang nagsasabi na galing ang anak mo sa unggoy. Hindi po iyan ang sinasabi nang modern evolutionary model.
But again, thanks for trying. Again, try harder.
hmmm... how about this...
nay... tay... saan ako galing...
anak sa modern monkey ka galing...
nay... tay... kanina lang sabi niyo galing lang ako sa unggoy.. ngayon sa modern monkey pala...
anak... ganoon kabilis science natin ngayon... tingnan mo bukas makalawa baka sabihin nila galing pala tayo sa modern-english-speaking monkey...
-
hmmm... how about this...
nay... tay... saan ako galing...
anak sa modern monkey ka galing...
nay... tay... kanina lang sabi niyo galing lang ako sa unggoy.. ngayon sa modern monkey pala...
anak... ganoon kabilis science natin ngayon... tingnan mo bukas makalawa baka sabihin nila galing pala tayo sa modern-english-speaking monkey...
This is too funny! Modern evolutionary model = modern monkey. ;D
-
hmmm... how about this...
nay... tay... saan ako galing...
anak sa modern monkey ka galing...
nay... tay... kanina lang sabi niyo galing lang ako sa unggoy.. ngayon sa modern monkey pala...
anak... ganoon kabilis science natin ngayon... tingnan mo bukas makalawa baka sabihin nila galing pala tayo sa modern-english-speaking monkey...
Hahaha
-
Let us bring back sanity into this thread :)
With the latest pronouncement of vatican about evolution, is it also adapting for survival?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
-
the vatican is just adapting to survive and bring lies and confusion like what they've done before
but the bibble said:
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I Corinthians 14:33
-
With the latest pronouncement of vatican about evolution, is it also adapting for survival?
It's funny how organizations can adapt for survival—but organisms can't?
In any case—yeah. The Catholic Church, for all its historical flaws, has never been shy of adapting to the times. This is one reason for its (continued) success. From a flat Earth to a spherical Earth, from the Copernican geocentric to the Galilean heliocentric model, from selling dispensations to Theology of Liberation.
I'm positive that the Vatican will accept both the Big Bang model of cosmology and the evolutionary model of Biology—since, personally, I too believe there's nothing there that is incompatible with the doctrine of Creation and Christian theology in general—except for Biblical fundamentalists and literalists.
-
ang alam ko , galing ako sa nanay at tatay ko.
ewan ko sa inyo ;D
sorry for the break.
pls continue ;D
-
the vatican is just adapting to survive and bring lies and confusion like what they've done before
but the bibble said:
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I Corinthians 14:33
Here's something better, a quote from Hesus himself:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:24)
He is definitely right.
-
Here's something better, a quote from Hesus himself:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:24)
He is definitely right.
Its 10:34 brad.
-
Let us bring back sanity into this thread :)
With the latest pronouncement of vatican about evolution, is it also adapting for survival?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
Paano na yan dpogs? so evolution and creation are compatible, any explanation for this?
-
Paano na yan dpogs? so evolution and creation are compatible, any explanation for this?
compatible sa vatican (lagi naman sila ganoon...) kung saan ang majority doon sila papanig...
anyway... did the pope said that it is "compatible with the Bible"
evolution and creation hindi puwedeng magsama...
-
compatible sa vatican (lagi naman sila ganoon...) kung saan ang majority doon sila papanig...
anyway... did the pope said that it is "compatible with the Bible"
evolution and creation hindi puwedeng magsama...
Any reason kung bakit hindi pwede???
-
Any reason kung bakit hindi pwede???
Kasi kung literal mong babasahin ang Bibliya, wala namang nabanggit dun na salitang Evolution.
Wala ring salitang sphere.
Pero, somehow, the Hebrew word for circle is interpreted (not literally), as a sphere. As in, "like clay under a seal."
Biro mo, clay pressed under a seal, when literally interpreted somehow becomes not flat, but a sphere. I've played with wax seals and clay as a child and I've never managed to "press" clay into a round sphere.
Pero dapat pa rin daw basahin nang literal ang Bibliya, maniwala ka, brad.
-
For those who think that the Book of Genesis is metaphorical, please enlighten those who think otherwise, what is the metaphor...
-
I'd be more interested, for those who insist on reading Genesis literally, where the waters in Gen 1:2 came from, or how night & day came to be about (Gen 1:3-5) before the Sun and the stars (Gen 1:16), or whether animals came before Man (Gen 1:20-27) or whether Man came before animals (Gen 2:18-20)...
-
... where the waters in Gen 1:2 came from,...
Very simple. The waters were created by God on the first day.
Gen. 1:1-2 says:
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth.
Don't think that the earth was nothing but dry land on the first day. When God created the earth, the earth already had land and water. But the land was under the water; and it was only on the third day when dry land appeared.
Here's what happened on the third day, according to Gen. 1:9-10,13:
9And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. ... 13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
... or how night & day came to be about (Gen 1:3-5) before the Sun and the stars (Gen 1:16)...
This is for more advanced study.
On the first day, God made light, and separated light from the darkness. This was the temporary light to be used prior to the creation of the sunlight, moonlight, starlights, etc.
On the fourth day, God made the sunlight, moonlight, starlights, etc., which were the permanent lights. Upon creation of the permanent lights on the fourth day, the temporary light created on the first day ceased to exist.
... or whether animals came before Man (Gen 1:20-27) or whether Man came before animals (Gen 2:18-20)
Those are verses commonly cited to point out alleged inconsistencies in the bible. But there is no inconsistency there.
Gen. 1:20-27 is chronological. Animals were created before man.
But Gen. 2:18-20 is not chronological. It was not stating a chronology of creation, because that had already been stated in previous verses. It merely explains why Eve had to be created:
18The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
God said there was a need to create a suitable helper for Adam. Why? Because none of the animals previously created was considered a "suitable helper" for him. So God created Eve --- the "suitable helper".
-
Kasi kung literal mong babasahin ang Bibliya, wala namang nabanggit dun na salitang Evolution.
Wala ring salitang sphere.
Pero, somehow, the Hebrew word for circle is interpreted (not literally), as a sphere. As in, "like clay under a seal."
Biro mo, clay pressed under a seal, when literally interpreted somehow becomes not flat, but a sphere. I've played with wax seals and clay as a child and I've never managed to "press" clay into a round sphere.
Pero dapat pa rin daw basahin nang literal ang Bibliya, maniwala ka, brad.
That did not answer my question... ang layo eh
-
That did not answer my question... ang layo eh
he did on the first sentence. since according sa Creationists hindi daw kasi nabanggit yung Evolution sa Bible. I guess he answered you're question on the Creationists' view.
-
a solid evidence that bird came not from dinosaurs...
bird's ancestor : GOAT
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Tj64oVZumv6w5amN4mkovg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjI7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2011/09/14/Goats1_182904.jpg)
-
people are forgetting about the missing link ::)
-
Interesting thread. . . but reads increasingly more like Fundamentalists vs Modern Biblical Theory to me. ;D
Actually, what several years of Theology in a Catholic University has taught me is to put the Bible and everything on it within historical context, but still keeping in mind that Scriptures were written by men through divine inspiration. One should not read the Bible without considering the centuries of biblical scholarship that comes with it. In fact, if you read the footnotes in the Bible, they're actually very helpful in understanding the context of the Scriptures.
The Catholic Church has come a long way from the time of Galileo, where the Catholic Church held sway over both the flock's faith and secular education. That's why Galileo was threatened with excommunication if he did not renounce his radical theory that the Sun, not the Earth was the center of the solar system. Now, we find scientist priests who find no problem in mixing their faith in a creator and the complexities of the natural sciences.
You also have to consider the Bible as a document to propagate the faith, and not as a historical document. Theology also gathers from the insights of the numerous scholars who have perused the Bible in the past, and not dwell on the literal interpretations of the text.
Of course, we all have our theories about the true story of creation. There is no concrete scientific proof that everything was created in 6 days, but neither have scientists come up with repeatable results in controlled experiments that certain portions of minerals and conditions can result in a spontaneous life form being created. The answer I believe lies somewhere in between - my take: Somebody started and designed it all, but from then on, it followed a very specific path that can be observed and explained.
However, given the scientific advancements in the last several hundred years or so, it is very encouraging that the Church and most of the faithful have been able to reconcile their faith with the natural sciences.
An interesting read is debate in Time magazine between an Atheist Scientist and one who believes in God.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047-god-vs-science-a-debate-between-richard-dawkins-and-francis-collins
Oh yes, and an old Church document on how to interpret the Bible, intro'd by no less than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict. . .
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm
To quote the conclusion:
"From what has been said in the course of this long account—admittedly far too brief on a number of points—the first conclusion that emerges is that biblical exegesis fulfills, in the church and in the world, an <indispensable task.> To attempt to bypass it when seeking to understand the Bible would be to create an illusion and display lack of respect for the inspired Scripture.
When fundamentalists relegate exegetes to the role of translators only (failing to grasp that translating the Bible is already a work of exegesis) and refuse to follow them further in their studies, these same fundamentalists do not realize that for all their very laudable concern for total fidelity to the word of God, they proceed in fact along ways which will lead them far away from the true meaning of the biblical texts, as well as from full acceptance of the consequences of the incarnation. The eternal Word became incarnate at a precise period of history, within a clearly defined cultural and social environment. Anyone who desires to understand the word of God should humbly seek it out there where it has made itself visible and accept to this end the necessary help of human knowledge. Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning. Certainly, it is not possible that each Christian personally pursue all the kinds of research which make for a better understanding of the biblical text. This task is entrusted to exegetes, who have the responsibility in this matter to see that all profit from their labor.
A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the <historical-critical method,> at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions, the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history. It follows that the biblical writings cannot be correctly understood without an examination of the historical circumstances that shaped them. "Diachronic" research will always be indispensable for exegesis. Whatever be their own interest and value, "synchronic" approaches cannot replace it. To function in a way that will be fruitful, synchronic approaches should accept the conclusions of the diachronic, at least according to their main lines."
-
but still keeping in mind that Scriptures were written by men through divine inspiration.
What do you mean by "written by men though divine inspiration". What is your basis?
-
What do you mean by "written by men though divine inspiration". What is your basis?
My basis is the Theo classes that I've attended. The Bible was written by men, but with divine inspiration. It is the word of God through men. You actually don't believe the Books in the Bible actually came from heaven already written down, like the Ten Commandments? In fact, some books in the Bible were written some years after the events in it occurred, or somebody finally wrote down years of oral tradition.
Likewise, what we are reading now are translations of translations already. From the original Aramaic to Latin to English to the Filipino Bible. And yet we all ascribe it to be the true word of God. A faith document inspired by God, but written (and translated) in behalf of Him.
If you want to be all fundamental about it. . . eto:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:--2 Timothy 3:16
-
^ Well said.
my take: Somebody started and designed it all,
This part is a matter of faith.
but from then on, it followed a very specific path that can be observed and explained.
This part can be observed, documented, explained and tested through rational thinking alone.
That is all. :)
-
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s189/donhilario/non_sequitur_2011_09_19.jpg)
thanks to donbuggy of tsikot forum for posting this ;D
-
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s189/donhilario/non_sequitur_2011_09_19.jpg)
thanks to donbuggy of tsikot forum for posting this ;D
A Middle-Age sentiment in a modern-day cartoon. . . ;D
-
If you want to be all fundamental about it. . . eto:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:--2 Timothy 3:16
Isn't this a form of circular reasoning?
Using a quote from the Bible to prove the Bible were written by men through divine inspiration.
-
That's right. It's begging the question.
If the question is the validity of the bible, then assuming the validity of a bible verse is the same as assuming the very proposition sought to be proven.
It's a logical fallacy that is related to circular argument or circular reasoning.
-
Isn't this a form of circular reasoning?
Using a quote from the Bible to prove the Bible were written by men through divine inspiration.
Correct. That is why you cannot use fundamentalism or literal biblical study to study the scriptures. As I said before, you study the concepts and stories in the Bible in a wider perspective. What most fundamentalists do is to stick literally to the scripture.
Of course, most Christian concepts and morality use text from the Bible as basis.
Oh yes, the principle of divine inspiration in scripture is a core concept of Roman Catholicism. That's not my idea. Ask any member of the clergy or any religion teacher.
Cheers.
-
That's right. It's begging the question.
If the question is the validity of the bible, then assuming the validity of a bible verse is the same as assuming the very proposition sought to be proven.
It's a logical fallacy that is related to circular argument or circular reasoning.
If we use legalese then, lawyers will likely argue on that point. However, as I said in the previous post, divine inspiration is a core tenet of Bible study and of the Roman Catholic faith. Quite true, you cannot infallibly prove that the Bible is of divine inspiration. Taken to its basics, the Bible texts are written accounts or oral tradition set to writing, and out of all these written accounts, the early Church chose specific books which now comprise the Bible that we know as today. It did not come magically from heaven, already arranged and bound like the stone tablets of the ten commandments.
It takes centuries of doctrinal teaching by the Church to establish that belief. Again, we use the Bible as Muslims use the Koran. Concepts are based on the study of the writings of the authors of the books of the Bible. Btw, divine inspiration is a key assumption, if you will, on most of not all religions on their basic text that underpins their belief. Without that, they are just simply ordinary books and stories.
Ask your friendly neighborhood parish priest if you are still unsure of this basic tenet of divine inspiration. Don't take my word for it.
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-z5hbcccvqo4/TqiUsKLiOmI/AAAAAAAABEk/64lbXTiNq9s/s512/309895_304508016241299_153786011313501_1209958_2119458000_n.jpg)
-
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/398184_10151741545840022_565035021_379672740_1879094585_n.jpg)
-
A must-read article.
(http://173.45.243.66/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/creationists.jpg)
F**K CREATIONISM: UPDATED
The main thrust of Creationist efforts stem from their nauseating bleat that “Evolution is only a theory”. From that point they try to take it further down the slippery slope, insinuating that if it is only a theory then it must be little more than a guess and should not be considered as a viable explanation of the wide variety of life that we observe on earth today.
Well, evolution is a theory and it is also a fact. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Evolution has been observed in nature. Evolutionary Theory, explains the mechanisms of evolution (the fact). Scientific Theories are not merely guesses as the ignorant Creationists try to portray them. Scientific Theories describe a large set of observations with as few arbitrary elements as possible. Good theories make predictions about future events and are always falsifiable. This means that there must be some way to render the theory false, if indeed it is false. A good theory also shows a mechanism, and in the case of evolutionary theory, the mechanism of natural selection has been widely observed and demonstrated.
Evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of the biological sciences and without it nothing makes any sense at all. Evolutionary Theory has become stronger and stronger throughout the years despite many attempts to falsify it. Sure, scientists have disagreed about the specific mechanism of evolution, but to try to use this as a wedge to discredit evolutionary theory and sneak their god in the back door of the Science classroom is dishonest and laughable. Creationism is not a theory or a fact and I challenge any creationist to show me just one tenet of creationism that is scientific, just one.
In fact, Creationism is the opposite of science. In a nutshell, science observes, then explains. Creationism starts with a rigid conclusion and then looks around for natural phenomena that might support this conclusion. This is the same thing as shooting an arrow into a wall and then painting a bull’s eye around it. Science is self-correcting and ever changing. If a theory is falsified, science picks itself up and starts looking for another explanation, for science has no other agenda. Creationism cannot be falsified, it is inflexible, never changing. Creationism is religious dogma and nothing else.
More at http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/962/crap-creationism/
-
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/398184_10151741545840022_565035021_379672740_1879094585_n.jpg)
Insert what christians think in between man and humanoid since up to now they still cannot find the missing link. And that is what really happened.
-
Insert what christians think in between man and humanoid since up to now they still cannot find the missing link. And that is what really happened.
The "missing link" is Evolution.
Except that—no matter how many intermediary fossils are found, die-hard Christians won't abandon their beliefs anyway.
If tomorrow, all fossils were magically found (or, say, aliens revealed themselves and categorically show proof of Evolution)—would you change your beliefs? Or would you further twist and reinterpret the Bible to fit your worldview (and say, "Look, the Bible predicted Evolution all along!")?
Better yet—so that's your theory? Homo sapiens (Adam) suddenly appeared out of thin air? Did God wave a magic wand? Did he just come into being out of the cosmic background microwave radiation? Was he flown down from heaven carried by angels?
Oh, right. He was formed by God out of clay. Have we seen other beings coming out fully formed from clay lately?
Have we any observable, repeatable and falsifiable experiments or theories on how clay turns into biological, organic, multi-cellular, cognitive and moral creatures?
Or are we back to magic wand?
What's your theory?
-
Why are conservatives in America so scared about the teaching of evolution in schools as well as the many evolution books sitting on library and book store shelves?
What's with the effort to gradually stop people from learning about evolution?
Something scares them inside.
-
Because evolution is that little crack that can lead to enlightenment. Once a person realizes how utterly implausible and silly creationism is, it starts that inevitable realization that a lot of things in the bible are equally as silly. Blind obedience is the only way organized religion can survive.
-
Creationists and conservatives will cry over this.
Science Prevails In Missouri And Alabama As Creationism Bills Die In Both States
Science scored a major victory in Missouri and Alabama last week as multiple anti-evolution bills died in the legislatures of both states.
In Missouri, the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education decided not to vote on a pair of bills that would have made creationism an accepted science even though there is no evidence supporting it. HB 1276 would have allowed teachers “to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.” In other words, the bill would have allowed right-wing religious fanatical teachers to push their anti-evolution views. The other bill, HB 1227 would have forced “the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design,” at every level in public school and in “any introductory science course taught at any public institution of higher education.” This bill would have actually forced schools and colleges to teach creationism alongside evolution, while allowing teachers bash evolution.
In Alabama, HB 133 failed to come up for a vote in the House after the Alabama Academy of Science issued a statement declaring that the bill would harm science education. The bill would have created a credit for creationism scheme that would have empowered “local boards of education to include released time religious instruction as an elective course for high school students.” The bill was introduced on behalf of Joseph Kennedy, a former school teacher who “was fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to stop.” Kennedy wanted to “give students good sound scientific reasons to support their faith in the seven-day creation and the young Earth,” as devised by the Institute of Creation Research.
Teaching creationism in public school and colleges as part of science curriculum is wrong. Doing such a thing amounts to indoctrination. Because that’s exactly what these bills are all about. Indoctrinating students into the Christian religion, even if parents, the students, and scientists object. If students want to learn about creationism, they can do so in church. But in science class, only fact based theories that are supported by real evidence should be taught. The death of these bills is a big victory for science and reason and ensures our kids get a quality education.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/21/creationism/
-
The "missing link" is Evolution.
Between Humanoid and Homo Sapiens, there is no evolution. It just become man. That is why it is called the missing link. There is no evidence of evolution. Evolution happens gradually, not suddenly
Except that—no matter how many intermediary fossils are found, die-hard Christians won't abandon their beliefs anyway.
There are no intermediary fossils found yet. The closest is Peking man.
If tomorrow, all fossils were magically found (or, say, aliens revealed themselves and categorically show proof of Evolution)—would you change your beliefs? Or would you further twist and reinterpret the Bible to fit your worldview (and say, "Look, the Bible predicted Evolution all along!")?
Will not change my beliefs. Evolution occurs. It is proven by science. In fact scientist can jump start evolution by just a tweak of the dna. But man was made because there is no link. The creators would have to wait around 200k years for the humanoid to evolve and they cannot wait, that is why they made man in their image, or now commonly known as hybrid. Just like a cross between a cross of a horse and a donkey, it will create an ass. and hybrids cannot multiply. That is why also woman was made from man, in order for man to multiply.
Better yet—so that's your theory? Homo sapiens (Adam) suddenly appeared out of thin air? Did God wave a magic wand? Did he just come into being out of the cosmic background microwave radiation? Was he flown down from heaven carried by angels?
Man was created to work in gold mines. Sahara desert was mined for gold. Civilization started in Africa. Gold has no value but all civilization put high value in it. Why? because if is of value to our creators.
Oh, right. He was formed by God out of clay. Have we seen other beings coming out fully formed from clay lately?
That is the explanation in simple terms because if it was explained technically, early man would not understand it.
Have we any observable, repeatable and falsifiable experiments or theories on how clay turns into biological, organic, multi-cellular, cognitive and moral creatures?
all creatures are made of atoms. If you rearrange atoms, you can make what you want to build. that is a given. the technology needed for this is coming. just have to wait.
Or are we back to magic wand?
For simple explanation. but do not take it literally
What's your theory?
We were created. By whom and for what purpose, we can only imagine. All living things on earth has a certain purpose. Those who multiply rapidly are for food, those who reproduce slowly are the predators, to make sure those who are weak do not survive to procreate. Man has no purpose in nature.
Source: The Twelfth Planet by Zecharia Sitchin.
-
Because evolution is that little crack that can lead to enlightenment. Once a person realizes how utterly implausible and silly creationism is, it starts that inevitable realization that a lot of things in the bible are equally as silly. Blind obedience is the only way organized religion can survive.
True. The God in the bible demands blind obedience. But the one they call the devil does not demand it. In fact it was the devil who opened up the eyes of man to enlightenment. In Genesis, if you really tally who was telling the truth and who was not, the devil would be the winner. The explanation of the devil was direct to the point and current. while what God said was only justified later and will happen in the future. For example, when they eat the fruit, they will die, but after eating it was qualified to be die in spirit. the devil said man will not die, and at that instant that they ate the fruit, they did not die. just an example.
-
In Genesis, if you really tally who was telling the truth and who was not, the devil would be the winner. The explanation of the devil was direct to the point and current. while what God said was only justified later and will happen in the future. For example, when they eat the fruit, they will die, but after eating it was qualified to be die in spirit. the devil said man will not die, and at that instant that they ate the fruit, they did not die. just an example.
No, hindi ganon yon. God was referring to their physical bodies, and that's how Adam and Eve understood Him.
Adam and Eve's physical bodies could have lived forever. Hindi naman mahirap isipin yon. If our cells regenerate continuously and indefinitely, then we should never grow old. It's why the regenerative process has to slow down and eventually fail that is mysterious.
God said, "For when you eat from it you will certainly die." Of course God was referring to their physical bodies. These days, when you say that, you mean death would be immediate, because everyone dies eventually. But in the time when God said that, Adam and Eve had the capacity to live forever. But when they ate the fruit, their bodies became subject to aging and eventual death, and they eventually died. So God was telling the truth.
The serpent said, “You will not certainly die.” Which was of course a blatant lie, because Adam and Eve did die even if they were capable of living forever had they not eaten the fruit.
I don't see how you can say that the serpent was more truthful than God in that instance.
-
Between Humanoid and Homo Sapiens, there is no evolution. It just become man. That is why it is called the missing link. There is no evidence of evolution. Evolution happens gradually, not suddenly
We agree on your last sentence.
However, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Otherwise, "Oh, look, a car! I don't see any factories around in a thousand miles. Therefore, that car must've been formed out of raw atoms by some invisible hand."
The creators would have to wait around 200k years for the humanoid to evolve and they cannot wait, that is why they made man in their image, or now commonly known as hybrid.
Man was created to work in gold mines. Sahara desert was mined for gold. Civilization started in Africa. Gold has no value but all civilization put high value in it. Why? because if is of value to our creators.
Ok... so you believe some super beings somehow 'created' homo sapiens thousands of years ago because they couldn't wait for Evolution to run its natural course?
Source: The Twelfth Planet by Zecharia Sitchin.
Oh. I see.
-
We agree on your last sentence.
However, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Otherwise, "Oh, look, a car! I don't see any factories around in a thousand miles. Therefore, that car must've been formed out of raw atoms by some invisible hand."
Ok... so you believe some super beings somehow 'created' homo sapiens thousands of years ago because they couldn't wait for Evolution to run its natural course?
Oh. I see.
hmmm
oh look a car... ahah... based on hard evidence nagevolve yan galing sa kalesa...
:)
-
hmmm
oh look a car... ahah... based on hard evidence nagevolve yan galing sa kalesa...
:)
Where's your evidence? :)
-
No, hindi ganon yon. God was referring to their physical bodies, and that's how Adam and Eve understood Him.
Adam and Eve's physical bodies could have lived forever. Hindi naman mahirap isipin yon. If our cells regenerate continuously and indefinitely, then we should never grow old. It's why the regenerative process has to slow down and eventually fail that is mysterious.
God said, "For when you eat from it you will certainly die." Of course God was referring to their physical bodies. These days, when you say that, you mean death would be immediate, because everyone dies eventually. But in the time when God said that, Adam and Eve had the capacity to live forever. But when they ate the fruit, their bodies became subject to aging and eventual death, and they eventually died. So God was telling the truth.
The serpent said, “You will not certainly die.” Which was of course a blatant lie, because Adam and Eve did die even if they were capable of living forever had they not eaten the fruit.
I don't see how you can say that the serpent was more truthful than God in that instance.
Di ba na banish sila sa eden lest they eat the fruit from the tree of life, and they will not die? So why sinabi na yung tree of knowledge will make them die? what is the purpose of the tree of life if they are immortal in the first place? When the devil did say you will have knowledge between good and evil. di ba naging true yun? Bakit mas alam ng devil ano yung instant result? Hindi kaya yung tinutukoy na devil was the real creator?Kasi yung paging mortal ng tao was a choice of god, kung baga consequence lang yun sa action ng man. pero yung sa devil, yun talaga ang mangyari in an instant.
When science reaches its full potential, di ba meron na rin tayo chance to live forever? It is all about chemistry lang naman yan..
-
Where's your evidence? :)
hmmmm... sa ngaun wala pa eh... pero darating din tayo diyan... kasi mukha talagang nagevolve ang car galing sa kalesa...
pinadrawing ko pa nga sa sikat na artist ano magiging itsura ng sinaunang car eh...
kasi sa napaka komplikadong system ng sasakyan...malabong ginawa lang yan ng isang matalinong tao o kung sino/ano man...
-
We all form our conclusion based on evidence and what we know. We can conclude cars made by magic hand if we do not know that cars are made in factory. but if you know cars are made in factory, no way you will conclude that cars made by magic hand di ba. It is all on what is laid down in the table. What is true now may not be true later. Therefore if no missing link, then created. if meron makita, it will be evolution. nakita na dinosaur and wala pa din si missing link would tell you something naman di ba.
-
hmmmm... sa ngaun wala pa eh... pero darating din tayo diyan... kasi mukha talagang nagevolve ang car galing sa kalesa...
pinadrawing ko pa nga sa sikat na artist ano magiging itsura ng sinaunang car eh...
That's not evidence. Try harder.
Let's start with: Do cars reproduce by themselves?
kasi sa napaka komplikadong system ng sasakyan...malabong ginawa lang yan ng isang matalinong tao o kung sino/ano man...
That's actually true. With modern cars, no single person is responsible for the design or manufacture of them.
So, again, try harder.
I mean, seriously. Try something with a real thought process behind it. Don't just troll for trolling's sake. I'm being generous.
-
We all form our conclusion based on evidence and what we know. What is true now may not be true later.
This is how Science operates—forming hypotheses and theories around observable and verifiable fact. Then later experiments and observations can invalidate earlier theories so new theories are formed to supplant them, and so on.
Therefore if no missing link, then created. if meron makita, it will be evolution.
But this is where you're mistaken. Evolution is fact—and there is an abundance of proof supporting it. In fact, evolution (micro-) itself has been demonstrated in repeatable experiments.
Now—if you're talking about homo sapiens evolving from Australopithecus, the mere absence of evidence does not invalidate it. Meaning, all other surrounding evidence still points to it.
More importantly, no other theory sufficiently challenges it. In layman's terms—there is no other theory that is currently more plausible alternative theory for how homo sapiens came about. None.
If you have one better, I'd love to hear about it.
nakita na dinosaur and wala pa din si missing link would tell you something naman di ba.
Not all dinosaur fossils can also be proven to have evolved from earlier species' fossils. Does that mean that some dinosaurs also magically just appeared out of nowhere?
There is some speculation, for example, that the Cambrian Explosion might have been triggered by some extra-terrestrial means—not E.T., but possibly, say, alien microbes that hitched a ride on an asteroid from somewhere far away. But there is little hard evidence to support that, too.
-
When the devil did say you will have knowledge between good and evil. di ba naging true yun? Bakit mas alam ng devil ano yung instant result?
Dito na lang sa part na ito ako magco-concentrate sir, ang dami kasi ng tanong mo. And last na ito, kasi magagalit na ang mods dahil hindi naman ito religion thread.
Ang sinabi ng serpent ay hindi lang "you will have knowledge between good and evil." Eto ang talagang sinabi niya:
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:4-5)
The part about "you will not certainly die" is a blatant lie.
The part about "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" is a half-truth. Bakit?
Ganito yon:
Sina Adam and Eve, hindi alam ang good and evil. That means ang alam lang nila, basta sinabi ng Diyos, susunod nila, wala sa isip nila yung hindi sila susunod.
Pero may free will sila sa isang bagay lang: kainin o hindi kainin ang forbidden fruit. Pag kinain nila yon, they will know good and evil, like God.
Yes, it is true that they will be like God in that aspect. Ang problema, hindi nilinaw ng serpent that they will not be like God in other aspects.
They will just know the difference between good and evil, yes. But they will not become all-wise, all-powerful immortal spirits. In fact, namatay pa nga sila. Naloko sila ng serpent.
That's why it's a half-truth.
=======================
Post ka na lang sa religion thread, sir. Magandang topic yan.
Yung sagot na Adam and Eve died a spiritual death, sagot ng tamad yon. Hindi kasi maisip kung bakit hindi namatay agad sina Adan at Eba, ayaw nang pag-aralan. ;)
-
Creationists and conservatives will cry over this.
Science Prevails In Missouri And Alabama As Creationism Bills Die In Both States
---
Teaching creationism in public school and colleges as part of science curriculum is wrong. Doing such a thing amounts to indoctrination. Because that’s exactly what these bills are all about. Indoctrinating students into the Christian religion, even if parents, the students, and scientists object. If students want to learn about creationism, they can do so in church. But in science class, only fact based theories that are supported by real evidence should be taught. The death of these bills is a big victory for science and reason and ensures our kids get a quality education.[/i]
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/21/creationism/
Well, who said stupid lawmakers only exist in the Philippines! (see high-lighted red)
I cried ... laughing ;D!
-
A must-read article.
(http://173.45.243.66/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/creationists.jpg)
F**K CREATIONISM: UPDATED
---
Well, evolution is a theory and it is also a fact. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Evolution has been observed in nature (the million years? - by whom? ;D) . Evolutionary Theory, explains the mechanisms of evolution (the fact). Scientific Theories are not merely guesses as the ignorant Creationists try to portray them. Scientific Theories describe a large set of observations with as few arbitrary elements as possible. Good ( ;D ) theories make predictions about future events and are always falsifiable. This means that there must be some way to render the theory false, if indeed it is false. A good theory also shows a mechanism, and in the case of evolutionary theory, the mechanism of natural selection has been widely observed and demonstrated (ha ha ha - let me guess: In Galapagos Island? - try harder - ;D ).
---
More at http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/962/crap-creationism/
good try (I enjoyed red portions) - the usual rhetoric, and yet no proof or iota of convincing evidence to back it up!
Who needs paradox? I am still crying ... laughing!
-
---
Oh, right. He was formed by God out of clay. Have we seen other beings coming out fully formed from clay lately?
Have we any observable, repeatable and falsifiable experiments or theories on how clay turns into biological, organic, multi-cellular, cognitive and moral creatures?
Or are we back to magic wand?
What's your theory?
ha ha ha ;D
The fact is that when man dies, he became part of the soil (or clay)!
He do not become less human, then monkey, then single cell organism, etc! Don't ask me! Perhaps evolutionist saw something else.
Still no convincing proof offered?
-
Why are conservatives in America so scared about the teaching of evolution in schools as well as the many evolution books sitting on library and book store shelves?
What's with the effort to gradually stop people from learning about evolution?
Something scares them inside.
The liberals are as afraid as (what you said) republicans about creation! Actually, it is really a money matters - those pesky global warming scientists!
-
Di ba na banish sila sa eden lest they eat the fruit from the tree of life, and they will not die? So why sinabi na yung tree of knowledge will make them die? what is the purpose of the tree of life if they are immortal in the first place? When the devil did say you will have knowledge between good and evil. di ba naging true yun? Bakit mas alam ng devil ano yung instant result? Hindi kaya yung tinutukoy na devil was the real creator?Kasi yung paging mortal ng tao was a choice of god, kung baga consequence lang yun sa action ng man. pero yung sa devil, yun talaga ang mangyari in an instant.
When science reaches its full potential, di ba meron na rin tayo chance to live forever? It is all about chemistry lang naman yan..
OT. pero napa review ako dito ah!
So why sinabi na yung tree of knowledge will make them die?
The 'die' here has something to do with the spiritual (relationship) condition of Adam & Eve with God. It is not really the eating that made them 'die'. It is the DISOBEDIENCE - a blatant disregard of God. Prior, the couple do not know what sin is. After, they knew they disobeyed! The physical death is just part & parcel of the physical impact of the loss of their 'relational' (spiritual) status before God. [Di ko papatulan dito yung masipag :D ]
what is the purpose of the tree of life if they are immortal in the first place?
Saka mo na problemahin yan, pag namayapa ka na!
When the devil did say you will have knowledge between good and evil. di ba naging true yun?
Yup!
Bakit mas alam ng devil ano yung instant result?
kasi nangyari na sa kanya yon eh! he was (in eternity future - will be) discharge from the presence of God!
Hindi kaya yung tinutukoy na devil was the real creator?
Nope!
Kasi yung paging mortal ng tao was a choice of god, kung baga consequence lang yun sa action ng man.
Nope. It was man's act - a choice that emanated from the couple - they are free to choose then!
pero yung sa devil, yun talaga ang mangyari in an instant.
Actually, at that time, tapos na yung kay devil - he is dead meat already ;D - judgement have been made on him in eternity past (can not remember the passage when lucifer and his allies rebeled against God).
When science reaches its full potential, di ba meron na rin tayo chance to live forever? It is all about chemistry lang naman yan..
The evolution did not state this. The Bible did not state this either.
-
True. The God in the bible demands blind obedience. But the one they call the devil does not demand it. In fact it was the devil who opened up the eyes of man to enlightenment. In Genesis, if you really tally who was telling the truth and who was not, the devil would be the winner. The explanation of the devil was direct to the point and current. while what God said was only justified later and will happen in the future. For example, when they eat the fruit, they will die, but after eating it was qualified to be die in spirit. the devil said man will not die, and at that instant that they ate the fruit, they did not die. just an example.
> For good reasons - because man are blind to the consequences of his actions while God knew the consequences of such an act!
> for bad reasons - because the devil wants company for his punishment, and to continue showing his defiance of God.
The death occurred immediately - not the physical (which is not the one being referred to). And the pronouncement of a Savior was also made to salvage man after man's admission to the disobedience (yes, in the garden, to Adam & Eve).
-
This is how Science operates—forming hypotheses and theories around observable and verifiable fact. Then later experiments and observations can invalidate earlier theories so new theories are formed to supplant them, and so on.
But this is where you're mistaken. Evolution is fact—and there is an abundance of proof supporting it. In fact, evolution (micro-) itself has been demonstrated in repeatable experiments.
Gosh, he is really trying VERY HARD!
May I repeat his statement: Evolution THEORY is a FACT! ! ;D
There goes his religion - I told you!
And they have performed repeatable experiments to validate what happened in million, no billion, no trillion years! ;D I guess they need more money (and more laws) to further the experiments! BEATS ME!
-
^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Before I'll listen to you any further, What's your theory?
Do you even have one?
-
Sa tuwing napapadaan ako sa thread na to, natatawa ako... ;D
So sure about everything... :D
-
The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy
– An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
-
The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy
– An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
blah blah blah
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
How about their declaration on INQUISITION?
Those pesky political religionists! They need to survive in this world of changing values - just to be relevant!
@alistair, ikaw lang naman ang masyadong nagpu push ng religion mo dito na EVOLUTION is a FACT!
All the rhetoric here will not help prove any of the theories. I have stated in my first post that both (creation & evolution) are theories.
So go down to the scientific evidence - and justify how it proved the theory a fact!
Because if dawkins and his minions ( including Darwin and his religion believers) can not make up their minds as to the cause of life in this world, they still fall short of the scientific presentation that they wanted creationist to present - thus leading them to a difficult situation - ending in uncomfortable position just citing ALIENS as the one that precipitated sperms in the earth before life begins! ;D
I recommend his fiction books - very intriguing!
-
Those pesky political religionists! They need to survive in this world of changing values - just to be relevant!
It's either that or abandon religion altogether. If religion insists that we do not change, we'd still be believing that the Earth is the center of the universe and women should be 2nd class human beings.
-
@alistair, ikaw lang naman ang masyadong nagpu push ng religion mo dito na EVOLUTION is a FACT!
You're so confused I wonder how you operate in modern society?
Religion requires faith.
Evolution is a scientific theory, based on observable fact and verifiable experiments. No need for faith.
Do you need faith to believe in the theory of Gravity? I mean, if I don't believe in gravity, will I float off the Earth?
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/
"We can see moths evolve their coloring to match the color of soot that covers their habitat, watch bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance in hospitals, and my favorite variety of grapefruit was made by scientists who exposed seeds to radiation to increase the mutation rate."
The article goes on to describe how E. coli evolved to be able to thrive on citrate (which are normally toxic to it), through a series of mutations. If mutations is micro-evolution, then an organism acquiring a totally new trait is macro-evolution.
That, and observed (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) speciation (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VBDefiningSpeciation.shtml) like with certain Ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species).
None of the above require faith.
You yourself are free to carefully scrutinize their results and duplicate their experiments or make the same observations as they do.
Now, on the other hand... Christians themselves sometimes disagree whether the 'death' in Gen. 2:17 refers to physical death or spiritual death.
The creation story in Genesis requires faith, and even with faith Genesis can't be taken objectively, nor its premises observed or validated.
All the rhetoric here will not help prove any of the theories. I have stated in my first post that both (creation & evolution) are theories.
You're wrong on the first, and you misunderstand the second.
Scientific "Theory" is different from layman's theory. The layman's theory is a guess, or speculation.
Scientific "Theory" is more like Mathematical Theory—it provides a structured and/or unified model to explain observable fact. We would not have Evolutionary Theory if it weren't for the observable fact that species mutate over time.
Creation as a theory? Now that's not even a guess or speculation. It's a story, a myth that requires faith.
Here's my theory on gravity: tiny invisible winged fairies are pushing down on each one of us keeping us to the ground.
You can't prove they don't exist!
-
You're so confused I wonder how you operate in modern society?
Religion requires faith.
Indeed! ;D
That's why it takes a lot of faith to say EVOLUTION is a FACT as you said!
Theory of Gravity - Perhaps you mean Law of Gravity? ;)
And you have the gall to surpass even Darwin & Dawkins in your declarations of THEORY of EVOLUTIONS as FACT! You are really a fighter for your religion eh!
-
It's either that or abandon religion altogether. If religion insists that we do not change, we'd still be believing that the Earth is the center of the universe and women should be 2nd class human beings.
Sorry - the manipulators of data to prove their Science can not be a good source of fact! 8)
-
Sorry - the manipulators of data to prove their Science can not be a good source of fact! 8)
This is true. But it applies to Creationists more than Evolutionists.
-
Theory of Gravity - Perhaps you mean Law of Gravity? ;)
What is this Law of Gravity that you speak of? Newton's? Even Newton's "Law" is considered a theory.
Troll harder.
And you have the gall to surpass even Darwin & Dawkins in your declarations of THEORY of EVOLUTIONS as FACT! You are really a fighter for your religion eh!
And you're just trolling with nothing substantial to say.
What's your theory?
How old is the Earth? Do you have any experiments or evidence for it, or just a few Bible verses?
Where did the dinosaur fossils come from, and how old are they? Do you have any evidence for them, or just a few Bible verses interpreted liberally?
-
Indeed! ;D
That's why it takes a lot of faith to say EVOLUTION is a FACT as you said!
Theory of Gravity - Perhaps you mean Law of Gravity? ;)
And you have the gall to surpass even Darwin & Dawkins in your declarations of THEORY of EVOLUTIONS as FACT! You are really a fighter for your religion eh!
sumakit ulo ko dito.
-
It makes me laugh that a creationism/religious believer believes that dinosaurs NEVER existed and the only explanation why dinosaur fossils are scattered around the world was because God placed them to test people's faith in him.
-
It makes me laugh that a creationism/religious believer believes that dinosaurs NEVER existed and the only explanation why dinosaur fossils are scattered around the world was because God placed them to test people's faith in him.
Actually, there were posts made before about dinosaurs being mentioned in the bible. I still laugh thinking about those. Fun times! ;D
-
It makes me laugh that a creationism/religious believer believes that dinosaurs NEVER existed and the only explanation why dinosaur fossils are scattered around the world was because God placed them to test people's faith in him.
Then tell that to those who did not believe dinosaur existed ;) - what is evolution there?
-
What is this Law of Gravity that you speak of? Newton's? Even Newton's "Law" is considered a theory.
Troll harder.And you're just trolling with nothing substantial to say.
OT
This is true. Newton's Law of Gravity can either be a Scientific Law or Theory. This happened when one physics genius' theory clashed with Newton's Law of Gravity. In Newton's model, he concluded that if the Sun would somehow disappear the Earth would spin out orbit instantaneously. One physicist has proven that this was wrong due to the relative effect of space-time to light and this particular physicist found out that the speed of the effect of gravity is equal to the speed of light. The Sun's light travels to Earth at exactly 8mins and 19 sec and therefore the Earth would spin out of orbit also at exactly the same time.
The theory that proved Newton's 200 year old theory was wrong is the Theory of Relativity, and the guess who the author is... that's right, Albert Einstein.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/72839_10150842472946275_177486166274_10075563_1487289985_n.jpg)
-
Science Defeats Creationism In Oklahoma In Flawless Victory
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/AntiScienceRepublican.jpg)
Three anti-science bills that would have severely set back the education of students in Oklahoma died quietly last week when the legislative session came to an end.
Among the bills that were killed includes:
SB 1742, which would have allowed teachers to challenge evolution using the Biblical theory known as creationism.
HB 1551 died previously in early April. That bill amounted to a full-fledged attack on climate change and evolution. Republican state Rep. Steve Russell attempted to amend an unrelated education bill, called HB 2341, to include the anti-science language of HB 1551 but that also failed.
With the end of the legislative session, all of these efforts to force creationism into science classrooms have been defeated meaning science has once again prevailed in another Republican dominated state. Earlier this month, science scored victories over creationism in Missouri and Alabama.
With these victories, Republican attempts to replace science with religion have been thwarted for the time being. Educators and scientists across the nation have been fighting in defense of science and the education of our kids for months, and now they have big wins in three different states. Science and fact once again reigns supreme.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/27/science-defeats-creationism-in-oklahoma-in-flawless-victory/
-
Gosh, he is really trying VERY HARD!
May I repeat his statement: Evolution THEORY is a FACT! ! ;D
There goes his religion - I told you!
And they have performed repeatable experiments to validate what happened in million, no billion, no trillion years! ;D I guess they need more money (and more laws) to further the experiments! BEATS ME!
Evolution can now be replicated on a laboratory. A simple tweak on the dna can change the beak of a bird in Galapagos Island. That is how evolution starts. However they also discovered a master gene that decides what can evolve and what cannot. Read it in NY Times years back.
-
Evolution can now be replicated on a laboratory. A simple tweak on the dna can change the beak of a bird in Galapagos Island. That is how evolution starts. However they also discovered a master gene that decides what can evolve and what cannot. Read it in NY Times years back.
In the NatGeo magazine published a year ago, a tweak on the dna of a Ray would determine/change the shape and size of its fins.
some people would believe scientific experiments more than a talking snake.
-
hmmm...
napansin niyo ba na sa mga experiment na yan hindi ipinapakita ang evolution diyan... evolution as what others says take time (hmmm billion of times) and natures do it.....
samantalang sa mga experiement na yan... there is an intervention of scientist... they manipulated DNA... someone who have intelligence alter the DNA para gawin ang isang bagay sa kung ano gusto niya lumabas... and take note hindi nangyari yang experiement na yan ng billion of years...
honestly speaking... can evolution be repeated in a laboratory room?
-
Richard Leakey: Evolution Debate Soon Will Be History (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/richard-leakey-evolution-debate_n_1548766.html)
"According to noted paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, sometime in the next 15 to 30 years scientific discoveries about evolution will have accelerated to the point that 'even the skeptics can accept it.' 'If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God.' Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s and his team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as 'Turkana Boy,' the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature. At 67, Leakey conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise, and the family claims to have unearthed 'much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution.' Leakey, an atheist, insists he has no animosity toward religion." - from a slashdot.org post
-
hmmm...
napansin niyo ba na sa mga experiment na yan hindi ipinapakita ang evolution diyan... evolution as what others says take time (hmmm billion of times) and natures do it.....
samantalang sa mga experiement na yan... there is an intervention of scientist... they manipulated DNA... someone who have intelligence alter the DNA para gawin ang isang bagay sa kung ano gusto niya lumabas... and take note hindi nangyari yang experiement na yan ng billion of years...
honestly speaking... can evolution be repeated in a laboratory room?
I guess what scientists are trying to prove is that a mutation of a single dna can change a bodypart of an animal making him more adaptive to a certain environment, like having a longer beak for a bird can make it capitalize on a food source that is unavailable before the mutation making it more healthy and providing a greater chance of mating and passing on the trait to its offspring.
it's more of an adaptation really if you consider only one or two characteristics but over a long period of time, if these changes happen to various aspects of characteristics of a species, then it can render a species completely changed.
-
honestly speaking... can evolution be repeated in a laboratory room?
Honestly speaking—do you know how to read or are you just trolling on purpose?
"Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
"Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Note that the scientist in this case did not alter the DNA himself—he merely observed and recorded.
And yes, it can be 'replayed':
"Examination of samples of the population frozen at earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500. They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants. They also found that the ability to use citrate could spontaneously re-evolve in populations of genetically pure clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history. Such re-evolution of citrate utilization was never observed in clones isolated from before generation 20,000."
If you think that an entirely new species (with > 1% different DNA and/or unable to reproduce with the original specie) can 'sprout out' overnight—well, I guess that's to be expected if you think homo sapiens and other animals can suddenly come into existence out of thin air in a day.
-
South Korea surrenders to creationist demands
Publishers set to remove examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.
http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773
Excerpt:
Antipathy to evolution
In a 2009 survey conducted for the South Korean documentary The Era of God and Darwin, almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution. Of those, 41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support it; 39% said that it contradicted their religious beliefs; and 17% did not understand the theory. The numbers approach those in the United States, where a survey by the research firm Gallup has shown that around 40% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from less advanced forms of life.
“The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge.”
The roots of the South Korean antipathy to evolution are unclear, although Jeon suggests that they are partly “due to strong Christianity in the country”. About half of South Korea’s citizens practice a religion, mostly split between Christianity and Buddhism.
However, a survey of trainee teachers in the country concluded that religious belief was not a strong determinant of their acceptance of evolution3. It also found that 40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”; and half disagreed that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”.
-
South Korea surrenders to creationist demands
Publishers set to remove examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.
http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773
Excerpt:
Antipathy to evolution
In a 2009 survey conducted for the South Korean documentary The Era of God and Darwin, almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution. Of those, 41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support it; 39% said that it contradicted their religious beliefs; and 17% did not understand the theory. The numbers approach those in the United States, where a survey by the research firm Gallup has shown that around 40% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from less advanced forms of life.
“The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge.”
The roots of the South Korean antipathy to evolution are unclear, although Jeon suggests that they are partly “due to strong Christianity in the country”. About half of South Korea’s citizens practice a religion, mostly split between Christianity and Buddhism.
However, a survey of trainee teachers in the country concluded that religious belief was not a strong determinant of their acceptance of evolution3. It also found that 40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”; and half disagreed that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”.
So what will they do now, teach high school students that animals popped out of thin air? and snakes talk in the beginning?
-
Christians are a minority in South Korea. The majority have no religion. Out of those who do belong to a religious group, most are Buddhists. Buddhists don't care about the creation-evolution debate because they think it's useless to their religion's goals.
If there's a strong creationist lobby group there now, it's likely that funds from American Conservative Christian groups are behind it.
-
Just watch Ancient Aliens and you'll all get the best of both worlds... ;D
-
Or read Genesis Revisited by Sitchin. My friend read it and said that for two weeks he questioned his faith. He said the book is not for those with weak faith. Best read with an open mind.
-
Christians are a minority in South Korea. The majority have no religion. Out of those who do belong to a religious group, most are Buddhists. Buddhists don't care about the creation-evolution debate because they think it's useless to their religion's goals.
If there's a strong creationist lobby group there now, it's likely that funds from American Conservative Christian groups are behind it.
Evangelical Christian Churches (particularly those who practice prosperity theology) are huge in So. Korea. So huge that they can very well fund their own lobbying. Check out Sun Myung Moon, who is, for all intents and purposes, a veritable multi-billionaire.
-
You can still trace money from the Moonies to US money.
The Moonies are creationists with billions of dollars and a large portfolio of global business interests, but Sun Myung Moon is not South Korea based. Moon is South Korean, but he's been living in the US since 1971.
Millions of members are in the US. International membership is believed to be around 5 to 7 million, but only a small percentage of that is composed of South Korean residents (no stats are available as to how many Moonies there are in South Korea).
Moon is one of the biggest contributors to the American right. He's spent billions on the right-wing newspaper Washington Times and has provided millions to American right-wing causes.
In the 1980s, Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee "solicited and received" money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981. Leach said the Unification Church has "infiltrated the New Right and the party it [the New Right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well."
In the 1990's, Moon helped bail out Rev. Jerry Falwell's evangelist Liberty University with $3.5 million. Falwell criticized Moon in the 1970s, saying, "Reverend Sun Myung Moon is like the plague: he exploits boys and girls, and he should be exported." By the 1980s, Falwell was already praising Moon, giving the latter further credibility with the American conservative right. Falwell continued to support him even after Moon was convicted and jailed for tax fraud in the US, alleging that the conviction was a case of religious persecution.
-
A fool wants to ban evolution from schools.
Kansas School Board Candidate Wants to Ban Evolution From Schools
A candidate for a position on the Kansas State Board of Education is seeking the complete removal of the Theory of Evolution from public schools.
Jack Wu, a native of California who moved to Topeka after joining the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, is running against 4th District incumbent Carolyn Wims-Campbell, who was elected in 2008.
"The current public educational system in Kansas and the United States is preparing its students to be liars, crooks, thieves, murderers, and perverts," said Wu in an entry on his campaign site.
"My mission, in running for the Kansas State Board of Education, is to throw out the crap that teachers are feeding their students and replace it with healthy good for the soul knowledge from the holy scriptures."
While Wu hopes to have the Theory of Evolution completely removed from the public curriculum, many major creationist organizations do not share that position.
Mark Looy, co-founder and chief communications officer for Answers in Genesis and the Kentucky-based Creation Museum, told The Christian Post that eliminating evolution from the curriculum should not be pursued.
"Answers in Genesis opposes efforts to remove evolution teaching from schools. It is a major worldview that affects so much of society, and thus it needs to be studied," said Looy.
"However, students, using their critical thinking skills, should be able to study evolution warts and all. AiG welcomes challenges to 'molecules-to-man' evolution, which sadly is a belief system that is taught as fact in most public school science classrooms."
Looy explained that Answers in Genesis believes a better way to deal with the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools is not to outright ban it but rather counter it through "grassroots" efforts.
"To counter evolutionary indoctrination in schools, we believe it would be more effective to see a grassroots approach of impacting churches and communities," said Looy.
Lawrence Ford, director of communications for the Institute for Creation Research, told CP that his organization does not support efforts like Wu's to ban the teaching of evolution or mandate the teaching of creation science.
"The institute for Creation Research does not advocate teaching biblical creation in public schools. Teachers who don't believe the Bible shouldn't be forced to teach something they don't believe," said Ford.
"On the other hand, students should be encouraged to develop and apply critical thinking skills to any scientific theory presented to them in the classroom."
For the past several years, Kansas has been the epicenter of much controversy over how evolution and creation are taught or referenced. In August 1999, the board voted 6 to 4 in favor of science standards that eliminated most references to evolution. In February 2001, this vote was overturned in a 7 to 3 vote taken by a largely new group of board members.
In November 2005, science standards more critical of evolution theory were supported by the board, which included giving time to Intelligent Design, a modern counter to evolution.
Westboro Baptist Church, which earned a nationwide reputation for its protests of funerals, is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kansas-school-board-candidate-wants-to-ban-evolution-from-schools-77273/
-
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/662665/thumbs/s-JACK-WU-large.jpg)
Jack Wu
According to AP, Wu also advocates a literal interpretation of the Bible and believes the world is 6,000 years old. The US Geological Survey puts the number at closer to 4.5 billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/westboro-jack-wu_n_1628006.html
-
From an FB page
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/165932_486252101400222_1613410065_n.jpg)
-
It is because they just cant accept that we came from apes and yet made in the likeness of God. They just cant reconcile. Better to believe in the woman from rib thing..
-
(http://api.ning.com/files/mJe5x*qMe65dFglWT27Mx3XwYMABGoCTrmEaxiVA8yTBqgoIjbpiJTNkHWRuMDqH-j8lZSGqW30TjIRZQmpwkPdi2ZuvWo9A/evolution_idiots.gif)
-
You heard of the Australopithecus sediba?
Human ancestor ate bark like a chimp
(http://img.tgdaily.net/sites/default/files/stock/450teaser/archaeology/a_sediba.jpg)
Bits of food stuck between the teeth of a two-million-year-old South African hominid show that, unlike almost all other known human ancestors, it ate tree bark and other hard foods.
Australopithecus sediba's diet was dramatically different to that of its African cousins, which tended to eat grasses and sedges.
A sediba's diet was analyzed using a technique that involved zapping fossilized teeth with a laser to free carbon from their enamel. This allowed the scientists to pinpoint the types of plants that were consumed and the environments in which the hominids lived.
The carbon signals from the teeth are split into two groups: C3 plants like trees, shrubs and bushes, and C4 plants such as the grasses and sedges consumed by many other early hominids.
And the teeth from the two A sediba individuals analyzed in the study delivered carbon isotope values outside the range of all 81 previously tested hominids. "The lack of any C4 evidence, and the evidence for the consumption of hard objects, are what make the inferred diet of these individuals compelling," said Sandberg.
"It is an important finding, because diet is one of the fundamental aspects of an animal, one that drives its behavior and ecological niche," says CU-Boulder doctoral student Paul Sandberg.
"As environments change over time because of shifting climates, animals are generally forced to either move or to adapt to their new surroundings."
The bark may represent a seasonal element to A sediba's diet. Bark and woody tissues haven't previously been found to be a dietary component of any other ancient African hominids, but are eaten by many primates and contain both protein and soluble sugars. The diet of A sediba may have been similar to that of today's African savanna chimpanzees, says Sandberg.
A sediba, first discovered in 2008, appears to have characteristics of both primitive and modern hominids, including a human-like ankle, short fingers and a long thumb - and a relatively complex brain. It's still unclear exactly where they fit in the hominid family tree.
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/64347-human-ancestor-ate-bark-like-a-chimp
-
Human ancestor ate bark like a chimp
A more accurate title would be, "Chimp ate bark like a chimp." Not very glamorous, but more accurate.
Australopithecus Sediba: The Missing Link Between Apes and Humans?
by Rich Deem
... Even though the brain size was smaller than the average Australopithecine, study authors concluded that the "results are consistent with gradual neural reorganization of the orbitofrontal region in the transition from Australopithecus to Homo." Amazing!
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/australopithecus_sediba_missing_link.html
-
The greatest evidence that Creation is more "plausible" than Evolution was the discovery of the DNA. The DNA is a very complex set of codes or instructions contained in a single molecule. These codes are specific information that will eventually form the cells of the organism as it matures. Information cannot come spontaneously and will not be understood without a common language. Language connotes intelligence, which means that there was a "mind" that made all these things around us.
I don't know who said this about the probability of life out of chance:
"It's like a tornado coming down in a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet".
-
The greatest evidence that Creation is more "plausible" than Evolution was the discovery of the DNA. The DNA is a very complex set of codes or instructions contained in a single molecule. These codes are specific information that will eventually form the cells of the organism as it matures. Information cannot come spontaneously and will not be understood without a common language. Language connotes intelligence, which means that there was a "mind" that made all these things around us.
I don't know who said this about the probability of life out of chance:
"It's like a tornado coming down in a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet".
Then who do you think created the creator??? ;D
-
The greatest evidence that Creation is more "plausible" than Evolution was the discovery of the DNA.
Funny. I would've thought that DNA was one of the greatest arguments against spontaneous Creation because it provides a mechanism to explain how species can mutate or adapt, and eventually, evolve to survive.
Information cannot come spontaneously and will not be understood without a common language.
I agree with the understanding part. But information—well, that's a tricky thing.
Weather phenomena is highly complex and chaotic. Somewhere behind all that is some fundamental set of interactions that govern whether it will rain tomorrow in Colombo or whether a tornado will hit Wichita.
Is there "information" in weather? Well, we (meaning, an intelligent observer) can extract information from the multitude of data about the weather.
But to say that there's information somehow encoded in there to begin with implies that someone put it there to begin with. That the weather has a purpose. Of course, the mystics would say that the machinations of the Universe itself has a purpose—but we digress.
Language connotes intelligence, which means that there was a "mind" that made all these things around us.
So many people can 'speak' but demonstrate little intelligence.
Sarcasm aside, "Language" is nothing more than symbols strung together to express something. Parrots can be taught language. Computers can be taught how to "speak". The intelligence behind such "language" is dubious.
And finally, I fail to see how language implies Intelligent Design. You could just as well say, "Pasta is a non-natural food and requires significant technique and technology to make, means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and imprinted Pasta with his essence so that Man will eventually discover them and through them, proof that the FSM exists."
I don't know who said this about the probability of life out of chance:
"It's like a tornado coming down in a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet".
Several things which reveal your own confusion.
1. Evolution is not abiogenesis.
2. Evolution per se doesn't talk about the origin of Life.
3. There is no selection pressure for a jumbo jet coming together at random from junkyard parts during a tornado.
4. Evolution is not random.
tl;dr: Sure, DNA is complex (and we haven't even fully figured out how all traits are passed down from one generation to the next, all we know is that DNA plays a part, but some now say RNA could also be involved).
But to point to a complex, naturally occurring phenomena and say, "That's proof of Intelligent Design" is just jumping to conclusions.
Just because "Only God could design something like DNA" does not imply "DNA exists, therefore it was created by God."
If you believe that, then I have another non-sequitur for you. "If a Perfect Being designed DNA, then beings would be perfect (no mutations, no abnormal and infertile offspring). But since animals born with mutations happen all the time, then DNA wasn't intelligently designed at all."
-
Then who do you think created the creator??? ;D
Perhaps its very hard for us to grasp or accept the concept of a "Creator" that is eternal, because the concept flies in the face of a seemingly contradicting theories of the origins of life. But we know that the universe is old but not infinitely old and therefore had a beginning. At some point in the distant past time and space started. Where would the source of information.code or instruction come from to create all things....I would say came from a "Mind of a Creator" who has existed before time and space. So by definition the Creator was not created...
-
Funny. I would've thought that DNA was one of the greatest arguments against spontaneous Creation because it provides a mechanism to explain how species can mutate or adapt, and eventually, evolve to survive.
I agree with the understanding part. But information—well, that's a tricky thing.
"Spontaneous Creation" is a contradiction in terms, The DNA code is specific and complex, repeatable and self correcting. The instruction transmitted is not spontaneous neither is it random. Before any organism is formed from a singled celled organism the instructions were already in place. Mutations and adaptations are the organisms response to its environment.
I would liken the DNA code to a Program being made by a computer programmer. His program must be specific, complex, and correctable.......a "spontaneous code" has no place in a programmers code.
-
There is a big difference between the weather and the cells of an organism. One is a non-living natural phenomenon, while the other is a biochemically active complex substance capable of replication. One contains water vapour, electrical charges and various chemicals interacting in a random process producing rain, typhoon etc, while the other a complex form of amino acid that contains the so-called “information” which is specific and complex, repeatable and capable of correction and producing a living organism……Big Difference.
I was referring to the “information” or code or message whatever you want to call it that is found in the DNA, the instruction must have come from something or someone in the past. This information must then by “understood” and processed along the chain by using a “common language” also imbedded in it.
Language is meaningless without us attaching meaning to a set of letters that are formed.
When I am given a chest xray, urinalysis, scan etc……I would interpret the result based on the “common language” I acquired in my training, I could then diagnose and treat my patient properly. The training is not static but continuous which leads to a better understanding of the pathophysiology, pharmacodynamics and other processes governing illness and its treatment. Without the common language each doctor would have his or her own interpretation! That would be chaotic and unacceptable.
Instructions without common language is like typing on a keyboard blindfolded, you may form from time to time simple words like “dog, cat, pig” which has an attached meaning assigned to it by us, but you can never in a million, trillion, billion years form coherent phrases, let alone sentences or instructions doing the same thing.
By observing what is naturally occurring all around both macroscopically and microscopically, systems in organisms follows certain principles for survival; they are specific yet complex, self-regenerating or correcting and dynamic, all these attributes implies the existence or evidence of a Mind that initiated all these principles…
Talking Parrots and Computers…..are for lack a better term…artificial intelligence. Language is meaningless without understanding its meaning or instruction. The DNA has in it a common language for which to build all cells in the organism…that is being used and understood as one organism becomes more complex and mature.
Just like the weather analogy, the “pasta” example is another one that does not stick. Though it was “created” by the baker, it does not contain a DNA that contains a code to replicate itself and to eventually create the flying spaghetti monster…apples and oranges
If Evolution is not Abiogenesis, not about the origin of life and not random…..what is it then, a deliberate, pre-ordained adaption of species?
The DNA contains the genes for which the genetic information for the development of an organism is contained, while the RNA uses the information to start the process of development of the organism( pre-med days knowledge pa yata yan hahaha baka bago na ngayon). Although there indeed rna viruses! Regardless, both dna and rna must contain the genetic code……who or what put it there in the first place?
This thing is a complex yet specific system that can replicate and self-correct itself by using an instruction imbedded in it. The existence of the DNA ( in which you said “Only God can create something like a DNA”) does preclude the existence of God or Creator. On the contrary, the extreme complexity, specificity and precision of this system would lead one to come to a more plausible conclusion that it is a product of a concept, a design a blueprint…..a Mind.
Trying to prove the existence of God, Creator or Intelligent Design(er), is like trying to prove the Existence of the “Mind”. You cannot see, touch, feel, smell, taste it (prerequisites that a thing exists) and yet it exist. Our conversations/discussions here proves it exist. And I do find the arguments here very intelligent indeed. The evidence that we are the product of a concept or design of a mind way beyond our capacity to comprehend is right before our very eyes every time we look in the mirror!
The Creator is perfect yes! We were created in the “image and likeness” only of the Creator, therefore not perfect. Physically we are bounded by space and time, and therefore will degenerate and breakdown in its lifetime. As in all systems found around us, both living and non-living….
We do not exist in a vacuum where there is no external influence…..we are constantly exposed to such things as technology, chemicals, food processing, pesticides, pollution, food dyes, preservatives, contamination, radiation, hormones and antibiotic enhanced items, what is in the water
improper eating habits(hahaha I am guilty of this) Both man and animals are subjected to various environmental influences that mutations and abnormal growth are bound to occur in time.
-
The DNA code is specific and complex, repeatable and self correcting.
Yes, and none of those are irrefutable proof that is was created or designed.
Mutations and adaptations are the organisms response to its environment.
Funny how you talk of Intelligent Design and Evolution in the same breath.
I would liken the DNA code to a Program being made by a computer programmer. His program must be specific, complex, and correctable.......a "spontaneous code" has no place in a programmers code.
And you're seeing naturally occurring complexity and calling them evidence of Creation/Intelligent Design.
Like I said, a "leap of faith", just like the Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) and the Clockwork Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory) 'theory'.
-
There is a big difference between the weather and the cells of an organism
And you missed the point.
The point is, yes, complexity (such as Life) abounds in the Universe. But Intelligent Design or Creation isn't the only explanation for all this complexity.
Ever hear of Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) or "emergent complexity"?
See a snowflake up close? So complex. It must've been designed that way, yes?
Snowflake (and other crystal) formations exhibit fractal-like structures. You know how fractals look? They can look incredibly complex.
But they are not designed, in the conventional sense. Rather, some of them emerge or are generated from the simplest equations.
I was referring to the “information” or code or message
See, I think this is the fallacy you've fallen into.
The very term "information" or "message" implies a recipient.
This information must then by “understood” and processed along the chain by using a “common language” also imbedded in it.
Yes. And the only recipient of whatever information encoded in DNA are the chemicals and proteins involved in molecular biology.
Although we don't fully understand it yet, DNA is just DNA. You seem to believe that DNA somehow represents an encoded message from some higher Being.
Complexity is complexity. DNA (and Life as a whole) is complex. The Universe is complex. None of these things imply that they were designed or created.
Language is meaningless without us attaching meaning to a set of letters that are formed.
See, by your logic:
Language is complex. Somebody (was it Webster?) must've sat down one day and decided to design the English Language and its hundreds of thousands of words and idioms.
I mean—it's certainly not possible that language evolved out of the everyday use of sounds and symbols by millions of people over hundreds of generations and thousands of years. Is it?
By observing what is naturally occurring all around both macroscopically and microscopically, systems in organisms follows certain principles for survival; they are specific yet complex, self-regenerating or correcting and dynamic, all these attributes implies the existence or evidence of a Mind that initiated all these principles…
I disagree. See above.
Frankly, you're better off pointing to complexity that we don't have any explanation for, like the transcendental numbers such as pi or or e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29), or the distribution of prime numbers.
Those so complex we don't know if they ever end or repeat, or what hidden patterns they hold.
Do you think the existence of pi implies a Higher Being created it as such?
If Evolution is not Abiogenesis, not about the origin of life and not random…..what is it then, a deliberate, pre-ordained adaption of species?
How about you read more about it first, then come back to this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Regardless, both dna and rna must contain the genetic code……who or what put it there in the first place?
I believe it could be aliens.
The Creator is perfect yes!
God for you!
Now, tell me again, if a Perfect Being designed DNA—don't you think He would've designed it so that every organism is a perfect copy of the previous one?
Why did God allow mutations to exist? Hmm—maybe so that the eventual accumulation of beneficial mutations over millions of years would allow increasing complexity of Life, eventually, until some species achieved sentience and Science and start to question His existence?
Sounds about right.
-
And you missed the point.
The point is, yes, complexity (such as Life) abounds in the Universe. But Intelligent Design or Creation isn't the only explanation for all this complexity.
Ever hear of Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) or "emergent complexity"?
See a snowflake up close? So complex. It must've been designed that way, yes?
Snowflake (and other crystal) formations exhibit fractal-like structures. You know how fractals look? They can look incredibly complex.
But they are not designed, in the conventional sense. Rather, some of them emerge or are generated from the simplest equations.
“I believe it’s you who missed the point, I said the DNA is incredibly complex and specific, which by definition means that the information imbedded in the DNA has specific “instructions” that is carried by the RNA and eventually forming complex cells and organisms.
In what sense is the weather complex? Does it contain the building blocks to create “another” object? Does it self-assemble to form a complex object?
Same with snowflakes, granted it has a complex structure, but can it self-replicate or converge with other snowflakes to form say a snowman?
Or sands on the beach aggregating to form a sand castle.
Can all these “complex objects” form a more complex structure without the so-called proper “instructions” coded in the DNA!
I don’t think so…
Emergent Complexity is this now a Law that would explain that simple objects would assemble themselves to form complex structures….if not. Then it is by faith that you believe that this process exists!
-
And you're seeing naturally occurring complexity and calling them evidence of Creation/Intelligent Design.
Like I said, a "leap of faith", just like the Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) and the Clockwork Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory) 'theory'.
How did this so called "naturally occurring complexity of life came into existence in the first place....by chance, dumb luck? Or do they all follow certain principles common to all systems, that of having a purpose for its creation...
In the same breath your belief in Evolution as the "natural progression of the specie" is a Leap of Faith! With so little evidence for the theory to form a more plausible intelligent conclusion...
-
Yes, and none of those are irrefutable proof that is was created or designed.
Funny how you talk of Intelligent Design and Evolution in the same breath.
Ah so something as complex as the DNA emerged spontaneously in the distant past, just like you emerged from your mother's womb "spontaneously".
ID propositions that the universe and living organisms are explained by an Intelligent cause. It does not exclude the possibility of mutations and adaptation. Mutations do occur in the dna due to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors, adaptation occur due to the needs of a specific organism...both does not invalidate Intelligent Design.
-
Intelligent Design or Evolution?
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6783/rushmorer.jpg)
-
Emergent Complexity is this now a Law that would explain that simple objects would assemble themselves to form complex structures….if not. Then it is by faith that you believe that this process exists!
Not faith. Observation. Just look at swarming behavior, Conway's Game of Life, fractals, etc.
Highly complex patterns can arise from the simplest initial conditions. No faith needed for the Mandelbrot Set.
How did this so called "naturally occurring complexity of life came into existence in the first place....by chance, dumb luck?
I don't know. Just as I don't know how come pi and e are transcendental numbers with no end and no discernable pattern.
You say, "Higher Being." I say, we're living in a computer simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com/).
Or do they all follow certain principles common to all systems, that of having a purpose for its creation...
See, this is where you let your Faith lead your 'science'. Having a purpose? Does a snowflake have a 'purpose' (other than to look beautiful for an instant, then melt?)?
You've already decided things have a purpose, and from there, are working backwards looking for complexity that you can't explain, then you go, "Well, it has a purpose and it's complex therefore it must've been created/designed by some Higher Being."
In the same breath your belief in Evolution as the "natural progression of the specie" is a Leap of Faith! With so little evidence for the theory to form a more plausible intelligent conclusion...
Nope. observation and Scientific/Mathematical induction.
Organisms die, or reproduce. Organisms don't reproduce perfectly—that is, mutations and normal heredity introduce different traits (including new body parts and/or bigger bodies) among different offspring.
Natural selection means organisms with traits more favorable for their environment will survive longer, and reproduce more than those unfit.
Over time, this means that ever more complex life forms emerge out of earlier, simpler life forms. Except for this last statement, everything so far is observable, falsifiable, reproducible fact which can explained (to a great extent) by biology, etc.
Ah so something as complex as the DNA emerged spontaneously in the distant past, just like you emerged from your mother's womb "spontaneously".
Everyone knows babies don't come from the womb "spontaneously"—unlike that rib that turned into Eve. We have a perfectly ordinary, scientific/biological explanation for that.
ID propositions that the universe and living organisms are explained by an Intelligent cause.
And that is entirely a matter of faith and belief for the simple reason that it cannot be verified or falsified.
If you believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns—you're entitled to that belief.
Now, if you say that Invisible Pink Unicorns created or designed the Universe, um, for whatever reason then you're entitled to that belief.
But if you say that, "Look, the Universe/Life is complex, therefore it must've been created by the Invisible Pink Unicorns"—see how that doesn't follow?
Higher Being -> Complex structures, sure.
Complex structures -> Higher Being, no. p -> q doesn't mean q -> p. Basic logic.
By contrast, ~q -> ~p, or not Complex -> not Higher Being. Again, basic logic.
So, how come we have simple structures? Why isn't everything complex? Were these simpler structures 'designed' by lesser Higher Beings (maybe the angels)?
Why do we have RNA (which some say is the precursor to DNA) and viruses, prions and simpler lifeforms? Were these all designed? For what purpose? Couldn't we have just had *poof* homo sapiens, highly complex, intelligent, self-aware, 23 chromosomes?
Or, how come complexity can arise from simple initial conditions? Why can't simple be simple only, and shouldn't all complex things have been created/designed?
Answer my other earlier question: How come no Higher Being is required to explain the whole of Human Language? Did some super smart person create Latin, Greek, Mandarin, Sinhalese, etc. then teach them to different tribes spread over the Earth?
Ok, if not Man, then a Higher Being. If you believe in the Bible, then I suppose you'd say "Yeah, God have one language to Man in the beginning, then after Babel, gave different languages to different nations."
Uhuh. Interesting worldview. Do you have any archeological records that bear it out? The oldest written language we have evidence for is Sumerian, around 2700 BC. What language did Adam & Eve speak, and how come we have no evidence for it?
It does not exclude the possibility of mutations and adaptation. Mutations do occur in the dna due to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors, adaptation occur due to the needs of a specific organism...both does not invalidate Intelligent Design.
And DNA complexity doesn't necessitate or imply it.
DNA is complex, I agree. But we both know DNA begets DNA. We have a perfectly cromulent, non-magical explanation for how DNA propagates, and for how it changes—just as we have ordinary (Mathematical & scientific) explanations for the complexity of fractals, snowflakes, the weather.
Which brings me to my conclusion: if you say believe everything has a purpose—then what purpose does ID have?
So far, things (meaning, the Universe) seem to have come along just fine without the need for Intelligent Design.
Put it another way—with or without Intelligent Design, DNA exists, DNA works, and to a certain extent we even know how it works. Stars form, go supernova or singularity, worlds collide, and so on.
The Clockwork Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory) seems to humming along just fine without the Watchmaker.
Before all these Scientific discoveries, there wasn't even such a thing called Intelligent Design. Is the only purpose of ID to give Creationists a chance to remain relevant?
-
Intelligent Design or Evolution?
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6783/rushmorer.jpg)
Monument carved on the side of a mountain.
-
Monument carved on the side of a mountain.
Carved spontaneously? by squirrels? naturally by wind air and water?
or Carved by a sculptor......in other words a "creator"?
-
you said; "Evolution is NOT Random"...then the opposite (deliberate) must be true!
"I believe it could be aliens."
"Then who created the aliens, or the aliens after them? We know that the universe is Finite! It had a beginning
in the distant past."
-
or Carved by a sculptor......in other words a "creator"?
(http://www.flagstaffshuttle.net/images/GC3.jpg)
So complex, so beautiful. Must've been carved? Or 'shopped?
-
I am still waiting for a clear categorical answer to a very simple question.
-
Intelligent Design or Evolution?
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6783/rushmorer.jpg)
hmmm... sa tingin ko... kung susundin ko ang pilosopiya ng mga evolutionist (kuno)... galing yan sa stro-rockaphilus ... the origin of all face-on-rock... ;)
ganito yan million of years ago....
(http://www.douglloydphotography.com/mediac/400_0/media/DIR_9698/face~rock~01.jpg)
afetr million years ulit... ganito na siya
(http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-indian-heads/rock-face.jpg)
and of course... through evolution... ganito na siya ngaun...
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6783/rushmorer.jpg)
at kung ating maoobserbahan (by observation daw)... 500 billion years ago.... eto ang pinagmulan niyan... ;D
(http://www.pfphotography.co.uk/sale/images/rock-face_jpg.jpg)
-
(http://www.pfphotography.co.uk/sale/images/rock-face_jpg.jpg)
This actually a proof that the 'young earth' belief of some creationists is wrong
-
I am still waiting for a clear categorical answer to a very simple question.
Answer my questions first?
Language which you love talk about. It's complex. It must've been designed?
If DNA was designed, why does it allow flaws? Wouldn't a Perfect Designer make a perfect design? Or, are you saying the flaws are part of the design. For what purpose?
So organisms can adapt to their environment. Oh, so Intelligent Design is behind Evolution?
Then why do we need ID if organisms evolve according to their environment anyway? Why not just create the environment perfectly suited for a specific organism, and that organism only, and have it reproduce perfectly (or live indefinitely)?
-
hmmm... sa tingin ko... kung susundin ko ang pilosopiya ng mga evolutionist (kuno)... galing yan sa stro-rockaphilus ... the origin of all face-on-rock... ;)
Nah, wala sa Bible yan eh kaya hindi yan gawa nang Diyos.
There's a perfectly rationale, well-documented answer—one that passes Occam's Razor, was observed, can be repeated and can be tested (or falsified), and we all know what that is.
Alternatively, "It doesn't look like any human face I know, and no one I know can carve something that big with their hands.
It must've been created by aliens, for some mysterious purpose. That's what I believe, and you can't prove aliens don't exist!"
-
Nah, wala sa Bible yan eh kaya hindi yan gawa nang Diyos.
There's a perfectly rationale, well-documented answer—one that passes Occam's Razor, was observed, can be repeated and can be tested (or falsified), and we all know what that is.
Alternatively, "It doesn't look like any human face I know, and no one I know can carve something that big with their hands.
It must've been created by aliens, for some mysterious purpose. That's what I believe, and you can't prove aliens don't exist!"
those rocks... they evolve... million years ago... :D
-
those rocks... they evolve... million years ago... :D
They are eroded.
-
They are eroded.
hmm... maybe after 400 billion years pa ulit... by luck or by chance... magiging ganito na rin yan...
(http://chloe328.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/450px-michelangelos_david.jpg)
-
hmm... maybe after 400 billion years pa ulit... by luck or by chance... magiging ganito na rin yan...
(http://chloe328.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/450px-michelangelos_david.jpg)
Wala ng earth after 400 billion years. Wala na ring solar system.
But yeah, it's possible na maging David yan.
-
hmm... maybe after 400 billion years pa ulit... by luck or by chance... magiging ganito na rin yan...
You still think Evolution is all random.
How about you stop trolling and come back when you know what "selection pressure" means?
-
You still think Evolution is all random.
How about you stop trolling and come back when you know what "selection pressure" means?
just show us the transition stage...
sa loob ng million of years (according to evolution timeframe) maraming mga transitional stage form na nagaganap and malaki ang probability na nafossilize ang mga yan... but then... wala pa ring solid evidence na nagpapakita ng direct link kung saan nga ba galing ang tao, ang kabayo, ang pusa, etc...
meron nga ba o wala... well... go on... keep digging... keep making theory and hypothesis... without solid ebedence ba...
-
meron nga ba o wala... well... go on... keep digging... keep making theory and hypothesis... without solid ebedence ba...
What's your theory?
I believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns.
-
What's your theory?
I believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns.
Creation Theory of course... by faith.
parang Evolution Theory... by faith (na hindi inaamin ng iba na by faith)... pinaniwalaan ng iba kasi iyon daw sabi ng mga matatalinong tao eh at mga bihasang scientist o anumanlogist na yan...
Evolution is a religion... never been based on facts and hard evidence... you know what... the only thing that evolve on earth is the Theory of Evolution...
so many aritcles and paikot ikot lang sila... magkakaroon ng baong theory just to prove the existing theory na hindi pa napproprove... and then magkakaroon ulit ng panibagong theory just to validate the latest theory...
too much diggin... too much writin... too much discussion... bottomline... NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION.... only theories and hypothesis... ampf.
-
What's your theory?
I believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns.
I think the creationists believe in everything unexplainable... ;D like tikbalang, kapre and the likes..
-
Creation Theory of course...
Oh, you mean where Adam's rib turned into Eve?
What's your proof? Can it be observed, repeated, falsified?
by faith.
I believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns. You can't falsify that, either. I mean, you can't prove they don't exist!
parang Evolution Theory... by faith (na hindi inaamin ng iba na by faith)...
E. coli evolved to metabolise citrate, in a lab, repeatable.
But I guess that's not a 'fact' like the Bible's facts.
-
E. coli evolved to metabolise citrate, in a lab, repeatable.
Evolved, or adapted?
If the bacterium became a fish, we'd have something. But since the bacterium is still a bacterium, what's so sensational about that?
Citrate metabolization in E. coli is not evolution. In fact, it's not even a new ability that didn't previously exist in E. coli.
Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low. Wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and utilize it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC107412/
That's a 1998 paper, 10 years before the 2008 Richard Lensky report.
Since E. coli already has the ability to metabolize citrate under certain conditions, gaining the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions is merely adaptation, not evolution.
Why does NewScientist magazine say it's "A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."?
Is it intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to support an agenda?
-
Evolved, or adapted?
Fine, I'll grant adapted.
But large-scale Evolution is just countless adaptations over millenia.
If the bacterium became a fish, we'd have something.
Has already happened.
Is it intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to support an agenda?
I wouldn't know.
The point is, we have numerous repeatable and testable experiments and observations that support Evolution: DNA, genetics, mutations, the fossil record, Geology, solar system and planetary formation models.
All these point to a billions of years old Earth, with increasingly complex organisms over time.
So far, I haven't seen any repeatable or testable experiment or observation (or even just a model) for how a fully-formed extant organism or specie can suddenly appear out of thin air. That's what Creationists like to call a 'theory'.
-
I admit that my creationist belief is unprovable because it's based on faith. Because of that admission, I cannot be compelled to prove the truth of my belief. However, if someone does not believe in creation, I should not compel him to believe in it.
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that their belief is a provable fact. Because of that claim, it's logical that they should be challenged to prove this alleged fact.
So go ahead and prove it.
If scientists are really scientific about this, they should simply say, "We don't know," instead of continually jumping to baseless conclusions. But they don't want to admit they don't know, because they're afraid that such a declaration would give too much room for loony creationist propaganda to take over.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of creationist views and religion invading scientific space either. I don't even like the ID (Intelligent Design) idea, because to me, that's nothing but a creationist agenda masquerading as science.
-
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that their belief is a provable fact. Because of that claim, it's logical that they should be challenged to prove this alleged fact.
So go ahead and prove it.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Billions of years of mutations and adaptations to the environment gave us gradual increase in the complexity and variety of Life on Earth.
The 'facts' include an old Universe/Solar System, an old Earth, the fossil record, geology, archeology, biology, genetics, DNA, observable/documented instances of speciation, and so on.
(Creationists like to pick on these facts—cherry pick those that support their world view, while finding fault in those that don't. But they offer no rational, plausible alternative, say, for how the Sun was formed other than "Let there be light.")
The theory part comes in formulating a model to unify and explain all the above, and these include Natural Selection and Neutral Theory.
It's no different from the Theory of Electromagnetism, or Einstein's Theory of Relativity/Gravitation, or Quantum Physics, or They're all scientific Theory which some can't distinguish from the vernacular theory.
Can we ultimately prove, for example, Game Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory)? We can't, not in the vernacular sense of 'proof'. But Game Theory itself is nothing more than a unified model to describe various observations (of fact) in economics, psychology, sociology and biology.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of creationist views invading scientific space either.
Likewise, I don't see anything fundamentally incompatible between belief in God and Evolutionary Theory.
(Well, except with Fundamentalists, of course. Science & rationality undermine their tithing.)
-
I have a question and this may sound stupid. ;D Pasensya na. ;D
Let's say me and my wife decided to live in a swimming pool. We eat the fishes there, algae, and eventually have a baby. We let our baby adapt and survive to the water surroundings. We eventually have generations (with another family) just living in the swimming pool. Does that mean in a few years, in a thousand years or in a million years, my kins will eventually grow fins and we will eventually look like Patrick Duffy sa tv series (which is one of my favs by the way when I was a kid. ;D), The Man From Atlantis? Will my kins and offsprings eventually be able to breath like fishes underwater? Is this really possible? We will eventually adapt and survive living in water?
Again sorry kung stupid itong question. I asked this bec. it seems like we are not evolving to something better. Why is that? I'm interested in the physical change. Will this happen?
-
Likewise, I don't see anything fundamentally incompatible between belief in God and Evolutionary Theory.
(Well, except with Fundamentalists, of course. Science & rationality undermine their tithing.)
Not me.
I insist on keeping science and religion separate. The moment science is infiltrated by religion, that's when things start getting nutty :D.
You got your YEC ("Young Earth Creationists") insisting that there is clear scientific evidence that the earth is less than 7,000 years old, despite the overwhelming scientific data proving that the earth is billions of years old (4 billion + years?). You got your Noah's Ark Ministries International allegedly discovering Noah's Ark wood and carbon-dating it. Etc., etc.
It just gets loopier and loopier :D.
-
I have a question and this may sound stupid. ;D Pasensya na. ;D
Let's say me and my wife decided to live in a swimming pool. We eat the fishes there, algae, and eventually have a baby. We let our baby adapt and survive to the water surroundings. We eventually have generations (with another family) just living in the swimming pool. Does that mean in a few years, in a thousand years or in a million years, my kins will eventually grow fins and we will eventually look like Patrick Duffy sa tv series (which is one of my favs by the way when I was a kid. ;D), The Man From Atlantis? Will my kins and offsprings eventually be able to breath like fishes underwater? Is this really possible? We will eventually adapt and survive living in water?
We can look to walruses or seals for the answer to evolutionary changes that happen when land mammals go through adaptation and evolution to better live in an aquatic environment.
Again sorry kung stupid itong question. I asked this bec. it seems like we are not evolving to something better. Why is that? I'm interested in the physical change. Will this happen?
Some scientists have observed that humans are slowly losing hair because we're allowing the environment adapt to our needs for temperature control. We don't have much need of our appendix anymore. We're slowly losing our ability to produce wisdom teeth. Our eye's nictating membrane is slowly disappearing.
Our brain size is also increasing -- though sometimes you'd have to question whether a bigger brain really means more intelligence. ;)
-
Anybody here that can prove to us that living things came from non-living things?
hmmm... of course... usual answer is...
1. ".... well, give it a time (say, billion years) eventually life will come out from soup." (this is science of course... just add time then impossible (any) thing will happen)
2. "... probably, one theory (take note the next word) suggests that life came from amino acids etc etc etc (exact science it is... always a suggestions)
3. "... perhaps... we came from etc etc etc..."
4. "... hmmm... well... evolution theory is different from abiogenesis (from this term spontaneous generation na naging abiogenesis... ayos di ba... palitan lang ng term kasi nadisprove) so lets not talk about it... we are talking evolution..." (hmmm... what????)
if evolution theories contains a word "perhaps", "suggest", "probably", etc... then it is by faith (not scientific).
well... evolutionist base their thoery based on observation findings (if you are scientist you know it that you cant just believe something thourgh observing... you need to test it of course), fossils record (what really... fossils... remains... as a proof of evolution... naman!!!), experiment ( ??? ???... evolution in laboratory... akala ko evolution nangyari sa ibabaw ng mundo subject to all environmental factors), and of course lots of theories to prove other theories...
-
Anybody here that can prove to us that living things came from non-living things?
hmmm... of course... usual answer is...
1. ".... well, give it a time (say, billion years) eventually life will come out from soup." (this is science of course... just add time then impossible (any) thing will happen)
2. "... probably, one theory (take note the next word) suggests that life came from amino acids etc etc etc (exact science it is... always a suggestions)
3. "... perhaps... we came from etc etc etc..."
4. "... hmmm... well... evolution theory is different from abiogenesis (from this term spontaneous generation na naging abiogenesis... ayos di ba... palitan lang ng term kasi nadisprove) so lets not talk about it... we are talking evolution..." (hmmm... what????)
if evolution theories contains a word "perhaps", "suggest", "probably", etc... then it is by faith (not scientific).
well... evolutionist base their thoery based on observation findings (if you are scientist you know it that you cant just believe something thourgh observing... you need to test it of course), fossils record (what really... fossils... remains... as a proof of evolution... naman!!!), experiment ( ??? ???... evolution in laboratory... akala ko evolution nangyari sa ibabaw ng mundo subject to all environmental factors), and of course lots of theories to prove other theories...
Matanong ko naman kayo sir, san naman nanggaling ang creator nyo???
-
Matanong ko naman kayo sir, san naman nanggaling ang creator nyo???
My Creator is the alpha and the omega (period).
You still dont get it... :D
IT IS BY FAITH... (i never mentioned that creation theory is scientific)...
if anyone says that evolution is in anyway... scientific... then prove it scientifically (hindi iyong puro hypotheis, theories, suggestions, recommendation... perhaps... etc etcd).
-
We don't have much need of our appendix anymore.
The premise of this statement is that we formerly needed our appendix. The logical question therefore is: What was the former function of the appendix that we no longer need today?
The evolutionist fairy tale is that the appendix is vestigial; a useless remnant of a formerly functioning organ that disappeared via evolution.
And this conclusion is based on what? Pure speculation, that's what. But that shouldn't be surprising, since evolutionists are not bothered by baseless speculation masquerading as "science" anyway.
The appendix was formerly thought to be without any useful function. But today, the appendix is recognized as a highly specialized organ with a contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles --- highly specialized structures that are a part of the immune system.
Appendix Function in the Human Body
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/appendix.shtml
We're slowly losing our ability to produce wisdom teeth.
All that shows is degeneration, not evolution.
The loss of wisdom teeth in succeeding generations is the result of diet. Older generations used to eat tough meat and vegetables; hence the need for a larger jaw that had enough space to accommodate wisdom teeth. The processed food diet of succeeding generations caused the jaw to degenerate and shrink, thereby leaving less room for wisdom teeth.
How wisdom teeth can possibly be evidence for evolution is really some fairy tale from la la land.
Our eye's nictating membrane is slowly disappearing.
It's called a "nictitating" (not nictating) membrane.
Evolutionists believe that the plica semilunaris of the human eye is a vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") present in other animals such as birds, reptiles and fish.
In humans, the function of the plica semilunaris is to enable better mobility for the eyeball. To allow the eyeball and lids to move independently, the conjunctiva forms a continuous sac above, laterally and below. But medially, because of the presence of the lacrimal drainage apparatus, there is no conjunctival sac; instead, there is the plica semilunaris which is a crescentic fold of conjunctiva. When the eye is abducted (turned outwards), the plica partially unfolds as the conjunctiva stretches so that movement is unimpeded. When the eye is adducted (turned inwards), a fibrous extension from the sheath of the muscle contracting the medial rectus draws the plica posteriorly, partially unfolding it and deepening the lacus lacrimalis.
So, the plica semilunaris in humans is just that --- a plica semilunaris.
To arrive at the conclusion that the plica semilunaris is a vestigial remnant of a nictitating membrane is a pretty big jump considering the absolute lack of evidence.
Science na pala ngayon ang tawag sa mga Kuwento ni Lola Basyang.
-
My Creator is the alpha and the omega (period).
You still dont get it... :D
IT IS BY FAITH... (i never mentioned that creation theory is scientific)...
if anyone says that evolution is in anyway... scientific... then prove it scientifically (hindi iyong puro hypotheis, theories, suggestions, recommendation... perhaps... etc etcd).
You also don't get it... ;D
I am not PRO-EVOLUTION nor PRO-CREATION... I am an advocate of both... :D
That's why natatawa ako sa inyo dahil you seem so sure of what you're talking about, when in fact both sides is neither right nor wrong... or shall I put it, both sides are both right and wrong... ;D ;D
Parang Chicken or the Egg question lang yan... all nonsense debate :P
-
May question lang ako sa mga Creationists:
1. How old is the Earth according to the Bible?
2. Did God create one group of living things at the same time or periodical ang creation even within a group (i.e., animals, nauna ang ...dinos, sumunod ang mammaals. etc.)
may tanong ako sa Evolutionists:
1. How do science explain the beginning of it all? What materials are there before the Bigbang? where did these materials come from?
-
Chicken came first ;D
1. How do science explain the beginning of it all? What materials are there before the Bigbang? where did these materials come from?
IIRC, Stephen Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang.
But the concept of a universe seems old school nowadays. Now, there are multiverses (supported by entropy, discovery of dark energy and string theory.)
-
IIRC, Stephen Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang.
there it goes... a very simple and scientific explanation... we just came from nowhere... baang... out from thin air... nagkaroon ng pagsabog...
a very scientific explanation came from famous physicist....
-
Anybody here that can prove to us that living things came from non-living things?
Evolution ≠ abiogenesis.
-
All that shows is degeneration, not evolution.
There is no difference.
It's a common misconception that "evolution" = "getting better".
A species can evolve to become bigger, or become smaller. It can become stronger (and have a higher metabolism/require more energy) or weaker (less muscle mass, but need less caloric intake).
It all depends on the selection pressures of its environment.
Si Pokemon kasi, kapag nag-evolve palaging lumalakas. :D
-
Chicken came first ;D
IIRC, Stephen Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang.
But the concept of a universe seems old school nowadays. Now, there are multiverses (supported by entropy, discovery of dark energy and string theory.)
String theory (through Ed Witten who is "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world.") suggests that the Big Bang is the result of collision between membranes (pre-Big Bang) and say that this is followed by the Big Crunch where the expansion of space reverses and causes the universe to collapse and a black hole singularity happens. These two events endlessly cycle from one process to another.
-
String theory (through Ed Witten who is "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world.") suggests that the Big Bang is the result of collision between membranes (pre-Big Bang) and say that this is followed by the Big Crunch where the expansion of space reverses and causes the universe to collapse and a black hole singularity happens. These two events endlessly cycle from one process to another.
"suggests" again.. come on... what else... meron pa bang mga suggestions dyan... kasi maraming mga open minded dito na puwedeng tanggapin ang mga suhestiyon na yan...
-
Evolution ≠ abiogenesis.
see... lol...
dont equate evolution to abiogenesis... thats another topic... hindi na nga pala sakop ng evolution ang abiogenesis... hays...
well... lets just assume evolution begins 200 million years ago.... minus of course abiogenesis... ibang usapan na yan...
-
"suggests" again..
Kaya nga dinagdagan ng "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world."
Ibig sabihin, huwag mo nang kontrahin at huwag ka na ring mag-isip; basta tanggapin mo na lang kahit ubod ng labo ng sinasabi ... :D
-
Higgs Particle day today isn't it? There's your god particle for the scientists at CERN.
Oh, Im not saying I believe it but I think I watched the documentary "What Happened Before The Big Bang" like 5x already.
-
Kaya nga dinagdagan ng "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world."
Ibig sabihin, huwag mo nang kontrahin at huwag ka na ring mag-isip; basta tanggapin mo na lang kahit ubod ng labo ng sinasabi ... :D
that is why it's called a theory. i'm not saying that it's true. i just find it interesting. actually, if you delve more into String Theory talagang malalabuan ka. sobrang complex ng theory na 'to which a lot of physicist consider as the "Theory of Everything".
-
well... lets just assume evolution begins 200 million years ago.... minus of course abiogenesis... ibang usapan na yan...
Exactly. No one's claiming abiogenesis as fact.
OTOH, I think I believe in this today:
"Before there was earth or sea or heaven, there existed only chaos: shapeless, unorganized, lifeless matter. There was opposition in all things: hot conflicted with cold, wet with dry, heavy with light, and hard with soft.
Finally a god, a natural higher force, resolved this conflict, separating earth from heaven, parting the dry land from the waters, and dividing the clear air from the clouds, thus organizing all things into a balanced union. Thus did the god, whichever god it was, set order to the chaotic mass by separating it into its components, then organizing them into a harmonious whole.
Then the god shaped the earth into a great ball and caused the seas to spread in one direction and the other."[1]
It's a matter of FAITH! You can't prove it didn't happen!
Take my word for it—and give me 10% of your income.
[1] http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-ovid.html
-
Exactly. No one's claiming abiogenesis as fact.
OTOH, I think I believe in this today:
"Before there was earth or sea or heaven, there existed only chaos: shapeless, unorganized, lifeless matter. There was opposition in all things: hot conflicted with cold, wet with dry, heavy with light, and hard with soft.
Finally a god, a natural higher force, resolved this conflict, separating earth from heaven, parting the dry land from the waters, and dividing the clear air from the clouds, thus organizing all things into a balanced union. Thus did the god, whichever god it was, set order to the chaotic mass by separating it into its components, then organizing them into a harmonious whole.
Then the god shaped the earth into a great ball and caused the seas to spread in one direction and the other."[1]
It's a matter of FAITH! You can't prove it didn't happen!
Take my word for it—and give me 10% of your income.
[1] http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-ovid.html
This sounds like it came from DILBERT's website... ;D
Funny but sadly true...
-
that is why it's called a theory. i'm not saying that it's true. i just find it interesting.
Well, that clarifies where you're coming from. I accept that viewpoint.
However, once they claim it's "evidence" or "proof," that's when I take exception.
actually, if you delve more into String Theory talagang malalabuan ka. sobrang complex ng theory na 'to which a lot of physicist consider as the "Theory of Everything".
Pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka kasi masyadong mahirap intindihin?
O baka naman pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka, kasi mahahalata mo na puro kalokohan lang pala ang sinasabi ng theory na yon?
Don't get me wrong. I believe scientific theories are important tools for mankind's understanding of the world and the universe. But at the same time, there are some theories that are so downright quacky, yet the average Joe wouldn't dare criticize them for fear of being labeled as a dumbass hick who's too stupid to comprehend them.
The String Theory is one of those that hide behind layer upon layer of complexity to cover up the fact that it's nothing but nonsense mumbo-jumbo speculation that's better-suited for shamans than for scientists.
It's time for the string theorists to admit that the emperor has no clothes.
String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end?
Robin McKie, science Editor
The Observer, Sunday 8 October 2006
The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women.
This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.
... But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produce a single practical observation to support the theory.
... And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation
-
there it goes... a very simple and scientific explanation... we just came from nowhere... baang... out from thin air... nagkaroon ng pagsabog...
a very scientific explanation came from famous physicist....
Simple lang naman talaga e. Nothing, then bang. Yung theory mo ang kumplikado e ;D
-
Simple lang naman talaga e. Nothing, then bang. Yung theory mo ang kumplikado e ;D
Yeah nakakatawa kasi yung big-bang they find funny, pero yung bigla na lang nagkaroon ng creationist hindi... ;D
-
Yeah nakakatawa kasi yung big-bang they find funny, pero yung bigla na lang nagkaroon ng creationist hindi... ;D
Ewan ko naman kung ano ang nakakatawa doon.
Pag relihiyon ang nagsabing bigla na lang nagkaroon, ano ang problema doon? Relihiyon lang naman yon. E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.
Pag science ang nagsabing bigla daw nagkaroon, malaki ang problema doon. Kailangan kasi nating paniwalaan ang science kahit ano pa ang relihiyon natin o kahit wala tayong relihiyon.
Ang tanong, "science" nga ba yung sabihin mong bigla na lang nagkaroon, kahit wala ka namang maibigay na patunay doon?
Bakit mo tatawaging science yon kung ang lumalabas ay pananampalataya lang talaga ang batayan sa paniniwalang yon?
Alin ngayon ang lumalabas na katawa-tawa --- Yung umaamin na pananampalataya lang ang batayan ng paniniwala niya, o yung ayaw umamin na pananampalataya lang din ang batayan ng paniniwala niya?
-
they cant just admit it... that evolution is a religion... a belief that we came from nothing... a belief that nagkaroon lang ng pagsabog .. BAAANG!!!... and they call it science... haluan mo ng kunting explanation using stars distant measurement, physics principle, time frame (hmmmmm billion years ago etc etc)... na ang speaker or bumuo ng idea ay isang dakilang physicist or scientist = science...
hindi nga naman nakakatawa iyong paniniwala na we came from nothing and then ang belief na living things came from non-living things kasi ayon sa kanila science un eh...
I believe that there is a Supremce Creator na siyang nagpasimula ng lahat. I take it by faith...
ang iba dito... pinaninindigan na what they believe is based on facts and scientific findings (take note - not by faith as what they claim)... hmmm.... ayos na ayos... they just believe na we came from nothing scientifically and wisely.
-
Well, that clarifies where you're coming from. I accept that viewpoint.
However, once they claim it's "evidence" or "proof," that's when I take exception.
Pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka kasi masyadong mahirap intindihin?
O baka naman pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka, kasi mahahalata mo na puro kalokohan lang pala ang sinasabi ng theory na yon?
Don't get me wrong. I believe scientific theories are important tools for mankind's understanding of the world and the universe. But at the same time, there are some theories that are so downright quacky, yet the average Joe wouldn't dare criticize them for fear of being labeled as a dumbass hick who's too stupid to comprehend them.
The String Theory is one of those that hide behind layer upon layer of complexity to cover up the fact that it's nothing but nonsense mumbo-jumbo speculation that's better-suited for shamans than for scientists.
It's time for the string theorists to admit that the emperor has no clothes.
String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end?
Robin McKie, science Editor
The Observer, Sunday 8 October 2006
The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women.
This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.
... But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produce a single practical observation to support the theory.
... And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation
It may or it may not. It's only been 17 years since the last Mathematical breakthrough in String Theory wherein Ed Witten has mathematically reconciled Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Quantum Theory and Newton's Law of Gravity. It doesn't take overnight to achieve breakthroughs as big and complex as this unified theory. One reason why this theory cannot be tested is because we don't have the technology but the results in CERN's LHC regarding Higgs Boson particle might give a lead into resolving String Theory (or M-Theory as Witten proposes).
M-Theory might be a dead end but it is the only one we have that's close to having a unified theory.
"M-theory is the only theory that seems to have all the properties that we would expect of a complete and consistent theory of everything, but that may just reflect our lack of imagination. If M-theory is correct, it predicts that every particle should have a superpartner. So far we have not observed any superpartners, but the hope is that they will be found at the LHC. If they are discovered, that will be strong evidence for M-theory. On the other hand, if they are shown not to exist, that will be exciting, because then we'll learn something new."
- Stephen Hawking
Medyo OT na tayo sir ;D
-
they cant just admit it... that evolution is a religion... a belief that we came from nothing... a belief that nagkaroon lang ng pagsabog .. BAAANG!!!... and they call it science... haluan mo ng kunting explanation using stars distant measurement, physics principle, time frame (hmmmmm billion years ago etc etc)... na ang speaker or bumuo ng idea ay isang dakilang physicist or scientist = science...
hindi nga naman nakakatawa iyong paniniwala na we came from nothing and then ang belief na living things came from non-living things kasi ayon sa kanila science un eh...
I believe that there is a Supremce Creator na siyang nagpasimula ng lahat. I take it by faith...
ang iba dito... pinaninindigan na what they believe is based on facts and scientific findings (take note - not by faith as what they claim)... hmmm.... ayos na ayos... they just believe na we came from nothing scientifically and wisely.
Who created your creator? Same logic lang naman e. For us, it started with the Big Bang, for you, it started with your creator. Bago mo itanong what happened before the Big Bang, dapat alam mo rin kung ano nangyari before your creator was created ;D
Matanong ko lang, how did your creator created the universe? Yung nasa Genesis ba?
-
they cant just admit it... that evolution is a religion
You mean Science.
Evolution is both fact and theory.
... a belief that we came from nothing...
Some people believe the Universe has always just existed and will always continue to exist (even with Big Bang—they just add a Big Crunch). Like Bumblebee said—it's no different from believing God has always existed and will always exist and nothing came before God.
a belief that nagkaroon lang ng pagsabog .. BAAANG!!!... and they call it science...
Wrong, that's not Science. That's the BBT.
The Science part comes from measuring (no faith required, anyone with the right equipment can do the same) the cosmic background microwave radiation, the red shift, etc. etc.
haluan mo ng kunting explanation using stars distant measurement, physics principle, time frame (hmmmmm billion years ago etc etc)... na ang speaker or bumuo ng idea ay isang dakilang physicist or scientist = science...
Just because you don't have a PhD in astrophysics or can't grasp the simple concept of a light-year doesn't mean that (most) those things aren't based on observable fact.
I'll that String Theory is a stretch, even for me, but that's a real new theory. Gravitation, Electromagnetism, etc. etc.—do you know how the Lorentz Field equations work? Does that mean that Lorentz forces require faith?
I believe that there is a Supremce Creator na siyang nagpasimula ng lahat. I take it by faith...
I think this is what I believe in today:
"The gods were dredging the rivers,
were piling up their silt
on projecting bends--
and the gods lugging the clay
began complaining
Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods,
It is man . . . . "
It's based on FAITH! You can't prove it didn't happen!
-
It may or it may not.
That's what I accept.
You don't say it's proven to be correct. You merely say, "It may or it may not." And that's a reasonable point of view.
Let's say a scientist says he doesn't believe in creation because it's pure fantasy. I also accept that, because I cannot prove my creation belief. Therefore, his refusal to believe is reasonable and acceptable.
But if the same scientist says he believes in evolution including abiogenesis because they are proven facts, that's the time that I vehemently object.
And that's my position. I emphasize that I'm not one of those religious nuts who force others to believe their dogma.
-
Akala ko na answer na ang lahat ng questions sa recent findings in the particle collider. From nothing, we have something.
-
Simple lang naman talaga e. Nothing, then bang. Yung theory mo ang kumplikado e ;D
Sir,
The statement is not at all factual and in fact contradicts one the most fundamental law of Science!
The Law of Thermodynamics!
The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! What does this imply? Energy was already in existence before the universe was formed! So there was Something there before everything and not..Nothing!
TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Which means that everything left to itself will decay or will result in disorder. The discovery of Uranium and other radioactive elements led scientist the believe that Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner.
Which means that at some point in time all radioactive elements came into existence!
And here's another Principle that is found all around....Cause and Effect!
Simply put "Nothing" cannot have an Effect right?
Common Sense nalang.......Typing comments on this thread.
What is the Cause.....YOU!
What is the Effect.....Words posted on this thread.
Without You (Cause) then there would no comments posted (Effect) here, in the same manner without, a creator, energy, God (First Cause), there would be no Universe, earth, us (effect)!!!
Oh another nature of this Universal Law.....the Cause is always greater than the Effect!
-
Ewan ko naman kung ano ang nakakatawa doon.
Pag relihiyon ang nagsabing bigla na lang nagkaroon, ano ang problema doon? Relihiyon lang naman yon. E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.
Pag science ang nagsabing bigla daw nagkaroon, malaki ang problema doon. Kailangan kasi nating paniwalaan ang science kahit ano pa ang relihiyon natin o kahit wala tayong relihiyon.
Ang tanong, "science" nga ba yung sabihin mong bigla na lang nagkaroon, kahit wala ka namang maibigay na patunay doon?
Bakit mo tatawaging science yon kung ang lumalabas ay pananampalataya lang talaga ang batayan sa paniniwalang yon?
Alin ngayon ang lumalabas na katawa-tawa --- Yung umaamin na pananampalataya lang ang batayan ng paniniwala niya, o yung ayaw umamin na pananampalataya lang din ang batayan ng paniniwala niya?
ito sa tingin ko ay unfair specially that Creationists want their belief to be considered as a science.
-
ito sa tingin ko ay unfair specially that Creationists want their belief to be considered as a science.
It's not true that all creationists have that attitude. I am not one of them. Notice that I said in my previous post:
Relihiyon lang naman yon. E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.
Does that sound like someone who wants his belief to be considered as "science"?
However, it is true that there are creationists who like to mix religion and science, and are using "science" to prove that their creationist beliefs.
One example is ICR: http://www.icr.org/
ICR is a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) group. Here's an example of their quack "science" articles:
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/
ito sa tingin ko ay unfair specially that Creationists want their belief to be considered as a science.
No, it's not unfair.
If an evolutionist says his belief has been proven by science, then let's see if his proof can stand up to scrutiny.
If a creationist says his belief has also been proven by science, then by the same standard, let's see if his proof can also stand up to scrutiny.
That's fair and square.
-
Sir,
The statement is not at all factual and in fact contradicts one the most fundamental law of Science!
The Law of Thermodynamics!
The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! What does this imply? Energy was already in existence before the universe was formed! So there was Something there before everything and not..Nothing!
TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Which means that everything left to itself will decay or will result in disorder. The discovery of Uranium and other radioactive elements led scientist the believe that Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner.
Which means that at some point in time all radioactive elements came into existence!
And here's another Principle that is found all around....Cause and Effect!
Simply put "Nothing" cannot have an Effect right?
Common Sense nalang.......Typing comments on this thread.
What is the Cause.....YOU!
What is the Effect.....Words posted on this thread.
Without You (Cause) then there would no comments posted (Effect) here, in the same manner without, a creator, energy, God (First Cause), there would be no Universe, earth, us (effect)!!!
Oh another nature of this Universal Law.....the Cause is always greater than the Effect!
i think it is for this reason that they came up with the Big Crunch.
-
i think it is for this reason that they came up with the Big Crunch.
The big crunch is being postulated as the universe's ultimate fate.....and NOT its Origin.
-
The big crunch is being postulated as the universe's ultimate fate.....and NOT its Origin.
The second law of thermodynamics has already answered the fate of the universe......entropy!
-
i think it is for this reason that they came up with the Big Crunch.
I read somewhere that the universe is still expanding, so where going to the Big Chill or a possible Big Rip.
-
"Language is complex. Somebody (was it Webster?) must've sat down one day and decided to design the English Language and its hundreds of thousands of words and idioms.
I mean—it's certainly not possible that language evolved out of the everyday use of sounds and symbols by millions of people over hundreds of generations and thousands of years. Is it?"
“Language and DNA are both complex and specific and were designed/created/developed by man and God respectively!”
Amino acids forms proteins, just like letters in the alphabet forming words and sentences. Without the proper sequential arrangement in both it would be impossible to understand….thus there must be an origin, a cause, a Creator who made this proper sequencing in the DNA or an intellect(person) creating the words and assigning meaning to it in the first place.
Or else no proteins would be produced, no chemical reactions would take place. To put it in another way, it would like you getting a monkey in front of your computer on your behalf to post in this thread….
The monkey may be able to type extremely complex sequence of letters, but will you be able to understand it? I don’t think so!
Remember, “proper sequential arrangement” is key to understanding Language and DNA, without an intellect a force that shall initiate this….No words, sentences, poetry will exist, No nucleotides, proteins, cells, living organisms will Exist!
-
Ewan ko naman kung ano ang nakakatawa doon.
Pag relihiyon ang nagsabing bigla na lang nagkaroon, ano ang problema doon? Relihiyon lang naman yon. E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.
Pag science ang nagsabing bigla daw nagkaroon, malaki ang problema doon. Kailangan kasi nating paniwalaan ang science kahit ano pa ang relihiyon natin o kahit wala tayong relihiyon.
Ang tanong, "science" nga ba yung sabihin mong bigla na lang nagkaroon, kahit wala ka namang maibigay na patunay doon?
Bakit mo tatawaging science yon kung ang lumalabas ay pananampalataya lang talaga ang batayan sa paniniwalang yon?
Alin ngayon ang lumalabas na katawa-tawa --- Yung umaamin na pananampalataya lang ang batayan ng paniniwala niya, o yung ayaw umamin na pananampalataya lang din ang batayan ng paniniwala niya?
Nakakatawa talaga, dahil pag "FAITH" you have to swallow it no matter what, NEVER question faith... ;D
Science is not all about facts, its also about creating theories based on facts. Theories are not facts, they are there to be proven, and it's part of SCIENCE. Noone is saying that EVOLUTION is a proven fact because how can we say that now when noone ever lived that long to observe. The facts stated are small things that "CAN BE" considered as evidence.
Pano mo sasabihin na EVOLUTION theory is all about faith when there are things that are being done to collect evidence to prove the theory. But this is not sufficient to say that EVOLUTION is not just a theory, it is. Pero sa Creationist POV, meron ba kayong mapapakita na katiting na evidence why you have so much FAITH in your FAITH??? ;D
-
"Language is complex. Somebody (was it Webster?) must've sat down one day and decided to design the English Language and its hundreds of thousands of words and idioms.
I mean—it's certainly not possible that language evolved out of the everyday use of sounds and symbols by millions of people over hundreds of generations and thousands of years. Is it?"
“Language and DNA are both complex and specific and were designed/created/developed by man and God respectively!”
Amino acids forms proteins, just like letters in the alphabet forming words and sentences. Without the proper sequential arrangement in both it would be impossible to understand….thus there must be an origin, a cause, a Creator who made this proper sequencing in the DNA or an intellect(person) creating the words and assigning meaning to it in the first place.
Or else no proteins would be produced, no chemical reactions would take place. To put it in another way, it would like you getting a monkey in front of your computer on your behalf to post in this thread….
The monkey may be able to type extremely complex sequence of letters, but will you be able to understand it? I don’t think so!
Remember, “proper sequential arrangement” is key to understanding Language and DNA, without an intellect a force that shall initiate this….No words, sentences, poetry will exist, No nucleotides, proteins, cells, living organisms will Exist!
So let's go back to the question, who created your creator???
What made him so complex???
Who taught him(or her or whatever it is) to learn language??? Because how can it not know language when we know language??? Am I wrong to assume??? ;D
Can you give me even a small acceptable idea on how your so called creator started??? Again, from nothing??? Then how can you not believe that organisms can evolve to have such complex composition???
-
Nakakatawa talaga, dahil pag "FAITH" you have to swallow it no matter what, NEVER question faith... ;D
Bakit nakakatawa?
You don't have to swallow it if you don't want to. E di huwag kang maniwala. Pinipilit ba kita?
Pero sa Creationist POV, meron ba kayong mapapakita na katiting na evidence why you have so much FAITH in your FAITH??? ;D
Wala ngang evidence, kaya nga faith. Kung may evidence, e di hindi na faith yon.
Sa evolutionist --- wala ring evidence, e di faith din. Kung naniniwala ka sa evolution kahit walang evidence, e ano pala ang tawag mo doon?
That's the big difference between us --- I admit that I can't prove creation; but you refuse to admit that you can't prove evolution.
Pero kung sa tingin mo ay may evidence sa evolution, why don't you state that evidence and let's discuss it.
-
So let's go back to the question, who created your creator???
What made him so complex???
Who taught him(or her or whatever it is) to learn language??? Because how can it not know language when we know language??? Am I wrong to assume??? ;D
Can you give me even a small acceptable idea on how your so called creator started??? Again, from nothing??? Then how can you not believe that organisms can evolve to have such complex composition???
You said it.....Creator....not created.
Where did I say that He did not know language?
It's obvious that Language was developed by man, an All-powerful Being will certainly be able to communicate w/ His creation. He did manifest Himself as read in the scriptures. Since you don't accept this, then there's no point trying to convince you.
The Law Thermodynamics has already stated a fact ....that Energy cannot be created or destroy. This Energy has no beginning and no end! as opposed to the Universe which had a beginning and also end as stated by the so-called theory 'Big Crunch". So when the universe is again reduced to its original state of disorder....what will be left?..........ENERGY!
I cannot believe organism "can evolve to form other more organism" simply because there is no factual evidence of this and the all theories being given to explain evolution are just examples of adaption of organism to its environment and not evolution to another more complex specie. And fossil records has not come up with convincing proof either...
Example:
Emergence of drug resistant bacterias, or the E.coli-citrate experiment are just two samples of Adaption of the same specie to its environment and not evolution to a new more complex organism...
It's like this....I cannot make a diagnosis of Pneumonia, when my patient actually show signs and symptoms of Tuberculosis!
-
Quote from: alistair
"Good for you!
Now, tell me again, if a Perfect Being designed DNA—don't you think He would've designed it so that every organism is a perfect copy of the previous one?
Why did God allow mutations to exist? Hmm—maybe so that the eventual accumulation of beneficial mutations over millions of years would allow increasing complexity of Life, eventually, until some species achieved sentience and Science and start to question His existence?
Sounds about right."
“Good for us brother!”
DNA is designed to have all the necessary codes to develop into a mature complex living system. It is a digital, self-replicating, complex yet simple, error correcting substance. However, since development occurs within the environment then it is subjected to various extrinsic factors that may affect the developing organism.
Example: exposure to xray, drugs that are teratogenic, or illness occurring during pregnancy…all these have been observed through various research and experimentation.
Does this mean that the DNA Design is flawed…..not at all!
If the Creator’s desire was to create a perfect person with the perfect environment, then we would be like GOD! there would be no need for adaptation, mutation, evolution. There would also be no need for the wonder of discovery, science, mathematics, philosophy!
Since we are already Perfect…then we would be already aware and have all the knowledge of all the Laws and principles in the entire universe!
If he made us Perfect like Him then He would be breaking His own law!
Cause and Effect! The cause will always be greatest than the effect!
Sure, He can change the rules because He made them…. but instead He gave something far greater than perfection……
Free Will, Intellect, Mind….to think, analyze, decide and conclude! Precisely what we are making full use of here….
Otherwise, we would all be like “The Borg” or the Robots in I-robot…..which do you prefer?
-
Quote from: Alistair
“The Clockwork Universe seems to humming along just fine without the Watchmaker”
"It’s funny, perplexing and it defies logic that you would say that the Universal Clock is working without the watchmaker, the MASTER CLOCK of the universe, which never misses a second—the perfect watch by which we must constantly set all our imperfect man-made watches which includes the Atomic and Optical Clock—and this just HAPPENED! ?
There was no Great Watchmaker? No Master MIND thought out and planned that vast universe, brought it into being, set each star and planet in its own exact place, and started the all heavenly bodies coursing through space, each in its prescribed orbit, in its orderly precision. No, it just fashioned itself, put itself together, wound itself up, and started itself running. There was no Intelligence—no planning—NO CREATION—NO GOD!’
Try to consider this passage:
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." Romans 1:20
I believe you are all intelligent enough to grasp the implication of this statement....
The Atomic Clock......Created or Evolution?
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6149/atomicclock.jpg)
-
I believe you are all intelligent enough to grasp the implication of this statement....
Yup. That you come to a rational discussion with a religious argument and agenda.
Look: none of what you've said thus far can be tested or falsified.
I believe immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy designed DNA and terraformed then seeded the Earth so that eventually, a sentient species will emerge and achieve singularity and figure out how to turn into immortal, energy-based beings.
You can't prove they don't exist.
-
The big crunch is being postulated as the universe's ultimate fate.....and NOT its Origin.
the big crunch model is not the considered as the universe's fate. it is viewed as a never ending cycle between the big bang and big crunch.
-
Sir,
The statement is not at all factual and in fact contradicts one the most fundamental law of Science!
The Law of Thermodynamics!
The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! What does this imply? Energy was already in existence before the universe was formed! So there was Something there before everything and not..Nothing!
TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Which means that everything left to itself will decay or will result in disorder. The discovery of Uranium and other radioactive elements led scientist the believe that Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner.
Which means that at some point in time all radioactive elements came into existence!
Kaya nga po Big Bang ang start ng lahat, including the laws of physics. If something existed before the Big Bang (multiverses), I'm not sure if we can use the laws of physics to come to that because these laws are tied up with this universe (and if you are near the edge, the same laws wouldn't probably apply). If my understanding is correct, other universes will have a different set of laws.
-
Kaya nga po Big Bang ang start ng lahat, including the laws of physics. If something existed before the Big Bang (multiverses), I'm not sure if we can use the laws of physics to come to that because these laws are tied up with this universe (and if you are near the edge, the same laws wouldn't probably apply). If my understanding is correct, other universes will have a different set of laws.
that's my understanding as well though we'll never really know unless we travel to those parallel universes which is impossible.
-
the big crunch model is not the considered as the universe's fate. it is viewed as a never ending cycle between the big bang and big crunch.
The Big Crunch scenario is not a never-ending cycle. You're talking about the Cyclic Model, which is an extension of the Big Crunch scenario.
The Big Crunch scenario theorizes that one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe is that the expansion of the universe will eventually reverse, causing the universe to collapse and become a black hole. And that's the end of that universe.
If the Big Crunch is extended to theorize an oscillating universe ---- starting with a Big Bang, followed by an expansion, ending with a Big Crunch, followed by another Big Bang, and so on, making an eternal series of oscillations --- then that is the Cyclic Model.
-
You said it.....Creator....not created.
Where did I say that He did not know language?
It's obvious that Language was developed by man, an All-powerful Being will certainly be able to communicate w/ His creation. He did manifest Himself as read in the scriptures. Since you don't accept this, then there's no point trying to convince you.
The Law Thermodynamics has already stated a fact ....that Energy cannot be created or destroy. This Energy has no beginning and no end! as opposed to the Universe which had a beginning and also end as stated by the so-called theory 'Big Crunch". So when the universe is again reduced to its original state of disorder....what will be left?..........ENERGY!
I cannot believe organism "can evolve to form other more organism" simply because there is no factual evidence of this and the all theories being given to explain evolution are just examples of adaption of organism to its environment and not evolution to another more complex specie. And fossil records has not come up with convincing proof either...
Example:
Emergence of drug resistant bacterias, or the E.coli-citrate experiment are just two samples of Adaption of the same specie to its environment and not evolution to a new more complex organism...
It's like this....I cannot make a diagnosis of Pneumonia, when my patient actually show signs and symptoms of Tuberculosis!
You did not answer any of my questions... ;D
Pinapaikot mo lang at pinapaganda sa pamamagitan ng mga nacocopy-paste mo mula sa internet ang mga sinasabi mo... :D
-
Yup. That you come to a rational discussion with a religious argument and agenda.
Look: none of what you've said thus far can be tested or falsified.
I believe immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy designed DNA and terraformed then seeded the Earth so that eventually, a sentient species will emerge and achieve singularity and figure out how to turn into immortal, energy-based beings.
You can't prove they don't exist.
No agenda, I was just quoting from one of references, just as you have been quoting from yours...
Let's see...
"All things that are made has a Creator"
" If all things were Made"
"Therefore All things has a Creator"
What have I said so far...
...DNA is a complex, simple, self repeating substance found in All living things.
....Energy is Eternal, not created, already present before the universe existed.(first law)
....All things will approach decay (second law)
.....Language is complex and simple, needs order, sequence and intellect to produce and understand.
.....Universal Clock so precise, that we need an imprecise man-made atomic/optical clock to set to, but could not even come close....and the Universal Clock just happened by itself?
.....All these not tested and falsified? Really? Seriously?
It's Evolution that has not been observed and confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true to qualify as FACT. And since the so-called "evolutionary changes" occured in the past, it is also Not Falsifiable! Which does not qualify it to be called a theory...
At best Evolution is an Assumption of a highly speculative Hypotheses!
" immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy"
Best description of a CREATOR!!!! Note you said the He Designed the DNA that turned into You!
Therefore you were Created!
Let me give you the rest of that quote from one my reference: The Bible
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And CHANGED the glory of the uncorruptible God into...birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator”
(Rom. 1:20-23, 25)
-
You did not answer any of my questions... ;D
Pinapaikot mo lang at pinapaganda sa pamamagitan ng mga nacocopy-paste mo mula sa internet ang mga sinasabi mo... :D
Sir,
Huh? I can no longer do anything about that....I believe i have given you an answer.
I beg your pardon! If you want a straight forward discussion of your beliefs and mine, don't insinuate something you are not absolutely of. Sure, I copy and paste (who doesn't) but what i type here are the result of what I have read, learned and understood!
-
as a fence-sitter at this time, gusto ko lang itanong sa naniniwala sa creation kung meron ba sa inyo na naniniwala na ang Earth ay at least 3.5 billion years old?
meron kasi akong grupo na nakaringgan na sinundan yung genealogy from genesis hanggang kay Jesus Christ and two thousand years after thus estimating na a few tens of thousands of years lang daw ang mundo.
-
At best Evolution is an Assumption of a highly speculative Hypotheses!
Evolution isn't an assumption. It's a model that unifies countless observations or facts from yada yada yada.
To say that Evolution is just one person's best guess is to discount all the countless discoveries and observations and experiments about the Earth's age, fossils, genetics, natural selection, etc.
"immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy"
Best description of a CREATOR!!!! Note you said the He Designed the DNA that turned into You!
Therefore you were Created!
Prove it. Prove that you have one God, and that my multi-dimensional Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist.
You can't. It can't be tested, and it can't be falsified.
That's the difference between faith-based Religion and Science (never mind that dpogs can't distinguish between the two).
The Big Bang Theory can be falsified (even if it can't be proved, yet). All you need to show is a static, non-expanding Universe.
Parts of Game Theory can be falsified (even if, as a whole, it can't be 'proven' in the conventional sense of 'proof'). Just show a case where a finite, 2-player zero-sum game has no Nash equilibrium, for example.
Evolution Theory can be falsified. For example, find a fossil of a modern human from ~4.5 billion years ago when the Earth was formed. Or just demonstrate how a bird can come into existence out of thin air. You know, pull a rabbit out of a hat.
By contrast, you maintain some supernatural cause for the Universe. How can we falsify that?
Let me give you the rest of that quote from one my reference: The Bible
I think I believe in this, today:
"I found no place to stand. I cast a spell with my own heart to lay a foundation in Maat. I made everything . I was alone. I had not yet breathed the god Shu, and I had not yet spit up the goddess Tefnut. I worked alone."
Thus by the use of magic Khepri created land with its foundation in Maat (law, order, and stability). From this foundation many things came into being... After this Khepri created plants and herbs, animals, reptiles and crawling things.
You can't prove Khepri doesn't exist.
-
Evolution isn't an assumption. It's a model that unifies countless observations or facts from yada yada yada.
To say that Evolution is just one person's best guess is to discount all the countless discoveries and observations and experiments about the Earth's age, fossils, genetics, natural selection, etc.
Prove it. Prove that you have one God, and that my multi-dimensional Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist.
You can't. It can't be tested, and it can't be falsified.
That's the difference between faith-based Religion and Science (never mind that dpogs can't distinguish between the two).
The Big Bang Theory can be falsified (even if it can't be proved, yet). All you need to show is a static, non-expanding Universe.
Parts of Game Theory can be falsified (even if, as a whole, it can't be 'proven' in the conventional sense of 'proof'). Just show a case where a finite, 2-player zero-sum game has no Nash equilibrium, for example.
Evolution Theory can be falsified. For example, find a fossil of a modern human from ~4.5 billion years ago when the Earth was formed. Or just demonstrate how a bird can come into existence out of thin air. You know, pull a rabbit out of a hat.
By contrast, you maintain some supernatural cause for the Universe. How can we falsify that?
I think I believe in this, today:
"I found no place to stand. I cast a spell with my own heart to lay a foundation in Maat. I made everything . I was alone. I had not yet breathed the god Shu, and I had not yet spit up the goddess Tefnut. I worked alone."
Thus by the use of magic Khepri created land with its foundation in Maat (law, order, and stability). From this foundation many things came into being... After this Khepri created plants and herbs, animals, reptiles and crawling things.
You can't prove Khepri doesn't exist.
it is all by faith... we cant prove that God really exist (or how life begins on earth maliban sa paniniwala ko sa creation)... now if you can say that evolution is tested and proven... show us your proof... not just observatioin, not just assumption... show us the direct link of simple single celled living organism to complex living organisn... show us the missing link... if you cant show us then... all of those theories about evolution yada ada... are all speculation, guesses, suggestions based on observed data, some measurement etc etc, ... ahh... well... just add time and anything will happen - say billion years and life from non-living will just come out eventually
-
Let's see...
"All things that are made has a Creator"
" If all things were Made"
"Therefore All things has a Creator"
There's a big problem with this reasoning:
You started with this premise ---- "All things that are made has a Creator"
Your starting point is not an axiom that is accepted by all reasonable persons as true. Therefore, if the starting premise is not an axiom, then the conclusion will not necessarily be true.
-
Common Misconceptions About Evolution and Creationism
Here are a few things that people tend to confuse, both about Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, including definitions, status and implications.
Evolution narrows a student's perspective on life. Students should be exposed to alternatives to Evolution, like Creationism.
This is totally untrue. When in a scientific forum, religious opinion means literally nothing. Evolution isn't "just a theory," it is observed fact. Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. This claim is tantamount to saying that students should be taught "alternatives to gravity," or "alternatives to the Theory of Relativity." Evolution is simply how things happen in nature.
How can you say that?! Creationism is another theory that answers the question of how we came into being!
This is a common misconception. Creationism is not a theory as science defines it. It does not fit all the facts, it has not been tested and it cannot be tested, and has no predictive capability. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory. It is an unsupported opinion.
Evolution is a dogma, just like Creationism. Both are based on faith, and those that choose Evolution are defying the written word of God, himself!
Believe it or not, some people actually claim that Evolutionary Theory is faith-based, rather than grounded in science. To shatter this misconception, a general understanding of what a theory, as science defines it, is. A scientific theory is not simply a view on something. A scientific theory comes about when scientists, like Charles Darwin, observe physical phenomena and attempt to explain them. Creationists tend to think of a scientific theory as science's equivalent of the Catholic Church's dogma. It isn't. Rather, a scientific theory is a simple description of what has been observed and an explanation for why it occurs. Theories in science are always subject to change, scrutiny and improvement. Here is the Theory of Evolution and all its postulates:
1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.
2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).
3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.
4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.
Ahah! You can't "test" Evolution! It requires millions of years! Evolution isn't testable. It can't be a theory!
No need to "test" Evolution. The test for Evolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as "progressionism." As you dig deeper into fossil beds, fossils tend to get simpler and simpler in form. Also, Evolution doesn't have to take such a long time all the time. Creationists demand hard evidence of macro-Evolution, which is also known as speciation. Macro-Evolution is when a species splits into two species, the old one and the new one. The other type of Evolution, micro-Evolution, is easily observable. Micro-Evolution is any small, adaptive change made by a species that isn't significant enough to create a new species. For example, cockroaches have, over the generations, adapted to certain pesticides and have become more resistant to them. The adaptation to pesticides is an example of a mutation that results in a survival advantage. However, this change in the cockroach is not nearly significant enough to put the cockroach which has adapted into its own species category. If the cockroach grew an extra pair of antennae, enablingÊ it to have a much better sense of its environmental surroundings than its predecessor, this could be enough of a change to qualify as macro-Evolution. Thus, the cockroach with extra antennae would then be classified in its own species.
As an aside, even if we can't directly observe macro-Evolution, the two processes are driven by the same mechanism. Even Creationists admit that micro-Evolution occurs. So, they admit that a species will undergo small, adaptive changes. Wouldn't it follow that, after a significant number of these changes, the new species would be different enough to be considered another, separate species?
Life just couldn't have happened by random chance! They've done computer simulations of the probability, and they're ridiculously low! There must have been an intelligent creator!
Amino acids have been observed to form under conditions like those of Earth many billions of years ago in a lab. When gases contained in Earth's atmosphere back then are stuck in a container and shot with an electrical charge, amino acids form. This is observed fact.
Furthermore, there is no part of Evolution which says, "There is no God." Science does not make theories to answer the theistic question. Science makes theories to explain how the Universe works. It stays within its realm, the physical.
But the amino acids formed in the lab were formed because some scientist stuck the right gases together at the right place at the right time! That proves that intelligent direction is necessary for the acids to form! Evolution flies in the face of probability!
This is untrue. Evolution is completely consistent with probability. The amino acids created in a lab were created when hydrogen, ammonia and nitrogen were charged. This could have easily happened on Earth, billions of years ago, when a lightning bolt struck the proper mixture, and, given a billion or so years to do so, chances are, it would have.
Actually, the theory illustrated above is the Abiogenesis theory (the "primordial soup" theory). It's totally separate from Evolution. Creationists like to lump the two together, all the time, though (and, even mash the Big Bang in there, too). The truth is that, even if Abiogenesis were disproven, Evolution would be totally unaffected.
Evolution can't explain the beauty and perfection of the human body.
Granted, I'm as attracted to good-looking women as the next guy, but your body, biologically-speaking, is hardly "perfect." The immune system could use a lot of work. Our running speed isn't the fastest in the forest. Our natural strength isn't all it could be. Just because you find the human body physically appealing doesn't mean that it's the result of some exquisite craftsmanship from a supernatural creator. It just means that nature is doing its job: making you attracted to a member of the opposite sex so you can potentially procreate. In other words, you're attracted to females because of Evolution.
All the recent research in science brings out more questions that scientists can't answer. This is because God and his works are unfathomable by Man's mere intellect.
Good thing this kind of logic didn't prevail when scientists were trying to understand the workings of the sun. Otherwise, nuclear fusion would have never been discovered because scientists would have just dropped any kind of physical explanation in favor of the classic Catholic saying, "It's a mystery." Just because science can't answer a question now doesn't mean that it will never be able to, and it certainly doesn't mean that religious dogma is the only answer. We couldn't answer the question of what processes the sun used to create its energy at one time. Then, we found out about the atom and subatomic particles. We now have a certain understanding of how these things work, thanks to quantum physics, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. Obviously, these things are not "unfathomable."
If scientists can use what they want as evidence, then I should be able to use the Bible as evidence.
Scientists can't use whatever they want for evidence. Evidence gathering is a very strict process, subject to evaluation by peers. Furthermore, the Bible is not evidence in any sense of the word. It is completely unverifiable that God created the Universe out of nothing, because that violates the Law of Conservation of energy, which has never been proven incorrect. Unless creationists can recreate the creation of the Universe to test their opinion, it remains just that: an opinion. Scientists know some of what happened in the early Universe because of the predictions of particle physics theories, as well as measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation. Creationists "know" what happened because they read a book written by oppressive and arrogant Jewish males. See the difference? Where do the writers of the Bible get their information? There's no bibliography in the Bible. There are no independently verifiable sources. The Big Bang and Evolution, as well as ever other theory in science, can be verified independently.
But where did the first bacteria come from? Where did that come from (continue ad infinitum)? There are so many questions raised by evolution that Creationism is so much simpler.
By far, one of the most irritating of Creationist misconceptions. Virtually every question a Creationist will raise (except those prefacing with the word "why," science doesn't answer those questions) has an answer. The first amino acids were created when ammonia, hydrogen and methane were energized by UV rays or lightning. The Earth formed as a result of gravitational attractions among various elements after the first stars went supernova, creating the heavier elements. Why is this irritating? Because people that ask this question never do research. If you have a question about a scientific statement or theory, look it up! Chances are, you'll find an answer. Do some independent learning, and don't hold the scientific community responsible for your own laziness. I could explain how the very nature of the Big Bang and relativity doesn't require a God creator, but why should I? The information is readily available. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/misconceptions.shtml (http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/misconceptions.shtml)
-
it is all by faith...
You really don't get it, do you?
When we say, "The Universe is expanding," that statement is observable fact. No faith required.
When we say, "The Higgs boson is predicted to give particles mass," that statement can be falsified. Now, according to the most recent data that prediction is being proven true. Meaning, it's turning into an observed fact. No faith required.
When we say, "Life on Earth may have started with abiogenesis," that statement can be tested and falsified, even if it hasn't been conclusively proven to be true. No faith required.
When we say, "Homo sapiens likely evolved from Australopithecus" that statement can be tested and falsified, even if it hasn't been conclusively proven to be true. No faith required.
Any of the following would falsify the overall theory of Evolution:
- If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
- If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
- If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of changes that drive natural selection.
- If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
On the other hand, "I believe that... the Land Breeze and the Sea Breeze were married, and they had a child which they named Bamboo. One day, when Bamboo was floating against the sea, it struck the feet of the Kite. Shocked, hurt, and angered that anything should strike it, the bird furiously pecked at the bamboo until it split in half. Out of one section came a golden-bronze colored man, named Malakas (Strong One) and from the other half came a similarly hued woman, named Maganda (Beautiful One).
That's where we humans came from."
You can't prove Bathala doesn't exist.
-
it is all by faith... we cant prove that God really exist (or how life begins on earth maliban sa paniniwala ko sa creation)... now if you can say that evolution is tested and proven... show us your proof... not just observatioin, not just assumption... show us the direct link of simple single celled living organism to complex living organisn... show us the missing link... if you cant show us then... all of those theories about evolution yada ada... are all speculation, guesses, suggestions based on observed data, some measurement etc etc, ... ahh... well... just add time and anything will happen - say billion years and life from non-living will just come out eventually
Noone is saying that Evolution is a proven fact...
But saying the theory is all by faith, then you must be crazy... ;D
-
Noone is saying that EVOLUTION is a proven fact because how can we say that now when noone ever lived that long to observe.
Noone is saying that Evolution is a proven fact...
That's not true. Evolutionists have long been claiming that evolution is a fact.
Sir leomarley's above-posted article says:
Evolution isn't "just a theory," it is observed fact. ... Evolution is simply how things happen in nature.
Other examples:
Evolution may not be perfect but it is scientific fact. ...
A must-read article.
... Well, evolution is a theory and it is also a fact. ... Evolution has been observed in nature. Evolutionary Theory, explains the mechanisms of evolution (the fact).
But this is where you're mistaken. Evolution is fact—and there is an abundance of proof supporting it.
-
^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
"The application of the terms "fact" and "theory" to evolution is comparable to their use in describing gravity. The most obvious fact of gravity is that objects in our everyday experience always fall downwards when not otherwise prevented from doing so. People throughout history have wondered what causes this effect. Many explanations have been proposed over the centuries. Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein developed models of gravity, each of which constitutes a theory of gravity. Newton, for example, realized that the fact of gravity can be extended to the tendency of any two masses to attract one another. The word "gravity", therefore, can be used to refer to the observed facts (i.e., that masses attract one another) and the theory used to explain the facts (the reason why masses attract one another). In this way, gravity is both a theory and a fact."
-
That's not true. Evolutionists have long been claiming that evolution is a fact.
Sir leomarley's above-posted article says:
Other examples:
Yes, so I admit. Maybe that is why I am for both sides hehe!!!
Some things I agree and don't agree on both sides. I believe in Evolution and Creation... :D
-
Same goes with General Relativity. it is a theory and a fact. it is incomplete but physicists uses Einstein's equations in their computations for large cosmological masses.
-
There's a big problem with this reasoning:
You started with this premise ---- "All things that are made has a Creator"
Your starting point is not an axiom that is accepted by all reasonable persons as true. Therefore, if the starting premise is not an axiom, then the conclusion will not necessarily be true.
Sir,
Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.
-
Sir,
Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.
If you think your statement is an axiom, then why can't you answer the question how did the creator cam about??? Or like what has been said, it's pure energy, pure energy that is so intelligent from the moment it "materialize"??? Or is that word even relevant to it...since it is creator anyhow, how can it materialize when its the one that eventually will create anything that is "CREATED" anyway??? :D
NAGULUMIHANAN ako sa mga sinabi ko!!! :P
Is it just like "PUFFFFFFF!!! IT BECAME COCO-CRUNCH!!!" ;D
-
No agenda, I was just quoting from one of references, just as you have been quoting from yours...
Let's see...
"All things that are made has a Creator"
" If all things were Made"
"Therefore All things has a Creator"
What have I said so far...
...DNA is a complex, simple, self repeating substance found in All living things.
....Energy is Eternal, not created, already present before the universe existed.(first law)
....All things will approach decay (second law)
.....Language is complex and simple, needs order, sequence and intellect to produce and understand.
.....Universal Clock so precise, that we need an imprecise man-made atomic/optical clock to set to, but could not even come close....and the Universal Clock just happened by itself?
.....All these not tested and falsified? Really? Seriously?
It's Evolution that has not been observed and confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true to qualify as FACT. And since the so-called "evolutionary changes" occured in the past, it is also Not Falsifiable! Which does not qualify it to be called a theory...
At best Evolution is an Assumption of a highly speculative Hypotheses!
" immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy"
Best description of a CREATOR!!!! Note you said the He Designed the DNA that turned into You!
Therefore you were Created!
Let me give you the rest of that quote from one my reference: The Bible
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And CHANGED the glory of the uncorruptible God into...birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator”
(Rom. 1:20-23, 25)
sir this is a quote from the article that i posted:
Furthermore, there is no part of Evolution which says, "There is no God." Science does not make theories to answer the theistic question. Science makes theories to explain how the Universe works. It stays within its realm, the physical.
-
Sir,
Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.
Who makes the maker? and maker of maker1, etc..
-
If you think your statement is an axiom, then why can't you answer the question how did the creator cam about??? Or like what has been said, it's pure energy, pure energy that is so intelligent from the moment it "materialize"??? Or is that word even relevant to it...since it is creator anyhow, how can it materialize when its the one that eventually will create anything that is "CREATED" anyway??? :D
NAGULUMIHANAN ako sa mga sinabi ko!!! :P
Is it just like "PUFFFFFFF!!! IT BECAME COCO-CRUNCH!!!" ;D
Sir,
Kaya nga tinanong ko si sir barrister....He said not accepted as true.
I believe that the statement "all things that are made has a maker" is true, i was asking why it was not accepted as true. If there are examples that would contradict this statement. When we see all around us that it has basis...
When you look at a car, house a home theater system......what do you deduce or observe...you see the beauty, symmetry, planning, design....by the carmarker, carperter and interior designer.
If this is true w/ inanimate objects what more of living systems which must continue to function properly or else it would wither and die...
-
I believe that the statement "all things that are made has a maker" is true
It's a tautology.
Here's another one: The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
-
Sir,
Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.
Maybe I did not understand correctly.
Let's see...
"All things that are made has a Creator"
" If all things were Made"
"Therefore All things has a Creator"
You did not originally say, "All things that are made has a maker." You originally said, "All things that are made has a Creator." By using the capital letter "C" for "Creator," I thought you meant God (did I presume correctly?).
If you assume all things have a Creator which is God, then that is not an axiom, because the fact of God's existence is not something that is so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
An example of a thing that was made without a Creator? According to science, the earth's soil --- made by nature, not made by any so-called "Creator."
======================
You are aware that I'm a creationist, so you are aware that I agree with that premise (but only from the point of view of religion).
But I'm sure you know what I'm driving at --- that it's not possible to prove the existence of a Creator by the use of logic.
-
Some things I agree and don't agree on both sides. I believe in Evolution and Creation... :D
OK lang yon sir. At least you have an open mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
"The application of the terms "fact" and "theory" to evolution is comparable to their use in describing gravity. ... The word "gravity", therefore, can be used to refer to the observed facts (i.e., that masses attract one another) and the theory used to explain the facts (the reason why masses attract one another). In this way, gravity is both a theory and a fact."
This is a common evolutionist argument --- That evolution is both a theory and a fact, just like gravity is both a theory and a fact.
I vehemently disagree.
It is true that gravity is both a fact and a theory. In gravity:
(a) The fact is the observable force between two masses; and
(b) The theory is the attempt to explain how that observable force operates.
But in evolution:
(a) The so-called "fact" of evolution is mere speculation, not an observable fact; and
(b) Therefore, the theory is without any proper basis, because it attempts to explain a speculation, not an observable fact.
Therefore, that is the big difference between gravity and evolution ---- one is an observable fact; the other is not.
-
Maybe I did not understand correctly.
You did not originally say, "All things that are made has a maker." You originally said, "All things that are made has a Creator." By using the capital letter "C" for "Creator," I thought you meant God (did I presume correctly?).
If you assume all things have a Creator which is God, then that is not an axiom, because the fact of God's existence is not something that is so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
An example of a thing that was made without a Creator? According to science, the earth's soil --- made by nature, not made by any so-called "Creator."
======================
You are aware that I'm a creationist, so you are aware that I agree with that premise (but only from the point of view of religion).
But I'm sure you know what I'm driving at --- that it's not possible to prove the existence of a Creator by the use of logic.
Correct sir, that's why I replaced the word "creator" with "maker" to remove the religious implication of the statement...
-
^
In this way, gravity is both a theory and a fact."
Gravity has been observed and repeatedly tested and proven to be true! And you can say the same w/ evolution?
-
Correct sir, that's why I replaced the word "creator" with "maker" to remove the religious implication of the statement...
Well, that's what I'm trying to show. We're both creationists, but I do not believe it's possible to prove the existence of the Creator by either science or logic, because it's ultimately about faith.
Try to prove the existence of the Creator by science or logic and I'll be the first to dispute it.
-
Well, that's what I'm trying to show. We're both creationists, but I do not believe it's possible to prove the existence of the Creator by either science or logic, because it's ultimately about faith.
Try to prove the existence of the Creator by science or logic and I'll be the first to dispute it.
Point well taken sir, however we do have a difference of opinion on the limitation on how to prove His existence and I believe that Science will eventually catch up in its search for the ultimate TRUTH.
After all He did say: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21).
And Pasteur apparently once said:“ Science brings men closer to God” “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”
PEACE!
-
"On Mathematics and the Universe"
Both Mathematicians, separated by 400 years of accumulated knowledge saying essentially the same thing...
Gallileo Galilei
“Mathematics is the language with which GOD has written the universe”
Prof Marcus du Sautoy
in BBC’s “The Code”
“The reason we can predict how the stars will move into the far future is because we’ve uncovered the rules that govern their behavior….and we found this rules not in the heavens…but in numbers!”
“It’s only through “The Code” that we can understand the laws that govern the universe”
“The fact that the code provides such a successful description of nature is for many “one of the greatest mysteries of science” and by discovering these connections we have in fact uncovered some deep truth about the world and perhaps the code is the truth of the universe and its numbers that dictate the way the world must be.”
-
Point well taken sir, however we do have a difference of opinion on the limitation on how to prove His existence and I believe that Science will eventually catch up in its search for the ultimate TRUTH.
Ok lang yon sir. So let's agree to disagree. ;)
After all He did say: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21).
I Thes. 5:21 refers to matters of religion. It does not mean we're supposed to mix religion and science together.
For example, we have faith that the universe was made by God. This belief is not supported by scientific proof, that's why it's faith. Otherwise, if it were provable scientifically beyond doubt, then that wouldn't be faith anymore.
That is why Heb. 11:3 says: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." It says we understand "by faith;" it does not say we understand "by science or logic."
What, therefore, is 1 Thes. 5:21 referring to? It's an admonition against blind acceptance of the teachings of religious leaders. For example, if your religious leader's doctrine includes a belief in the "secret rapture," should you search God's Word and discover for yourself that the so-called "secret rapture" is nothing but a load of nonsense, or do you just blindly accept the religious leader's doctrine?
We should discuss on the religion thread:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141525.630.html
We might have more points of agreement there. But then again, maybe not :D (joke lang).
-
Hehehe copy that sir!
-
Hehehe one "debate" thread is enough for me.
Discussing w/ such brilliant (and i do mean it) minds as Sir Alistair, Leo, Tempter, Dpogs, Barrister just to name a few is extremely rewarding!
-
"Mutation and Evolution compatible?"
Copied from "University of Utah Genetic Science Learning Center "
What is Mutation
A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Mutations in a gene's DNA sequence can alter the amino acid sequence of the protein encoded by the gene.
How does this happen? Like words in a sentence, the DNA sequence of each gene determines the amino acid sequence for the protein it encodes. The DNA sequence is interpreted in groups of three nucleotide bases, called codons. Each codon specifies a single amino acid in a protein.
Mutate a sentence!
We can think about the DNA sequence of a gene as a sentence made up entirely of three-letter words. In the sequence, each three-letter word is a codon, specifying a single amino acid in a protein. Have a look at this sentence:
Thesunwashotbuttheoldmandidnotgethishat.
If you were to split this sentence into individual three-letter words, you would probably read it like this:
The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat.
This sentence represents a gene. Each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon. What if you shifted the three-letter "reading frame?" You would end up with
T hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at.
Or
Th esu nwa sho tbu tth eol dma ndi dno tge thi sha t.
As you can see, only one of these three "reading frames" translates into an understandable sentence. In the same way, only one three-letter reading frame within a gene codes for the correct protein.
Now, going back to the original sentence:
Thesunwashotbuttheoldmandidnotgethishat.
See how you can mutate the reading frame of this sentence by inserting or deleting letters within the sentence.
It's easy to make mutations that create "nonsense" sentences. Can you make mutations that maintain or change the meaning of the sentence without creating such nonsense?
Mutation results in about 3 types…
1. No effect
2. Diseases
3. Loss of function/capability
All these effects does not support the Evolution’s use of mutation as part of the process of increasing complexity or emergence of new organism.
-
Diseases of the Thyroid Gland….Mutation in action!
The release and regulation of thyroid hormones (T3 and T4) are part of a well-recognized and understood pathway feedback mechanism of the body. This mechanism includes the interaction between the Pituitary Gland (PG) in the brain the Thyroid Gland (TG) in the neck. It starts with the release by the PG of TSH(thyroid stimulating hormone), this then binds w/ the TSH receptor sites on the TG, which in turn releases T3 and T4. Once in the blood the level is then detected by the PG and the cycle continues….
A mutation in the gene code for the tsh receptor will result in several diseases. A loss the of ability of the tsh receptor to bind w/ tsh will result in decrease amount of TH resulting in…..Hypothyroidism. This mutation is a recessive trait which means that an offspring will only get this illness if both parents has the mutation otherwise the offspring will not manifest the disease.
On the other hand mutation which results in an increase in function will result in over production of TH will result in Hyperthyroidism! Another effect of this is increase in the size(hyperplasia) of the cells itself resulting in either goiter, nodules or worst cancer!
Here is a concrete demonstration of the effects of mutation in humans. The mutation either does not have an effect (recessive gene), loss of function(sensitivity)….hypothyroidism and increase in function(hypersensitivity)….hyperthyroidism, goiter, cancer.
It is highly doubtful that Mutations in the past would result in a positive outcome in an organism let alone emergence of an entirely new organism.
-
I have a question for creationists who are not YEC. I think that's docelmo and barrister (please correct me if I'm mistaken).
If you don't believe in evolution but believe that the earth is 4+ billion years old, is it your belief that God created the animals in batches? That is, single celled animals first, then billions of years later fish, then reptiles a few hundred million years after that. Then He created mammals and birds a few million years apart. And finally created man a few hundred thousand years ago?
-
If you don't believe in evolution but believe that the earth is 4+ billion years old, is it your belief that God created the animals in batches? That is, single celled animals first, then billions of years later fish, then reptiles a few hundred million years after that. Then He created mammals and birds a few million years apart. And finally created man a few hundred thousand years ago?
Yes, that's about right.
In relation to the biblical account in Genesis 1, let me state it this way ---- It is not correct to assume that each of the creation days is only 24 hours long, because one "day" can mean one "age."
The basis for my conclusion would be better-suited for posting on the religion thread, since it will require an understanding of the meaning and usage of the ancient Hebrew words "yom," "yamim," "olam," "qedem," "ereb" (qualitative & quantitaive ereb), and "boqer" (qualitative & quantitative boqer).
-
Thanks for replying. Yes, I think it's a valid interpretation that the 7 "days" mentioned in Genesis is not our 24 hour days. And I've seen you mention this before. But what about extinction level events. Are they also contemplated in Genesis?
-
I have a question for creationists who are not YEC. I think that's docelmo and barrister (please correct me if I'm mistaken).
If you don't believe in evolution but believe that the earth is 4+ billion years old, is it your belief that God created the animals in batches? That is, single celled animals first, then billions of years later fish, then reptiles a few hundred million years after that. Then He created mammals and birds a few million years apart. And finally created man a few hundred thousand years ago?
Good question sir!
I am also of the belief that the creation story in genesis does not mean a 24hr cycle (as already pointed out by sir barisster) as we know it today. A day or a thousand year, or even a million year is of no consequence to our creator for He is not bounded by time and space. However it is clear that when He created the heavens, earth and all living things there was order in it. Each would produce variations according to its own kind and not coming from a single simple organism to producing all life on earth by mutation,natural selection or any other explaination that contradicts what is know today in various field of study.
-
But what about extinction level events. Are they also contemplated in Genesis?
Extinction Level Event? By Busta Rhymes? Walang rap sa Genesis ... :D
Seriously, Extinction Event is the usual term. They sometimes say Extinction Level Event, but that's not commonly used.
No, Genesis does not mention the Extinction Events of science. The purpose of the bible is to provide information relevant to man's salvation. Therefore, as regards the subject of science, it is correct to say that the bible is incomplete; but as regards the subject of salvation, the bible is definitely complete.
Some say the K-T boundary (Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary, now called the K-Pg boundary) is the great flood of Noah's time. However, I don't think the estimated time periods coincide.
I believe in the story of the great flood as a matter of faith, but I also believe in keeping religion and science separate. I strongly object to those who use pseudoscience to provide questionable "evidence" of their religious agenda.
-
Good question sir!
I am also of the belief that the creation story in genesis does not mean a 24hr cycle (as already pointed out by sir barisster) as we know it today. A day or a thousand year, or even a million year is of no consequence to our creator for He is not bounded by time and space. However it is clear that when He created the heavens, earth and all living things there was order in it. Each would produce variations according to its own kind and not coming from a single simple organism to producing all life on earth by mutation,natural selection or any other explaination that contradicts what is know today in various field of study.
Pano yung dinosaurs?
Sabay-sabay bang na-create? Kung hindi, bigla na lang bang lumitaw yung mga bagong species? Magkakaron pa ba ng bagong species?
-
The reason I ask is science has found numerous extinction events throughout history including 5 major ones. If God created every animal and species at a particular day/age, how does that reconcile so many animals that had gone extinct before man even arrived. Why create them in the first place?
-
The reason I ask is science has found numerous extinction events throughout history including 5 major ones. If God created every animal and species at a particular day/age, how does that reconcile so many animals that had gone extinct before man even arrived. Why create them in the first place?
Like I always say, I keep science and the bible separate.
Since your question assumes that God is the Creator, then the basis of the answer should not be science but the bible.
If you don't believe in the bible, then that's OK, but we won't have anything to talk about.
If you believe in the bible, then well and good, since we will have a point of common agreement.
=================================
The bible does not explain why God allows certain species to become extinct. If the bible does not supply the information, then we should just admit that we don't know the answer, because part of the discipline in studying the bible is to be careful not to add things that are not written.
All the bible says is that God has sovereignty over all creation, so He is free to do what He wishes; therefore we, being His created, have no right to question His will. All we know from the bible is that extinction, if brought about by nature and not by man's actions, is just part of the way nature works, as God designed it.
We don't have to go into the topic of extinction, actually. Why don't we just ask, "Why did God create animals at all?" If the Creator is powerful enough to create the universe, then surely He would also be powerful enough to create a human that doesn't need food to survive, or to create an earth that doesn't need animals to maintain balance.
But that's how God designed nature, and we have no right to question His design. If a potter wants to make a pot in a certain way, will the pieces of pottery have any right to question the potter's decision?
This concept is explained by Isaiah as follows:
9 “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’? (Is. 45:9)
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “You did not make me”? Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”? (Is. 29:16)
And Paul explains it this way:
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Rom. 9:20-21)
-
I get where you are coming from.
"Why did God create animals at all?"
I can get behind "because He wanted it that way".
But from my point of view, making animals that man didn't get to use or even get to see seems wasteful. Or worse, implies that God was conducting a trial and error experiment, trying to see what worked best. Either option doesn't seem too "godlike" to me.
-
But from my point of view, making animals that man didn't get to use or even get to see seems wasteful. Or worse, implies that God was conducting a trial and error experiment, trying to see what worked best. Either option doesn't seem too "godlike" to me.
No, that's not how it works.
You use the bible's point of view if you believe in the bible. You use your own point of view of you don't believe in the bible.
If you want to use your own point of view, that's OK with me, but you should also reject the bible to remain consistent.
-
Pano yung dinosaurs?
Sabay-sabay bang na-create? Kung hindi, bigla na lang bang lumitaw yung mga bagong species? Magkakaron pa ba ng bagong species?
The Bible is like an Instruction Manual given by God to man...on how he should act, behave and understand. As such what is included there are geared towards that goal by giving us the tools and knowledge on how we could follow Him. The word "dinosaur" is a modern word which probably did not have an equivalent at the time of writing of the bible. My guess is knowing the existence of dinosaurs and all other animals that we may never see probably had a purpose, but that has little to do with our salvation so there was no point in naming all these creatures...except in stories were animals were actually named.
Curiously though,
In the Book of JOB it made mentioned two mysterious creatures namely "behemoth" and "leviathan". Both were clearly described as fierce, enormous size and wild!
Starting with verse 38....The Lord spoke to Job, enumerating numerous instances challenging those who were questioning His work..
"38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Dress for action[a] like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!"
This is then followed by a long list of His workings....of the universe,
environment, animals and asking Man if he can do the same! And
end with this!
40 And the Lord said to Job:
2 “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
He who argues with God, let him answer it.”
I believe this also the scriptures answer to Sir Sardaukar's question
Then he mentions two mysterious creatures...what were these your guess is as good as mine...
15 “Behold, Behemoth,[j]
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
1 [m] “Can you draw out Leviathan[n] with a fishhook
or press down his tongue with a cord?
2 Can you put a rope in his nose
or pierce his jaw with a hook?
We may never know the reason why He made all these creatures and the world around us! What is evident is that all around we see evidence of His hand....everything follows certain rules, measurements, behavior...this could only mean that there was an all-powerful Mind behind everything.
One thing is for sure, He has give given us a great gift....what we do with it is up to us!
Peace!
-
Pano yung dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days. On the 5th day, sea creatures and winged creatures. On the 6th day, land creatures. Kasama na ang dinosaurs doon. A "day" is an "age," not a literal 24-hour day.
The Genesis account states that winged birds appeared before the land creatures. That's the reverse of accepted evolution theory, which speculates that birds evolved from land-dwelling theropod dinosaurs. Does this mean that the bible was wrong?
--- Not so fast:
Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)
— A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
... "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
... oops... ;D 8)
-
Dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days. On the 5th day, sea creatures and winged creatures. On the 6th day, land creatures. Kasama na ang dinosaurs doon. A "day" is an "age," not a literal 24-hour day.
The Genesis account states that winged birds appeared before the land creatures. That's the reverse of accepted evolution theory, which speculates that birds evolved from land-dwelling theropod dinosaurs. Does this mean that the bible was wrong?
--- Not so fast:
Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)
— A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
... "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
... oops... ;D 8)
it didn't say that all dinosaurs came from birds only that some theropods that were thought to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
-
it didn't say that all dinosaurs came from birds only that some theropods that were thought to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
I'm not saying therapod dinos descended from birds either, since I don't believe in evolution. All I'm saying is the bird-from-dino theory is now facing a growing challenge within the scientific community.
Yes, of course the article didn't say that "all" dinosaurs came from birds. Nobody can say that unless he's sure that all fossils of all prehistoric animals have already been found. However, the article does say these:
...The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
...Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from.
...More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."
Note that the context is not about some "teeny-weeny exception" to the accepted theory.
It's about overwhelming evidence saying that the accepted theory could be very wrong and might need a major overhaul.
-
"http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."
This is not Faith vs Science, this is Science vs Science!
-
"http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
This is not Faith vs Science, this is Science vs Science!
I wouldn't call that "science vs. science," strictly speaking.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA.
The Discovery Institute, founded in 1990, is well-known for its ID (Intelligent Design) agenda. Because of this agenda, its "scientific" statements are naturally suspect.
The link I posted above from ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm) is a more scientific, agenda-neutral point of view which points to a more credible controversy within the scientific community.
On the other hand, the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy," stated in its "Wedge Document" as its ultimate goal to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions," naturally arouses suspicion of ID-bias that is linked to American Evangelist Protestant views:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c8/Wedge_document_cover.jpg/200px-Wedge_document_cover.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
The "Dover case" (2005, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.
The Discovery Institute was very much involved in this case, and 2 of their most prominent fellows testified at the trial as expert witnesses: Lehigh University biochemist Michael J. Behe, and University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-02-01/news/discovery-s-creation.php/3/
The court's ruling: Intelligent Design is a religion ---
Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
-
Dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days. On the 5th day, sea creatures and winged creatures. On the 6th day, land creatures. Kasama na ang dinosaurs doon. A "day" is an "age," not a literal 24-hour day.
The Genesis account states that winged birds appeared before the land creatures. That's the reverse of accepted evolution theory, which speculates that birds evolved from land-dwelling theropod dinosaurs. Does this mean that the bible was wrong?
--- Not so fast:
Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)
— A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
... "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
... oops... ;D 8)
barrister, you are not implying that what happened between the 5th and the 6th days are evolution, are you?
-
barrister, you are not implying that what happened between the 5th and the 6th days are evolution, are you?
No, of course not.
1st to 6th days are all creation. Between the end of the 5th day and the start of the 6th day? There is nothing between the end of the 5th day and the start of the 6th day. The "days" are just "ages" with unspecified periods of time.
Like I always say, I don't mix religion and science. When a new kind of animal (the bible does not call it a "species") appears, that "kind" appeared because it was created. It did not evolve from something else. But that's religion, not science. And I don't mix creation with a little evolution, or vice-versa.
I'm just comparing the order of creation in Genesis and the order of evolution in science. Even limiting the discussion to the order of appearance, creation and evolution wouldn't match --- creation says birds came before land animals; science says birds came after land animals.
Yet you still couldn't say that Genesis was wrong in order of appearance based on science, because there are now doubts about the dino-to-bird theory. And this doubt comes from scientists without an Intelligent Creation agenda.
-
I wouldn't call that "science vs. science," strictly speaking.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA.
The Discovery Institute, founded in 1990, is well-known for its ID (Intelligent Design) agenda. Because of this agenda, its "scientific" statements are naturally suspect.
A quick look at the site and links gave three articles: Microevolution vs Macroevolution ; Cambrian Explosion; Survival of the fakest.
All three articles discussed these scientific controversies and its implication in the theory of evolution. Intelligent Design was nowhere in these papers at the same time it merely stated that these controversies should be made known and not give the impression that all scientist have reached a consensus on the subject.
Here is an excerpt:
"Fact Sheet: Cambrian Explosion"
Since the abruptness and extensiveness of the Cambrian explosion are so well
documented, there is no excuse for a biology textbook to deal with the animal fossil
record without even mentioning it. Furthermore, since some biologists maintain that the
Cambrian explosion presents a challenge -- or at least a "paradox" -- for one of the
fundamental tenets of Darwin's theory, any biology textbook that doesn't discuss that
challenge fails to provide students with the resources to think critically about the most
widely taught scientific explanation for evolution.
-
I have a few questions for Creationists:
Please use creationism to explain the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Ask your doctor why you need to take all of your antibiotics when prescribed. That is evolution, observable, verifiable and demonstrated in your own body.
Please provide a creationist explanation of sickle-cell anemia’s relationship to malaria, the Peppered Moth, Australian rabbits and myxomatosis, or the presence of gills and tails in the early embryonic stages of virtually all vertebrates (including humans). Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation “model” to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales. Explain why God would have created over 250,000 different species of beetle. Why did God create over 2,000 different varieties of fruit-fly (25% of which can only be found in Hawaii)? Why did God create muscles that allow us to move our ears? What is our appendix for?
There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist. Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year. The number of different species of fungi is in excess of 40,000. If you add it all up you get over 1.6 billion different forms of life on this planet. Since over 99% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct we end up with a total species number of as high as 16 billion. Please explain why your creator went to all this effort only to give one species any special favors. How did Noah manage to place at least 3.2 billion different life forms on the ark?
Which of Noah’s children were black? Which were Korean, East Indian, Hispanic? Which had blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes, brown eyes? Which were albino? Which of Noah’s children had brown hair, black hair, blonde hair? Which of Noah’s children had syphilis, AIDS, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, polio, smallpox? Which of Noah’s children had congenital heart defects?
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/962/crap-creationism/
-
I have a few questions for Creationists:
Please use creationism to explain the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Ask your doctor why you need to take all of your antibiotics when prescribed. That is evolution, observable, verifiable and demonstrated in your own body.
Please provide a creationist explanation of sickle-cell anemia’s relationship to malaria, the Peppered Moth, Australian rabbits and myxomatosis, or the presence of gills and tails in the early embryonic stages of virtually all vertebrates (including humans). Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation “model” to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales. Explain why God would have created over 250,000 different species of beetle. Why did God create over 2,000 different varieties of fruit-fly (25% of which can only be found in Hawaii)? Why did God create muscles that allow us to move our ears? What is our appendix for?
That is micro-evolution (and not macro where monkey becomes man) and maybe supported in the bible. As it says "produce according to own kind" doesnt mean it will be exactly the same in some physical attributes but mechanism is still the same. A flu virus remains a virus even as a new strain. Throughout generations, we havent seen a flu virus becomes a flu bacteria (or as a flu bird) no matter how fast they mutate or so-called evolve.
Every generation man discovers some knowledge which is hidden before and we still lack the capacity to know or even fully understand all the purpose of these creations. But the mere fact that each creatures have intricate and unique designs (having almost no probabilty for chances) means there is a designer.
There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist. Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year. The number of different species of fungi is in excess of 40,000. If you add it all up you get over 1.6 billion different forms of life on this planet. Since over 99% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct we end up with a total species number of as high as 16 billion. Please explain why your creator went to all this effort only to give one species any special favors. How did Noah manage to place at least 3.2
billion different life forms on the ark?
Again, these species may have evolved thru micro-evolution. Anyone knows how many species at the time of Noah? Micro-evolution may also got triggered as season has changed and as these species got separated when the land was divided after the flood. Pls try to check that in the bible.
Which of Noah’s children were black? Which were Korean, East Indian, Hispanic? Which had blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes, brown eyes? Which were albino? Which of Noah’s children had brown hair, black hair, blonde hair? Which of Noah’s children had syphilis, AIDS, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, polio, smallpox? Which of Noah’s children had congenital heart defects?[/i]
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/962/crap-creationism/
Maybe Noah's sons names gives a clue, as SHEM also means "Dusky", JAPETH "Fair" and HAM "Dark". Diseases has surfaced as the effect of man's fall and as a continues effect of man's undoing. As in Genesis after the fall and in Romans 8:20-22 (NLT)" Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."
The devil is really having success in making man think lowly of himself by reducing his nature to a mere animal or worthless being whereas the bible clearly says "We are made in the image and likeness of God" and are very precious in his sight.
The truth is, you need more faith in believing evolution & big bang theory rather than God's creation. Even at this time, evolutionist and anti-God scientists are not able to fill many gaps in their theories.
And I just think of it, kung ang tao eh galing sa unggoy bakit yung iba eh mukhang kabayo ... hehehe.
-
That is micro-evolution (and not macro where monkey becomes man) and maybe supported in the bible. As it says "produce according to own kind" doesnt mean it will be exactly the same in some physical attributes but mechanism is still the same. A flu virus remains a virus even as a new strain. Throughout generations, we havent seen a flu virus becomes a flu bacteria (or as a flu bird) no matter how fast they mutate or so-called evolve.
Every generation man discovers some knowledge which is hidden before and we still lack the capacity to know or even fully understand all the purpose of these creations. But the mere fact that each creatures have intricate and unique designs (having almost no probabilty for chances) means there is a designer.
Again, these species may have evolved thru micro-evolution. Anyone knows how many species at the time of Noah? Micro-evolution may also got triggered as season has changed and as these species got separated when the land was divided after the flood. Pls try to check that in the bible.
Maybe Noah's sons names gives a clue, as SHEM also means "Dusky", JAPETH "Fair" and HAM "Dark". Diseases has surfaced as the effect of man's fall and as a continues effect of man's undoing. As in Genesis after the fall and in Romans 8:20-22 (NLT)" Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."
The devil is really having success in making man think lowly of himself by reducing his nature to a mere animal or worthless being whereas the bible clearly says "We are made in the image and likeness of God" and are very precious in his sight.
The truth is, you need more faith in believing evolution & big bang theory rather than God's creation. Even at this time, evolutionist and anti-God scientists are not able to fill many gaps in their theories.
And I just think of it, kung ang tao eh galing sa unggoy bakit yung iba eh mukhang kabayo ... hehehe.
Have you filled the GAPS???
-
I’d be glad to answer some of the questions raised especially those in the medical field of which I belong. However, I must say that I detect a “hint” of sarcasm and condescension in the phrase “ your precious and much vaunted creation model”. Nevertheless here are my comments….
1. Drug-resistant bacteria – The development of these DRB is mainly due to an alteration in the protein receptor site in the bacteria that is susceptible to the effect of the active ingredient of the drug. These alterations are due to several factors mainly to improper management, poor drug efficacy, self-medication and many others. A second explanation is that there are already strains of resistant bacteria in the population of these bacteria. By taking antibiotics, those susceptible to the drug will die off and what will be left are the resistant strains. Thus in the next generation of bacteria will produce resistant strains……this is microevolution since it remains essentially the same bacteria!
A drug-resistant TB bacilli will produce a more severe and aggressive form of the same disease….TB! In the decades of management of TB we have yet to see a case of TB that has evolve to Pneumonia.
That is to say that a bacteria that causes say TB has not been observed to evolve and cause Pneumonia, it will still cause TB the drug-resistant kind.
2. Sickle-cell Anemia – Is a disease of the red blood cell, which forms a crescent-like shape haemoglobin hence the name SCA. This disease leads to various acute and chronic complications, such as “Sickle cell crisis” which causes sudden blocking of blood vessels leading to Ischemia(heart attack), pain, necrosis. Ultimately leading to complications like Stroke, decrease immune response due to an under developed spleen, Chronic renal failure and many others. True, it has been shown that people with SCA has some protection against Severe Malaria. This is mainly due to a sort of “immunity” of the host to the parasite. The sickle haemoglobin apparently produces an enzyme that confers this protection. Ultimately having this mutation by and large has a negative effect on humans due to the numerous complications that would arise from it and only one admittedly beneficial effect.
These are just two examples of mutations in an organism in the molecular level, both of which does not demonstrate that further mutation of these would produce an entirely new organism. It might have some beneficial effect on the organism like a more resistant bacteria or protection from a disease, but that resistance is a function of the alteration of the enzyme or death of susceptible strains, while the benefit of protection from malaria is outweighed by the serious complications of the disease itself. These mutations are changes in the same species and organism, and would NOT result in the emergence of a totally different form of organism.
3. Gills and Tails – First, the so-called “gill-slits” is a misnomer.
During our anatomy/embryology class in med school these were not referred to as such. They were referred to as Pharyngeal grooves and pouches. These are embryonic parts and during the development process they don’t have any function yet and they certainly are NOT Gills! These grooves/pouches would eventually develop into the following: lower jaw, tongue, middle ear canal, thymus and parathyroid gland. If they were gills then the baby should be taking in the oxygen in the surrounding amniotic fluid. But this is not the case, the baby’s first taste oxygen is the first cry after delivery. The so-called “Tail” is not a tail, this will develop into the Coccyx bone. This bone is the last bone in the developing spinal column, Its main function is attachment of numerous muscles which help us to stand upright. The so-called tail will form the neural canal, then tube, that will house the spinal cord. From the embryonic stage to adulthood the “tail” was never meant to be a tail.
Having similar appearance and attributing “function” to it is a very shallow argument for evolution. Embryonic development is not even analogous to evolution, one is the development of an organism from conception to adulthood, while the other is a change of an organism to another organism. Attributing function to “similar looking” organs without taking into account their real function and ultimate development is not scientific at all but merely a very active creative imagination.
-
Whale Fossils, vestigial organs- By definition vestigial organs are parts that apparently does not have well defined function, however many of the so-called vestigial organs like tonsil, appendix in humans were discovered to have functions in immunity. The so-called vestigial organs in whales help in its sexual function which acts differently from male and female ……Not so vestigial after all.
While on the subject of Whales, two fossils have been paraded as proof of evolution of whale from a land animal, the “ambulocetus and rhoducetus”.
The “ambulocetus” was called “walking whale” by evolutionists and placing this on the chain of evolution to modern whale. However, Dr. Gingrich noted that the position of eyes are such that it would not be an ancestor of whale but an entirely different specie since its eye placement is more similar to alligators than whales.
The finding of “rodhocetus” as an intermediate between land animal and whales was hailed as breakthrough and proof of evolution. Since, it apparently had a tail fluke and flippers for swimming, but still retained some of it’s terrestrial characteristics. However, in a interview of Prof Phil Gingrich the discoverer and restorer of the fossil had this to say: “We don’t have the tail so we don’t know for sure whether it had a ball vertebra or not so I Speculated! Since then we found the forelimbs and arms and hands, we understand that it didn’t have the kind of arms that could be spread out like flippers like that of a whale. If you don’t have flippers….I DON’T THINK YOU CAN HAVE A FLUKE TAIL” and so the notion that this is a “transitional animal” is out the window!
-
There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist. Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year.
Engot din ang nagsulat nito, ano. Biro mo, binilang pa ang fish na 20,000 out of an estimated 40,000 daw.
Hindi nagdala ng fish si Noah sa ark, ano. Bakit naman magdadala pa ng fish sa ark, e mabubuhay naman sa baha iyon ... :D
Hindi rin nagdala ng insects si Noah sa ark. Maaaring maraming nakapasok na insects sa ark. Ang isang pares na anay lang, puwede namang tumira sa kahoy ng arko. Ang kuto puwedeng tumira sa aso na kasama sa ark. Yung hindi nakapasok sa ark, puwedeng mabuhay sa labas, sasakay lang sila sa lumulutang na mga dahon, kahoy, bangkay, at iba pang debris.
Pero kahit nagdala pa siya ng insects, kasya rin. The ark had an estimated volume of about 75,000 cubic meters. A million insects would have required only 1000 cubic meters of space. 75 times that space, kasya ang maraming animals. Kung one pair of elephants? Maliit lang naman yon kung mga small, young elephants ang dadalhin. Kailangan bang fully grown elephants ang dalhin? :D
It has been estimated that about 35,000 animals were on board the ark. Let's increase the estimate to 50,000 animals --- that many animals would have filled ony 37% of the capacity of the ark. Kasyang kasya naman, e ano pala ang problema? Kung sabagay, pag matigas talaga ulo, kahit ano naman ang sabihin hindi pa rin maniniwala, so inaasahan na natin yon ... ;)
Hindi rin nagdala ng plants si Noah sa ark. Posibleng maraming plant seeds attached to the animals inside the ark. Kahit sa labas mabubuhay rin yon in the form of seeds, floating mats of leaves and wood, or on floating dead bodies. Water salinity would have been drastically reduced by the rain water and ground water. Puwedeng may plant seeds in the stomachs of floating dead vegetarian animals.
When the dove came back to Noah with an olive branch, that showed that plants were already regenerating outside the ark.
-
Engot din ang nagsulat nito, ano
Hahaha basahin mo yung article sir Barrister!
;D
May sinabi Bible tungkol dyan....Romans 1:22
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
If God can make the entire universe and all living things in it including humans, then fitting all kinds of animals in the Ark would be a piece of cake for HIM! It is only our limited mind that hinders our acceptance of a seemingly impossible task!
In John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study” He made a detailed and updated technical study of how ark the was able to accommodate all these things, and other factors such as food, water, habitation, sanitation etc.
Here are a few points;
• The author totals about 8,000 genera including extinct genera, thus about 16, 000 individual animals which had to be aboard. Sea creatures were not included since they would be not necessarily threatened by the flood, insects were not included in the meaning of behemah or remes, Noah probably would not have taken them, plants were also not taken since many could have survived as seeds and floating mats of vegetation.
• The ark measured 140x23x13.5 meters or a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet, or to put this in perspective it would be equivalent to 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each can hold 240 sheep. That’s a lot of sheep!
• If animals were kept in cages w/ a average size of 50x50x30 centimeters that is 75,000 cm3 or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42, 000 cubit feet) or about 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insects were on board, it would not be a problem, because they require very little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10cm per side, 1,000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and “range” for the animals.
• Food requirement: the ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foostuff and a lot of concentrated food and Grains, hay for the animals. In his calculation the food would only occupy 15% of the total volume and drnking water would only take up 9.4% of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.
Just to mention a few…..
-
Of ears and appendix....
Strictly speaking humans cannot move their ears, it’s just an appearance of movement. The outer ear called the “pinna” is composed of cartilage and skin so it is not capable of movement since it is devoid of bone and muscles. The muscles surrounding the ears are the ones responsible for the supposed movement. The muscles’ surrounding the ears has various functions that assist in chewing, talking and swallowing. When these muscles are moving in a coordinated fashion the ears appears to move.
The Appendix was initially taught to be a vestigial organ, with no defined function. Research however, have found out that the appendix was a reservoir for the GI tract’s normal flora after a bout of dysentery. It is also composed of lymphoid tissues that suggest it has a role in immunity just like the tonsils on the other end of the GI tract.
-
I have a few questions for Creationists:
... What is our appendix for?
For the immune system.
The evolutionist fairy tale is that the appendix is vestigial; a useless remnant of a formerly functioning organ that disappeared via evolution.
And this conclusion is based on what? Pure speculation, that's what. But that shouldn't be surprising, since evolutionists are not bothered by baseless speculation masquerading as "science" anyway.
The appendix was formerly thought to be without any useful function. But today, the appendix is recognized as a highly specialized organ with a contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles --- highly specialized structures that are a part of the immune system.
Appendix Function in the Human Body
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/appendix.shtml
-
Of ears and appendix....
Strictly speaking humans cannot move their ears, it’s just an appearance of movement. The outer ear called the “pinna” is composed of cartilage and skin so it is not capable of movement since it is devoid of bone and muscles. The muscles surrounding the ears are the ones responsible for the supposed movement. The muscles’ surrounding the ears has various functions that assist in chewing, talking and swallowing. When these muscles are moving in a coordinated fashion the ears appears to move.
The Appendix was initially taught to be a vestigial organ, with no defined function. Research however, have found out that the appendix was a reservoir for the GI tract’s normal flora after a bout of dysentery. It is also composed of lymphoid tissues that suggest it has a role in immunity just like the tonsils on the other end of the GI tract.
what about the wisdom teeth?
-
what about the wisdom teeth?
The loss of wisdom teeth in succeeding generations is the result of diet. Older generations used to eat tough meat and vegetables; hence the need for a larger jaw that had enough space to accommodate wisdom teeth. The processed food diet of succeeding generations caused the jaw to degenerate and shrink, thereby leaving less room for wisdom teeth.
How wisdom teeth can possibly be evidence for evolution is really some fairy tale from la la land.
-
what about the wisdom teeth?
MacGregor, A.J., 1985. The Impacted Lower Wisdom Tooth, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 3.
MacGregor concluded in an extensive study that the ‘increase of brain size at the expense of jaw size’ evolutionary view is invalid and that the:
‘Evidence derived from paleontology, anthropology, and experiment indicates very convincingly that a reduction in jaw size has occurred due to civilization. The main associated factor appears to be the virtual absence of inter proximal attrition, but initial tooth size may have some effect. Jaw size and dental attrition are related and they have both decreased with modern diet. Jaws were thought to be reduced in size in the course of evolution but close examination reveals that within the species Homo sapiens, this may not have occurred. What was thought to be a good example of evolution in progress has been shown to be better explained otherwise.’110
-
I have a few questions for Creationists:
Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation “model” to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales.
Snakes and whales do not have vestigial hind legs. Why don't they first prove that those small bones really are vestigial hind legs?
Those bones serve to strengthen the reproductive organs by providing an anchor. Unlike hind legs, they are not attached to the vertebral column. There is no fossil evidence proving that those bones are remnants of hind legs.
The scientists just looked at the bones, then simply concluded that they are vestigial hind legs. Based on what evidence? Wala lang, basta daw vestigial hind legs yon, wag ka nang matanong ... :D
That's not scientific, that's blind promotion of the evolutionist agenda.
-
The loss of wisdom teeth in succeeding generations is the result of diet. Older generations used to eat tough meat and vegetables; hence the need for a larger jaw that had enough space to accommodate wisdom teeth. The processed food diet of succeeding generations caused the jaw to degenerate and shrink, thereby leaving less room for wisdom teeth.
How wisdom teeth can possibly be evidence for evolution is really some fairy tale from la la land.
that entailed adaptation right? and adaptation is an aspect of evolution. how can it be some fairy tale from lala land when you yourself explained the old use of wisdom teeth?
ADAPTATION DEFINED
"adaptations are traits (or characters) that have been subjected to natural selection" This means that the trait has "evolved" (been modified during its evolutionary history) in ways that have contributed to the FITNESS of the organism manifesting it .
-
that entailed adaptation right? and adaptation is an aspect of evolution. how can it be some fairy tale from lala land when you yourself explained the old use of wisdom teeth?
ADAPTATION DEFINED
"adaptations are traits (or characters) that have been subjected to natural selection" This means that the trait has "evolved" (been modified during its evolutionary history) in ways that have contributed to the FITNESS of the organism manifesting it .
Sir,
Adaption yes! By ancient humans to modern man and NOT from primitive Ape to Modern Man!
This more appropriate...
"FITNESS of the SAME organism manifesting it"
-
that entailed adaptation right? and adaptation is an aspect of evolution. how can it be some fairy tale from lala land when you yourself explained the old use of wisdom teeth?
Yes, that entailed adaptation. No, that did not entail macroevolution.
Ang layo mo namang lumundag sir. Pag nawala ang wisdom tooth ng tao, ang resulta, tao pa rin, hindi unggoy.
Sa iyo pala, nawala lang ang wisdom tooth ng tao, ebidensiya na agad yon na naging elepante ang bacteria. Pag hindi pa rin fairy tale sa iyo yon, wala na akong magagawa sa iyo... :D
-
Peppered Moths and Australian Rabbits
Both are examples of variations or adaption of the same organism in response to various factors, like environmental, predation, migration, and introduction of a virus. All the research on this topic cautions the reader about attributing “100% of the work to Natural Selection”. All these changes in the organism in question are happening in the SAME organism in the same population! To say that this would translate to evolution of the moth or rabbit to another entirely new organism or that this mechanism is the proof that evolution will happen in the macro level is a ……LEAP OF FAITH!!!
-
Peppered Moths and Australian Rabbits
Both are examples of variations or adaption of the same organism in response to various factors, like environmental, predation, migration, and introduction of a virus. All the research on this topic cautions the reader about attributing “100% of the work to Natural Selection”. All these changes in the organism in question are happening in the SAME organism in the same population! To say that this would translate to evolution of the moth or rabbit to another entirely new organism or that this mechanism is the proof that evolution will happen in the macro level is a ……LEAP OF FAITH!!!
hmmm... ika nga ng mga dakilang scientist... JUST ADD TIME... evolution is in process over a span of 'lets say' hmmm... billion of years... ;D
TIME is the great factor there... he he he...
-
First look at Russell Crowe as Noah
August 15, 2012
By: Bobby Blakey
Paramount Pictures has released the first official image of Russell Crowe as Noah, from the much anticipated film from Darren Aronofsky’s NOAH.
http://www.examiner.com/article/first-look-at-russell-crowe-as-noah
:D
-
Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3
A team of researchers at Michigan State University has documented the step-by-step process in which organisms evolve new functions.
The results, published in the current issue of Nature, are revealed through an in-depth, genomics-based analysis that decodes how E. coli bacteria figured out how to supplement a traditional diet of glucose with an extra course of citrate.
“It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.”
http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/
-
But, but, but...we were engineered. Right, Ridley Scott? Move along. Nothing to contribute here.
-
Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3
A team of researchers at Michigan State University has documented the step-by-step process in which organisms evolve new functions.
The results, published in the current issue of Nature, are revealed through an in-depth, genomics-based analysis that decodes how E. coli bacteria figured out how to supplement a traditional diet of glucose with an extra course of citrate.
“It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.”
http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/
"The experiment demonstrates natural selection at work" a curious statement in the article...(not so) natural selection after all...
E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. Thus by subjecting the e.coli to certain condition like presence of oxygen, then they will adapt to the new environment and those strains that has developed the ability to utilize citrate will prosper and those that don't will die off.....still microevolution in the same organism. To conclude that this would translate to macroevolution is asking too much of the e.coli!
-
Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3
A team of researchers at Michigan State University has documented the step-by-step process in which organisms evolve new functions.
The results, published in the current issue of Nature, are revealed through an in-depth, genomics-based analysis that decodes how E. coli bacteria figured out how to supplement a traditional diet of glucose with an extra course of citrate.
“It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.”
http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/
Ang babaw pala ng kaligayahan nila... :D
1988 - Richard Lenski started the long-term evolution experiments which supposedly allows direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory, using E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria.
After more than 56,000 generations, what bacterial "evolution" did they observe? Naging tao ba yung bacteria? Hindi. Naging surot man lang? Hindi rin. Naging butete man lang sana? Hindi rin.
Naging ano pala yung bacteria? --- bacteria pa rin. Hindi man lang naging ibang type of bacteria? Hindi --- E. coli pa rin. :P
But wait --- the lab results showed that after 33,000 generations, the E. coli showed the ability to metabolize citrate!
Is this a new ability? No. E. coli can normally metabolize citrate under anaerobic conditions.
But wait again --- the lab results showed that the E. coli can now metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions.
Is this a new ability? No. E. coli can metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions. This is very rare, but it is certainly not new.
So after more than 56,000 generations of E. coli in the lab, what new ability did the lab E. coli acquire? Nothing.
--- Ngek! :P
-
Ang babaw pala ng kaligayahan nila... :D
1988 - Richard Lenski started the long-term evolution experiments which supposedly allows direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory, using E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria.
After more than 56,000 generations, what bacterial "evolution" did they observe? Naging tao ba yung bacteria? Hindi. Naging surot man lang? Hindi rin. Naging butete man lang sana? Hindi rin.
Naging ano pala yung bacteria? --- bacteria pa rin. Hindi man lang naging ibang type of bacteria? Hindi --- E. coli pa rin. :P
But wait --- the lab results showed that after 33,000 generations, the E. coli showed the ability to metabolize citrate!
Is this a new ability? No. E. coli can normally metabolize citrate under anaerobic conditions.
But wait again --- the lab results showed that the E. coli can now metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions.
Is this a new ability? No. E. coli can metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions. This is very rare, but it is certainly not new.
So after more than 56,000 generations of E. coli in the lab, what new ability did the lab E. coli acquire? Nothing.
--- Ngek! :P
hmm.... well... sabi nga ng mga great scientist... time will tell.... lets wait for another 2 billion generations of E. coli... :) ;) ;D
-
(http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/582342_10151335751434483_1885517820_n.jpg)
>:D
-
(http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/582342_10151335751434483_1885517820_n.jpg)
>:D
most will become goats, not sheep.
-
Watch and share this video about evolution to others. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0
-
Watch and share this video about evolution to others. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0
Well made, but still flawed presentation....here are some questionable statements.
"The theory of Evolution has NEVER demanded presence of transitional species"
-This statement seem to contradict Darwin's claim in his Book: If my theory were true...numberless intermediate varieties....must assuredly have existed.
"There is evidence that one animal evolved directly from another"
-Where is this Evidence?
-
"There is evidence that one animal evolved directly from another"
-Where is this Evidence?
Patrick Ewing?
Zoraida Sanchez(RIP), Vice Ganda? ;) ;) ;)
JOKE LANG PO. :-X
-
Well made, but still flawed presentation....here are some questionable statements.
"The theory of Evolution has NEVER demanded presence of transitional species"
-This statement seem to contradict Darwin's claim in his Book: If my theory were true...numberless intermediate varieties....must assuredly have existed.
"There is evidence that one animal evolved directly from another"
-Where is this Evidence?
give us more fund... and we will dig more to find that evidence... whoooooo... money money money...
-
give us more fund... and we will dig more to find that evidence... whoooooo... money money money...
I'd rather give money to these guys than to organized religion anyway.
-
I'd rather give money to these guys than to organized religion anyway.
well... they are the same.... they just want money from their believers....
-
well... they are the same.... they just want money from their believers....
yeah, no they're not. scientists need money to discover the truth while organized religion and religious fanatics want money to suppress the truth, other than profiteering of course.
as Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson says:
(http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/77662/82944467.jpg)
-
i just watch Dawkins vs Cardinal Perrel of Australia in Q&A. vid is available at youtube. Is the Catholic Church now saying evolution can be God's way of creation and the Adam and Eve story is mythology?
-
watch Bill Nye burn Ken Ham in this Evolution vs Creation debate:
http://io9.com/watch-bill-nye-debate-the-creation-musum-live-right-1516136046
personally, Bill Nye shouldn't have bothered debating with Ken Ham as it is a complete waste of time and gives exposure to these people.
-
I think a scientist who is a devout Christian would be a more interesting debating partner for Ken Ham so that his audience will not view him as an Enemy and would be more open-minded to what he has to say.
-
Pat Robertson Disagrees With Creationist Ken Ham, Says 'Let's Not Make A Joke Of Ourselves'
Bill Nye "The Science Guy's" highly anticipated debate with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum had a lot of people talking-- including televangelist Pat Robertson, who implored Ham to stop making creationists look bad, according to Raw Story.
In a video of his appearance on the 700 Club TV program, captured by Right Wing Watch, Robertson reacted to the debate between Ham and Nye by reiterating his previously stated belief that Young Earth Creationism is false.
"There ain't no way that's possible," he said, referring to the belief put forth by Bishop James Ussher that the earth is 6,000 years old.
"We have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back 65 million years," Robertson stated. "To say it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense."
That's not to say that Robertson doesn't believe in creationism at all, however. He puts his faith in a God-guided evolutionary process, declaring "I believe that God started it all, and he is in charge of all of it. But the fact that you have progressive evolution under his control, that doesn't hurt my faith at all."
His point of view is not uncommon. A recent Pew Research survey revealed that 24 percent of U.S. adults that believe that humans have evolved over time think that a supreme being guided the process.
"No one knows what caused the Big Bang, but I say God did it," asserted Robertson on the 700 club.
Robertson went on to say that Ussher "was just off" with his estimation of 6,000 years for the age of the earth.
"Let's be real," he said. "Let's not make a joke of ourselves."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/05/pat-robertson-creationism-ken-ham_n_4733625.html
-
Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools
(http://cdn.ph.upi.com/sv/b//i/UPI-5631403128922/2014/1/14031302016977/Teaching-creationism-as-scientifically-valid-now-banned-in-all-UK-public-schools.jpg)
UK government: "The requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum … prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.”
The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationism as scientifically valid in all schools receiving public funding.
The government released a new set of funding agreements last week including clauses which specifically prohibit pseudoscience.
"The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies. They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact," one clause reads.
The funding agreement defines creationism as "any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution," and goes on to note that this idea is rejected not only by the scientific community but most mainstream churches as well.
"It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory," the agreement states.
The funding agreement notes that the discussion of beliefs about the origin of the Earth including creationism are permitted in religious education "as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory."
The British Humanist Association has been lobbying against the instruction of creationism since 2011 with its Teach Evolutionism, Not Creationism campaign.
The BHA is currently celebrating the UK government's declaration that "the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum ... prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school."
"We believe that this means that the objectives of the campaign are largely met. We congratulate the Government on its robust stance on this issue," said BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal in a statement on the organization's website.
The United Kingdom's position on creationism in the classroom and public discourse is an interesting parallel to the United States', where celebrity scientist BIll Nye engages in public debate about the validity of creationism and two states, South Carolina and Missouri, saw anti-evolution bills proposed in the last month.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/06/18/Teaching-creationism-as-scientifically-valid-now-banned-in-all-UK-public-schools/5631403128922/#ixzz35FgUmZOI
-
Children taught "a lie" at Christian schools, says Bristol broadcaster Alice Roberts
A SCIENCE curriculum used by private Christian schools across the UK, including one in Bristol, has been criticised by broadcaster and scientist Professor Alice Roberts.
She said the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum, which is used at Carmel Christian School in Brislington, taught "a lie" to pupils about the theory of evolution.
The school, which teaches Creationism in science, undergoes Ofsted inspections but does not have the content of its curriculum scrutinised.
Appearing on BBC2’s Newsnight Prof Roberts, a former pupil at the Red Maids’ School in Westbury-on-Trym and president of the Association of Science Education, took issue with Creationism being taught in ACE school science lessons.
She said: “No evidence has come to light which disproves evolution despite what the ACE text books say.
“The Government is quite clear that science should be taught as a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced theory. That’s their own advice to free schools, so we have one rule for state-funded schools but when it comes to private schools, we don’t seem to mind if science is not taught properly or not.
“There should be standards (in private schools) - Ofsted does visit them. Standards should include the content of the curriculum and not just the quality of the teaching and leadership which is what Ofsted has done before.
“Partly in response to the Birmingham schools (Trojan Horse Islamic extremism), Ofsted will hopefully have a tighter inspection regime coming into play where they look at the content of curricular.
“The ACE text books say evolution is a scientifically unsound theory, which is patently untrue - this is a lie children are being taught.
“The issue is that the Department for Education and Government, which holds a view on this, which says that evolution should be taught as a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidence theory, should be extended to independent schools when assessing standards in independent schools.”
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Children-taught-lie-Christian-schools-says/story-21250043-detail/story.html#ixzz35SBBr2S2
-
The human race is seemingly evolving again. Yung mga lalaki nagiging babae ang mga babae nagiging lalaki. We now have two more additional human species, di ba?
-
The human race is seemingly evolving again. Yung mga lalaki nagiging babae ang mga babae nagiging lalaki. We now have two more additional human species, di ba?
Nope. pag sinabing one species ibig sabihin members can mate with each other. Sa dogs kahit iba iba itsura nila at sizes still one species pa rin kasi pwede sila mag-mate and produce an offspring.
pag hindi magkakaanak, then two distinct species na yun.
I read Dawkins' book about speciation (if that was the actual term he used, i forgot), and he explained this simply using a time machine explanation. he said na pag bumalik ka sa time at any given period yung maaabutan mo sa period na yun ay one species na pwede magreproduce, balik ka ng 10 thousand years and though may kaunting changes na sa species pwede pa ring magreproduce dun sa inabutan mong una 10000 years after. pero kung malayong agwat ang tinalon mo say 50 million years, kahit daw makita mong magkahawig pa rin sila, most probably magkaibang species na sila.
his point is there is no single event/moment or period in time na masasabi mong ito ang unang tao galing sa ape ancestor kasi daw ang point of reference mo would be much similar sa subject mo.
isa pa nyang example ay ganito: yung picture mo nung bata ka at ngayon ay magkaiba di ba? kasi you are looking at exact moments, ganun din daw ang evolution. pero sa araw araw na buhay mo nagbabagao ka at tumatanda, pero there was no particular day or moment na masasabi mong di na ako bata, matanda na ako because the transition between them is not sudden.
kaya mali yung nagiisip na ang evolution ay unggoy kahapon tapos paggising mo ngayong umaga tao na.
-
Lately kasi me case na na feature sa TV na dalawa ang organ ng lalaki kaya namili na lang siya, tsk tsk tsk pang ilang case nato that is why I am saying nag-eevolve na yata ang tao ulit. bakamangyari nyan next time at hindi ito ma check mabubuntis na nya miusmo ang sarili nya, so baka ito ang sinasabi mong a unique species that can reproduce itself hehe!
-
Lately kasi me case na na feature sa TV na dalawa ang organ ng lalaki kaya namili na lang siya, tsk tsk tsk pang ilang case nato that is why I am saying nag-eevolve na yata ang tao ulit. bakamangyari nyan next time at hindi ito ma check mabubuntis na nya miusmo ang sarili nya, so baka ito ang sinasabi mong a unique species that can reproduce itself hehe!
complete po ba both reproductive system or un genital lang nagkasabay?
-
Dont really know kung buo repro system nya pero obvious yung male and female organ. Now if this happens baka there will be a time that the next case will be different if in case meron siya male and female repro, then this will be a new species.
In our environment there are always new life sprouting here and there. Is this evolution or creation?
-
For some reason, naalala ko itong thread na ito when I was reading this:
Paleo Diet (http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/10/04/the-beginners-guide-to-the-paleo-diet/)
hehe
-
Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools
Dito ba sa PH, tinuturo sa schools as scientifically valid ang creation story?
If it is being taught in religion / christian living class, is it being taught as a symbolical story? Or is it being taught as something that actually happened?
It's been a long time since I was in school and my kid is not yet old enough to be in school, so I just wanted to ask.
-
I haven't backread pero ano nga yung "science" na pwede daw ang "Something can come out from Absolutely Nothing"?
Quantum Physics ba yon?
-
I haven't backread pero ano nga yung "science" na pwede daw ang "Something can come out from Absolutely Nothing"?
Quantum Physics ba yon?
Science doesn't even insinuate that. Scientist themselves are trying to figure out what happened before the big bang.
-
I haven't backread pero ano nga yung "science" na pwede daw ang "Something can come out from Absolutely Nothing"?
Quantum Physics ba yon?
meron ba nun?
paniniwala ko there's no such as thing as nothing. ganun din sa magic, there's no such thing as magic.
ang "nothing" nga sa bible means "something that cannot be seen". at base sa interpretation ko, wala din naman magic sa bible.
-
Dito ba sa PH, tinuturo sa schools as scientifically valid ang creation story?
afaik, walang tinuturong ganyan kahit sa catholic school.
If it is being taught in religion / christian living class, is it being taught as a symbolical story? Or is it being taught as something that actually happened?
it is being taught as what actually happened. minsan may comment nga lang na ang fruit o apple daw, ang symbolic. hehe.
-
afaik, walang tinuturong ganyan kahit sa catholic school.
it is being taught as what actually happened. minsan may comment nga lang na ang fruit o apple daw, ang symbolic. hehe.
i remember back when i was in highschool sa science class sinasabi na hindi literal ang 7 day creation. i was taught in a catholic school but even then i find it hard to believe yung creation story.
-
Science doesn't even insinuate that. Scientist themselves are trying to figure out what happened before the big bang.
Yeh sa "Philosophy"/Logic side nga siya kasi siguro di science. :)
-
Science doesn't even insinuate that. Scientist themselves are trying to figure out what happened before the big bang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U
-
^ Hmm.. Reading sa comments if true, yung Krauss all in pala sa Incest, related don sa thread na isa (http://thread na isa).
Anyway on topic, actually sa IMDB discussion ko atah nabasa yung "physics" na yon, di ko na makita link, di ko rin maalala kung anong movie discussion yon.
Sa Noah ni Crowe board atah. :D
-
^ Hmm.. Reading sa comments if true, si Krauss all in pala sa Incest, related don sa thread na isa (http://thread na isa).
Anyway on topic, actually sa IMDB discussion ko atah nabasa yung "physics" na yon, di ko na makita link, di ko rin maalala kung anong movie discussion yon.
Sa Noah ni Crowe board atah. :D
sa isa (o ilang) books ni Dawkins diniscuss din niya yan
-
In an episode of Ancient Aliens on History one of the scientist said this on ancient knowledge:
"The big bang theory states that the universe started from infinitesimal point of light-energy, the bible said
In the beginning God said "let the be light". So in that instance Faith and Science converge!"
-
In an episode of Ancient Aliens on History one of the scientist said this on ancient knowledge:
"The big bang theory states that the universe started from infinitesimal point of light-energy, the bible said
In the beginning God said "let the be light". So in that instance Faith and Science converge!"
Not really. When God said "let the be light", He clearly came before the light. The big bang theory states that the universe started from infinitesimal point of light-energy, meaning before it, there is nothing.
-
Genesis
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
nauna ang plants before the sun
-
Genesis
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
nauna ang plants before the sun
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
-
the sun and moon was created in the fourth day not during and in the first day as per the genesis kaya nauna talaga plants before sun, so paano nabuhay?
-
kung science ang pag-uusapan wala kang make question sa creation (maliban siyempre sa biglang paglitaw :))... but its chronoligcal order... scientifically wise/sound ang creation...
-
the sun and moon was created in the fourth day not during and in the first day as per the genesis kaya nauna talaga plants before sun, so paano nabuhay?
sun is greater light and moon is lesser light...
nasa post na ri ni bimblebee... sa verse 3 kung ano ang first day... God creaed day and night - The First Day... and then plant and then hinati lang niya ang light... greater and lesser light... thus sun and moon...
-
the sun and moon was created in the fourth day not during and in the first day as per the genesis kaya nauna talaga plants before sun, so paano nabuhay?
But there was light on the first day, kahit hindi sya sun. So pwede pa ring mabuhay plants kasi they need light, not necessarily light from the sun :)
Editing this.
Na-gets ko na gusto mong sabihin. Oo nga naman. Plants before sun?
-
But there was light on the first day, kahit hindi sya sun. So pwede pa ring mabuhay plants kasi they need light, not necessarily light from the sun :)
and ang sinasabi sa verse 14... hinati lang ang light sa dalawa... greater light (Sun) and lesser light (Moon)... still nauna pa rin ang light kesa sa vegetation/plants.... :)
-
and ang sinasabi sa verse 14... hinati lang ang light sa dalawa... greater light (Sun) and lesser light (Moon)... still nauna pa rin ang light kesa sa vegetation/plants.... :)
Sorry for the confusion dpogs:) I edited my post.
-
di ba night and day is determined by Sun's rotation and the earth's revolution and the moon's as well, paano nagka day and night kung wala pang sun and moon?
at ano yung light na yan na kahit wala pang sun moon and stars ay nakapag-photosynthesis ang mga plants?
so kung hinati lang ang light sa dalawa, saan nagmumula yung light? I mean moon's light comes from the sun. the sun's light is a product of it's combustion and so are the stars'?
-
ang sabi nga ni bumblebee hindi lang sun ang source of light...
sun and moon are there just to separate night and day... God created day and night first day.. He created Sun and moon just to separate day and night and govern it... he doesnot create Sun to create day or moon to create night...
-
kung science ang pag-uusapan wala kang make question sa creation (maliban siyempre sa biglang paglitaw :))... but its chronoligcal order... scientifically wise/sound ang creation...
Sorry but can't help but chuckle on this. And what is this light you're referring to kung wala pang sun? You're basically saying earth was created before the sun.
-
basahin at intindihin nating mabuti yung verses.
KJV
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
sa verse 3, singular ang light. that refers to the sun kaya nga may day and night, morning and evening.
sa verse 14, plural na. meaning, yan na lahat ng lights na nakikita natin sa gabi. stars, moon, galaxies, etc. at binigyang emphasis ang purpose. para maging signs (constellations/occurence of eclipses, blood moons), seasons (we have seasons due to the influence of the moon on earth), days and years (self explanatory).
verse 16-18 is just an elaboration of the purpose of the lights made by God.
-
kung science ang pag-uusapan wala kang make question sa creation (maliban siyempre sa biglang paglitaw :))... but its chronoligcal order... scientifically wise/sound ang creation...
creation account is scientific. from big-bang to evolution and even human cloning.
anong ibig mong sabihin sa biglang paglitaw?
-
seasons (we have seasons due to the influence of the moon to earth)
seasons are not caused by the moon. it's because of the tilt of the Earth's axis.
-
basahin at intindihin nating mabuti yung verses.
sa verse 3, singular ang light. that refers to the sun kaya nga may day and night, morning and evening.
sa verse 14, plural na. meaning, yan na lahat ng lights na nakikita natin sa gabi. stars, moon, galaxies, etc. at binigyang emphasis ang purpose. para maging signs (constellations/occurence of eclipses, blood moons), seasons (we have seasons due to the influence of the moon on earth), days and years (self explanatory).
verse 16-18 is just an elaboration of the purpose of the lights made by God.
If Genesis stated that God made the stars first, pwede pa. The sun is a very young star. The verses are also very earth-centric. We all know that the earth revolves around the sun not the other way around.
-
seasons are not caused by the moon. it's because of the tilt of the Earth's axis.
true. what i meant was, the moon caused the earth to tilt thus we have seasons.
-
If Genesis stated that God made the stars first, pwede pa. The sun is a very young star. The verses are also very earth-centric. We all know that the earth revolves around the sun not the other way around.
young? can you prove it?
the verses never imply that the sun revolves around the earth.
-
young? can you prove it?
the verses never imply that the sun revolves around the earth.
Ah but the Church and even Calvin used scripture to prove that the heavenly bodies like the moon and sun moved but not the earth. By extension, geocentricity (that the Earth was the center of the universe) was deemed real.
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day
Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Too bad for Copernicus. It was even worse for Galileo, who was essentially tasked to prove, in front of an ecumenical council, that dozens of bible verses were incorrect or untrue.
-
true. what i meant is, the moon caused the earth to tilt thus we have seasons.
again, it does not. the tilt of the Earth's axis is caused by asteroids/comets colliding with the Earth back when the Solar System was just forming. Incidentally, Earth was rotating a lot faster then than it does now (once every 6 to 10 hrs). The Moon's effect is it gradually slowed Earth's rotation down to 24 hrs. Thus, the Moon is not the reason why Earth's axis is tilted.
-
again, it does not. the tilt of the Earth's axis is caused by asteroids/comets colliding with the Earth back when the Solar System was just forming. Incidentally, Earth was rotating a lot faster then than it does now (once every 6 to 10 hrs). The Moon's effect is it gradually slowed Earth's rotation down to 24 hrs. Thus, the Moon is not the reason why Earth's axis is tilted.
that's a theory, right? i saw that film too.
try reading topic on "nutation".
-
Ah but the Church and even Calvin used scripture to prove that the heavenly bodies like the moon and sun moved but not the earth. By extension, geocentricity (that the Earth was the center of the universe) was deemed real.
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day
Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Too bad for Copernicus. It was even worse for Galileo, who was essentially tasked to prove, in front of an ecumenical council, that dozens of bible verses were incorrect or untrue.
binasa ko :)
yung sa joshua, momentary lang yun. 1 day lang nangyari. still, hindi ibig sabihin na ang earth ang center ng solar system.
yung sa psalm, out of context kung i rerelate sa pagiging earth-centric :)
world is "sanlibutan" sa tagalog di ba?
-
that's a theory, right? i saw that film too.
try reading topic on "nutation".
it is the prevailing theory. yes i know about nutation. nutation yung cause ng wobbling ng Earth but not the reason why we have seasons and not the reason why Earth's axis is tilted.
-
young? can you prove it?
the verses never imply that the sun revolves around the earth.
It is an accepted fact that the sun is around 5 billion years old (half life). Supernovas and black holes are stars that have "died" so they're much older.
-
it is the prevailing theory. yes i know about nutation. nutation yung cause ng wobbling ng Earth but not the reason why we have seasons and not the reason why Earth's axis is tilted.
i just found out that it's just a hypothesis. the "big splash" has no acceptable evidence to back it up.
i believe this was conceived because of the notion that everything happened by accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation
Nutation makes a small change to the angle at which the Earth tilts with respect to the Sun, changing the location of the major circles of latitude that are defined by the Earth's tilt (the equator, tropical circles and polar circles).
In the case of the Earth, the principal sources of tidal force are the Sun and Moon, which continuously change location relative to each other and thus cause nutation in Earth's axis. The largest component of Earth's nutation has a period of 18.6 years, the same as that of the precession of the Moon's orbital nodes.
what do you think of this small change in the course of million years?
-
It is an accepted fact that the sun is around 5 billion years old (half life). Supernovas and black holes are stars that have "died" so they're much older.
yes, it's a fact. wiki tells us that it's roughly 4.567 billion years :)
so how did they determine the age of the stars?
-
i just found out that it's just a hypothesis. the "big splash" has no acceptable evidence to back it up.
i believe this was conceived because of the notion that everything happened by accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation
what do you think of this small change in the course of million years?
nutation is not the reason for any planet's tilted axis. Venus has no moon yet its axis is tilted by approximately 177 degrees. you're saying that Venus is tilted because of nutation? Venus disproves that theory. also, if nutation is indeed the cause of Earth's axial tilt then the variation of the Earth's wobble would've been much greater than 1.2 degrees specially since you've mentioned millions of years but that is not the case.
the prevailing theory that has merit is that an external force, about the size of Mars, colliding with the Proto-Earth, at a 45 degree angle. they have tested this in simulations which, in Science, is an acceptable evidence.
another theory that is gaining ground is attributed to glacier polar caps in the north pole back in the Ice Age. it is said that the Earth was tilted as much as 55 degrees and the build up and melting of glaciers might have created enough force to reduce the tilt to what it is now.
a minor theory is that earthquakes caused the axial tilt.
-
yes, it's a fact. wiki tells us that it's roughly 4.567 billion years :)
so how did they determine the age of the stars?
wiki didn't tell us the age. Science does.
and how did they determine the age of the stars? Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
-
Not really. When God said "let the be light", He clearly came before the light. The big bang theory states that the universe started from infinitesimal point of light-energy, meaning before it, there is nothing.
.
In Genesis 1:3 God said "let there be light" , before this is a statement that God created the heavens and earth and the earth was formless. I take it that this first light is not coming from the sun but from God Himself. This light was intantenously created( ...and then there was light.) much like the description of the light-energy in the big bang theory. Hence the similaties between the two. While scientists believe that there was "nothing" before the light, while the other believe a supreme being outside time and space caused the light into existense. There is a fundamental law called the law of cause and effect which applies to everything right? Even all our HT gears were created or made by someone, thus it would be inconcievable to think that the more complex and vast universe had no cause whatsoever.
-
.
In Genesis 1:3 God said "let there be light" , before this is a statement that God created the heavens and earth and the earth was formless. I take it that this first light is not coming from the sun but from God Himself. This light was intantenously created( ...and then there was light.) much like the description of the light-energy in the big bang theory. Hence the similaties between the two. While scientists believe that there was "nothing" before the light, while the other believe a supreme being outside time and space caused the light into existense. There is a fundamental law called the law of cause and effect which applies to everything right? Even all our HT gears were created or made by someone, thus it would be inconcievable to think that the more complex and vast universe had no cause whatsoever.
I understand where you're coming from. But the big bang theory doesn't prove there is a god because it doesn't account for anything the happens before it. There is no event, no nothing before it. And there's only 1 universe.
Now, there have been concepts of multiverses, each formed by it's own big bang. Dito, pwedeng isingit yung existence ng god dyan. But not with the original big bang theory.
-
Argument is flawed. Therefore something caused God. Believers are ready to accept that God just is but unwilling to accept that the big bang's infinitesimal light energy simply was.
-
Yes causality applies within our realm of time and space.
-
I understand where you're coming from. But the big bang theory doesn't prove there is a god because it doesn't account for anything the happens before it. There is no event, no nothing before it. And there's only 1 universe.
Now, there have been concepts of multiverses, each formed by it's own big bang. Dito, pwedeng isingit yung existence ng god dyan. But not with the original big bang theory.
Correct bro, i agree that the theory doesn't prove the existence of God. My point is just on the similaties between theory and the bible regarding the start of the universe.
-
Argument is flawed. Therefore something caused God. Believers are ready to accept that God just is but unwilling to accept that the big bang's infinitesimal light energy simply was.
Bro by definiton, God is uncreated, therefore no cause. Thus the statement is illogicall.
The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. However God, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. Also, Einstein’s general relativity, shows that time is linked to matter and space at the start of the universe. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.
-
What if i say there is a God who created this God we are talking about now?
-
"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
Max Planck - Nobel Prize winner in Physics, founder of Quantum Theory
-
"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
Max Planck - Nobel Prize winner in Physics, founder of Quantum Theory
that is what you call an opinion.
-
the universe is estimated at 14 billion years...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
dinasours at around 230 million years...
mankind...200,000 years...
the bible...2000...
go figure...
-
What if i say there is a God who created this God we are talking about now?
Sir, if you show can show me an ancient book, writing or evidence to the god who created God then i'll reconsider my position. But what do we have now is....The Bible! The book says God is Eternal or timeless, all-powerful He should be to create evrything! And He is also Spirit. Thus to say an eternal being has a creator is irrational.
-
What if i say there is a God who created this God we are talking about now?
Yan ata yun gnostic?
-
Sir, if you show can show me an ancient book, writing or evidence to the god who created God then i'll reconsider my position. But what do we have now is....The Bible! The book says God is Eternal or timeless, all-powerful He should be to create evrything! And He is also Spirit. Thus to say an eternal being has a creator is irrational.
yeeah... the ancient Egyptians have their Pyramid Texts and multiple books (i.e. Book of the Dead, Book of Am-Tuat, Book of Gates, etc.), Buddhists have their Sutras, the Greek mythology also has their own ancient texts, the Mayans have their codices, Hinduism has the Four Vedas same as the Indo-Aryans, ancient Canaanites also have tablets for their polytheistic religion, so on and so forth.
what's your point?
-
that is what you call an opinion.
Doesn't make the Nobel prize winner's "opinion" any less valid, after all he is only a physicist. He has neither the wisdom nor intellect to make such a presumptious statement.
-
Doesn't make the Nobel prize winner's "opinion" any less valid, after all he is only a physicist. He has neither the wisdom nor intellect to make such a presumptious statement.
whether or not it's valid is besides the point. it is still an opinion and should not be treated as truth. same as religious creationist beliefs.
-
nutation is not the reason for any planet's tilted axis. Venus has no moon yet its axis is tilted by approximately 177 degrees. you're saying that Venus is tilted because of nutation? Venus disproves that theory. also, if nutation is indeed the cause of Earth's axial tilt then the variation of the Earth's wobble would've been much greater than 1.2 degrees specially since you've mentioned millions of years but that is not the case.
of course, nutation is just one factor. the point is, as long as one celestial body causes perturbation to the other body, it can cause a change in another body's position or orientation whether it precesses, tilts, or wanders. in the case of venus, it's the sun that causes most of the perturbation.
the prevailing theory that has merit is that an external force, about the size of Mars, colliding with the Proto-Earth, at a 45 degree angle. they have tested this in simulations which, in Science, is an acceptable evidence.
another theory that is gaining ground is attributed to glacier polar caps in the north pole back in the Ice Age. it is said that the Earth was tilted as much as 55 degrees and the build up and melting of glaciers might have created enough force to reduce the tilt to what it is now.
a minor theory is that earthquakes caused the axial tilt.
i have no objections to any of these scientific hypotheses or theories. as a God believer, my position is this. God will reveal Himself through his creation and these scientific studies and discoveries are tools to uncover those wonders.
-
yeeah... the ancient Egyptians have their Pyramid Texts and multiple books (i.e. Book of the Dead, Book of Am-Tuat, Book of Gates, etc.), Buddhists have their Sutras, the Greek mythology also has their own ancient texts, the Mayans have their codices, Hinduism has the Four Vedas same as the Indo-Aryans, ancient Canaanites also have tablets for their polytheistic religion, so on and so forth.
what's your point?
I was responding to sir Quitacet's statement that "there is a god that created the God in the bible", All the ancient writings you enumerated were the religions in ancient times and has no direct relation to the God of the bible. By far there is no writing that claims that the God of the bible has a creator.
-
of course, nutation is just one factor. the point is, as long as one celestial body causes perturbation to the other body, it can cause a change in another body's position or orientation whether it precesses, tilts, or wanders. in the case of venus, it's the sun that causes most of the perturbation.
in this case, the nutation is caused by Venus' tilted axis relative to its orbital plane around the Sun. not the other way around.
i have no objections to any of these scientific hypothesis or theories. as a God believer, my position is this. God will reveal Himself through his creation and these scientific studies and discoveries are tools to uncover those wonders.
well, i'm not really a non-believer, more of agnostic, but i do believe that if there is a "god", it won't resemble any of the ones described by any religion. as i've said before in another thread, this "god" probably lives on a higher plane of existence. simply put, in a higher dimension not bound by our three spatial dimension and time. we can barely understand our 4-dimensional universe what more a being not bound by it? i doubt even that this being, if it does exist, knows that we exist. for all we know we might be living in a hologram as some physicists suggests.
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/universe-hologram
-
I was responding to sir Quitacet's statement that "there is a god that created the God in the bible", All the ancient writings you enumerated were the religions in ancient times and has no direct relation to the God of the bible. By far there is no writing that claims that the God of the bible has a creator.
well, i was responding to your inference that we should just believe in the Bible. i'm responding to the position that we should not question, not be skeptical, not think critically, and just accept what was written on this ancient book. all those that i have mentioned are all "holy" scriptures. what makes the Bible better than any of them?
-
yeeah... the ancient Egyptians have their Pyramid Texts and multiple books (i.e. Book of the Dead, Book of Am-Tuat, Book of Gates, etc.), Buddhists have their Sutras, the Greek mythology also has their own ancient texts, the Mayans have their codices, Hinduism has the Four Vedas same as the Indo-Aryans, ancient Canaanites also have tablets for their polytheistic religion, so on and so forth.
what's your point?
I agree with this.
I believe in the bible, but I am against using the bible as proof that God exists, because that would just be begging the question.
Like using the bible to prove that the bible is true. That's circualr reasoning, which is also a fallacy.
-
wiki didn't tell us the age. Science does.
and how did they determine the age of the stars? Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
no sarcasm intended when i referred to wiki :)
no contentions or objections. i definitely agree that the age of the sun is 4.56 billion years. :)
so how do we determine the age using einstein's theory of relativity?
pardon me for asking this. i'm just curious to know. google won't cooperate with me , hehe.
-
I would conceed that there is no absolute proof of God's existence. However the discovery of laws of nature, such as gravity. All building blocks of life, the movements of the universe, planets etc do reveal His handiwork. As scientist continue to discover these laws that are already there in the first place. We are left with one inevitable conclusion......there is a Mind behind all these wonders we see all around us.
In the same manner that i believe in the existence of sir leomarley, quitacet, majoe, Nelson de leon, tony etc, etc. eventhough i can't see them. The evidence is the intellect/mind behind comments posted in this thread.
As to the bible, i would not pressume it to be better than the rest. But its impact in the world is self evident. For 2000 years it has remain essentially the same. It's teaching unwavering like "though shall not steal"(binay i am looking at you!). Its has stood the test of time and criticism. And the events, cities, personalities have been corroborated in other manuscripts.
-
no sarcasm intended when i referred to wiki :)
no contentions or objections. i definitely agree that the age of the sun is 4.56 billion years. :)
so how do we determine the age using einstein's theory of relativity?
pardon me for asking this. i'm just curious to know. google won't cooperate with me , hehe.
pardon din medyo na-excite ako. what i meant was you can use relativity to know how old the light of a star that you're looking at is. distance of a star can be determined using triangulation. by knowing the distance, once can use the constant speed of light, which was determined using relativity, and determine how many lights years away it is. yung exact age naman is measured by fitting the star with the standard spectral and luminosity classification system. you also need to know the mass to determine the age.
-
well, i'm not really a non-believer, more of agnostic, but i do believe that if there is a "god", it won't resemble any of the ones described by any religion. as i've said before in another thread, this "god" probably lives on a higher plane of existence. simply put, in a higher dimension not bound by our three spatial dimension and time. we can barely understand our 4-dimensional universe what more a being not bound by it? i doubt even that this being, if it does exist, knows that we exist. for all we know we might be living in a hologram as some physicists suggests.
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/universe-hologram
It is good that you believe that there is a God.
But I also believe that God knows that we exist. Being a powerful God who created everything must know that we exist because we are His creation. His craftmanship. Because he is all powerful. That God is not limited by human knowledge or power.
So if there is a god, as you have said, how would you describe Him?
well, i was responding to your inference that we should just believe in the Bible. i'm responding to the position that we should not question, not be skeptical, not think critically, and just accept what was written on this ancient book. all those that i have mentioned are all "holy" scriptures. what makes the Bible better than any of them?
Matindi ang tanong mo! Buti sana if you ask what makes the God of christians better than any of them. Hehe! Pero if you would ask what makes the God of the bible better than any of them, madaming kasagutan diyan. ;)
-
Man created God to have an entity to give thanks and praises to...
unfortunately they use the same to justify and perpetrate man's inhumanity to man...
-
It is good that you believe that there is a God.
But I also believe that God knows that we exist. Being a powerful God who created everything must know that we exist because we are His creation. His craftmanship. Because he is all powerful. That God is not limited by human knowledge or power.
So if there is a god, as you have said, how would you describe Him?
I can't. How can you describe something or someone you haven't even seen yet nor felt the presence. Like I said how can you understand an extra dimensional being when I'm not even sure he existed and when we barely understand our own universe.
Matindi ang tanong mo! Buti sana if you ask what makes the God of christians better than any of them. Hehe! Pero if you would ask what makes the God of the bible better than any of them, madaming kasagutan diyan. ;)
Same thing. Whatever you say with your God, those religions could say the same thing with their own God/s.
-
Man created God to have an entity to give thanks and praises to...
unfortunately they use the same to justify and perpetrate man's inhumanity to man...
Sir, the question is WHY the need for man to create God? Well atheist at least don't believe He exist in the first place, but for everyone else why the need for an entity to praise or to justify violence? Why can't we just be like the animals who don't have this thought process? What makes us different from the animals?
Regardless of whether God is a superior entity who created man or man imagined a superior entity after he "evolved" , we are still faced with an inescapable "presence" of God in our lives. If not as a true living entity or at least an idea. Even the ancient people deified the celestial bodies, wind, earth as personification of God or gods, why? What is the purpose?
The computer for example has hardware and software that we can use for word processing and other productivity skftware, however if there is no internet why is there a need for a browser? If there is no web in the first place, then there is no need for a web browser.....no pinoydvd!
I think the more plausible reality is that the force that made all things may have always been around. What man did was perceive him by what we have our mind, our imagination.
-
Sir, the question is WHY the need for man to create God?
To explain the things he can't understand.
To find solace.
To rule.
On top of my head.
-
I agree with sir bumblebee's post. ever wonder why most, if not all, religions or existence of god/s started in ancient times? It's because of humankind's lack of understanding of the things that are happening around him at that time. Also, it served as a great tool to conquer and rule. Once you've conquered civilizations, it's easy to spread your religion towards the people you've subjugated. We do have a saying that "History is written by the victors". History, in this context, is religion.
-
To explain the things he can't understand.
To find solace.
To rule.
On top of my head.
Sir, it still doesn't answer the fundamental question why?
if Man created God, man is also God!
Then this presupposes that man is superior to God then:
why are there still things man can't explain? Dapat wala na! No need for research, tests, expirements alam na niya lahat.
Next why the need for solace? Man would not need solace since he can't feel disappoinment, sorrow or pain.
Why need god to rule. man can make his own rules. It's ok to kill, steal, etc.
-
I agree with sir bumblebee's post. ever wonder why most, if not all, religions or existence of god/s started in ancient times? It's because of humankind's lack of understanding of the things that are happening around him at that time. Also, it served as a great tool to conquer and rule. Once you've conquered civilizations, it's easy to spread your religion towards the people you've subjugated. We do have a saying that "History is written by the victors". History, in this context, is religion.
Sir, i take it you mean that now man has a FULL understanding of the things that are happening around him? And has come to the conclusion that everything came by sheer chance w/ no intelligence whatsoever behind all these things? Then why is there continious research, expiriments, tests by scientists?
-
Sir, i take it you mean that now man has a FULL understanding of the things that are happening around him? And has come to the conclusion that everything came by sheer chance w/ no intelligence whatsoever behind all these things? Then why is there continious research, expiriments, tests by scientists?
man is constantly looking for perfect....
Sir, the question is WHY the need for man to create God?
no one knows the answer, it just happened....
-
^
Sir, i take it you mean that now man has a FULL understanding of the things that are happening around him? And has come to the conclusion that everything came by sheer chance w/ no intelligence whatsoever behind all these things? Then why is there continious research, expiriments, tests by scientists?
Maybe in the same manner why we have famines, child-raping, children-killing diseases, and all horrible kinds of everything albeit the fact that you have a most powerful, and most intelligent being.
Don't bother. I know that your response will be, it is us man who are the cause of these things.
Escape goat.
Who is responsible for all evil? The devil
Who is rensponsible to what's happening to the world? Man who acted evil.
Who created the devil (or its preincarnation) and man?
I'll blame the chair for being wobbly, but I cannot blame the carpenter who made it.
-
or blame yourself for being overweight that caused the chair to wobble..... >:D >:D >:D
-
Sir, it still doesn't answer the fundamental question why?
Which "why" question? I thought I just answered it.
-
Sir, i take it you mean that now man has a FULL understanding of the things that are happening around him? And has come to the conclusion that everything came by sheer chance w/ no intelligence whatsoever behind all these things? Then why is there continious research, expiriments, tests by scientists?
Exactly the opposite! Nowhere in my statement have i said anything of such. What i'm suggesting is everything can be explained using critical thinking, logic and rationality. Basically, by using Science while the opposite is true of Religion. Those things that you've mentioned are basically dogmas of religion that you should not question what the Church instructs or says.
Science exist because of the fundamental nature of man to be curious. To know why things are and aren't. Science does not claim to know everything but they dare to find out why. Science dares to question everything. If you say that Creation "Theory" is true because the Bible says so and then manipulates "evidences" to fit your belief, then that is not Science.
Sir, it still doesn't answer the fundamental question why?
if Man created God, man is also God!
Then this presupposes that man is superior to God then:
Again, in no way have we said that Man is God. You are making assumptions and twisted it to fit your argument.
We've pointed the reasons why yet you say it does not answer the fundamental question. What fundamental question are you referring to? Do you want us to tell you what you need to hear or what you want to hear?
-
well those who are filthy rich can be Gods....see how people deffer to them...
-
^
Maybe in the same manner why we have famines, child-raping, children-killing diseases, and all horrible kinds of everything albeit the fact that you have a most powerful, and most intelligent being.
Don't bother. I know that your response will be, it is us man who are the cause of these things.
Escape goat.
Who is responsible for all evil? The devil
Who is rensponsible to what's happening to the world? Man who acted evil.
Who created the devil (or its preincarnation) and man?
I'll blame the chair for being wobbly, but I cannot blame the carpenter who made it.
Sir, if you don't agree with my answer just continue this "friendly" discussion. But to say "Don't bother i already know your answer" is disrespectful. I respect your opinion on this subject but if don't like to hear an opposing view then stop reading this thread.....having said that.
I cannot assume to have a definite answer on why God allows evil in this world. I'll try give some probable answers. First, it is possible He has His reason which we can not fully understand.maybe to prove that evil really do exist and is malignant, therefore contrary to His will. If He will not allow this then there is no way for man to know bad from good, rigth from wrong. further let's say we want Him to stop all evil from world, then He would also stop man's freedon of thought.
How about those killed through abortion, young children killed in war. These are despicable acts of man on other people....again these people were given free will. They made a choice and because of that other people suffered.
The existence of free will gives the freedom to choose, right from wrong, bad from good.
-
Sir, if you don't agree with my answer just continue this "friendly" discussion. But to say "Don't bother i already know your answer" is disrespectful. I respect your opinion on this subject but if don't like to hear an opposing view then stop reading this thread.....having said that.
I cannot assume to have a definite answer on why God allows evil in this world. I'll try give some probable answers. First, it is possible He has His reason which we can not fully understand.maybe to prove that evil really do exist and is malignant, therefore contrary to His will. If He will not allow this then there is no way for man to know bad from good, rigth from wrong. further let's say we want Him to stop all evil from world, then He would also stop man's freedon of thought.
How about those killed through abortion, young children killed in war. These are despicable acts of man on other people....again these people were given free will. They made a choice and because of that other people suffered.
The existence of free will gives the freedom to choose, right from wrong, bad from good.
Precisely what I said, your answer is "it is us, men, who did these atrocious things."
And I am sorry if you feel disrespected. I hope you can forgive me
-
I have read in fb about a barber cutting the hair of the child. The barber said that there is no God because of all the crimes and atrocities around. The child said also that there is no barber because you see many long haired persons. Same logic. There are long haired persons because they did not go to the barber, not because there was no barber. So no need to blame the devil. Blame the doer.
-
I have read in fb about a barber cutting the hair of the child. The barber said that there is no God because of all the crimes and atrocities around. The child said also that there is no barber because you see many long haired persons. Same logic. There are long haired persons because they did not go to the barber, not because there was no barber. So no need to blame the devil. Blame the doer.
That is the most inappropriate analogy I ever read in proving God's existence.
If I am a barber, I will not insist on cutting the hair of somebody who doesn't want to. But if I am going to see somebody about to jump off a bridge and I can do something about it, I won't go yelling "You are a man with free will, do as you like," instead i will do my best to save the person.
-
Akala ko, the reason of many long haired persons cuz these days many people no money to pay the barber... ;D
-
Which "why" question? I thought I just answered it.
Why do you need to create god for those you can't you can't explain? For solace? To rule? Can't man live without creating God? When you say " man created god", care to describe the attributes of this god? Is he superior or inferior to man?
-
Why do you need to create god for those you can't you can't explain? For solace? To rule? Can't man live without creating God? When you say " man created god", care to describe the attributes of this god? Is he superior or inferior to man?
it doesn't mean to literally create "God". it means they created the idea or notion of a God or a superficial being to explain things that they don't understand.
-
Why do you need to create god for those you can't you can't explain? For solace? To rule? Can't man live without creating God? When you say " man created god", care to describe the attributes of this god? Is he superior or inferior to man?
no explanation....it is just an anti thesis to the notion that god created men....
-
Precisely what I said, your answer is "it is us, men, who did these atrocious things."
And I am sorry if you feel disrespected. I hope you can forgive me
Well who else is there but man? Man's free will to choose to destroy lives or enrich them. He is free to choose the path he will take. He is not being prevented from doing one way or the other, that is the beauty of free will! In a world without free will we will accept everything, hook line and sinker without question, without thinking, who would want to live in a world like that?
Forgiven bro, no harm done. If my replies also at times a bit sarcastic, my apologies...
-
teka nawawala na tayo sa usapan. the topic of free will should be discussed on another thread.
-
Back to original program...
Creation:
(http://www.i4m.com/think/jpeg/jesus-creation.jpg)
Evolution:
(http://blogs.egu.eu/palaeoblog/files/2012/10/life-on-earth.jpg)
-
Ako mas naniniwala sa "Creation AND Evolution". Parang YIN & YANG... ;D
Pero hindi ako naniniwala sa notion na may isang Entity na gumagawa ng lahat... ;)
-
That is the most inappropriate analogy I ever read in proving God's existence.
If I am a barber, I will not insist on cutting the hair of somebody who doesn't want to. But if I am going to see somebody about to jump off a bridge and I can do something about it, I won't go yelling "You are a man with free will, do as you like," instead i will do my best to save the person.
Not trying to be rude sir or anything pero question lang, if you see a man about to jump off a bridge, yes we all agree that it is his free will. But by trying to save the person, isn't it also disrespect or intrusion sa will nung taong gustong mag-suicide? Isn't it also against the belief of the person that he needs to die? And yet you wanted to save the person. Pero don't get me wrong ha. Tama naman yun effort mo to try to save the person.
-
That is the most inappropriate analogy I ever read in proving God's existence.
If I am a barber, I will not insist on cutting the hair of somebody who doesn't want to. But if I am going to see somebody about to jump off a bridge and I can do something about it, I won't go yelling "You are a man with free will, do as you like," instead i will do my best to save the person.
There you go! You said in spite of an all powerful God still there is suffering and evil and that Man is the cause of all the misery and suffering, yet at the same time Man is also capable doing great deeds as well. You said it yourself you will do your very best to save him. If you only created an idea of "god" why go through great lengths of saving him? In that instance you've demonstrated attributes like love, compassion, desire to help. All of which are non-material attributes which we all agree exists.
Now doesn't this confirm that when man was created by this Supreme Being, he endowed with intellect to choose his path without force or coercion. Remember "In the image and likeness of God" thus these non-material attributes gives us the notion of right and wrong, good or bad. Its up to us to acknowledge and accept or deny these....
-
Para sa akin, yung evolution (+ big bang) and creation ay pareho lang.
Yung book of genesis ay sinasabi nya ang mga major milestones ng big bang and evolution. Walang conflict sa akin yan.
-
Para sa akin, yung evolution (+ big bang) and creation ay pareho lang.
Yung book of genesis ay sinasabi nya ang mga major milestones ng big bang and evolution. Walang conflict sa akin yan.
Sir, may difference kasi ang meaning ng dalawa; evolution is by naturalistic processses, which denies the existence of an intelligence. While creation acknowledges the presence of a creator. Creation is to brlief in Creator God, while evolution is to Atheism, denying the existence of God and thus give an alternative explaination to the existence of life. In this regard evolution is the "Creation Theory" for the religion of atheism.
With regards to the Big Bang Theory and the story of creation in Genesis, God said "let there be light" and there was light in genesis 1:3; this is stringlingly similar to description of how the universe started from an infinitesimal point of light energy in the bbt.
Kindly read an excerpt from an article "Did God use the big bang to create the universe?"
It is hard not to see the evidence for the Big Bang as a stunning example of where science and theology intersect. Astrophysicist Dr. Robert Jastrow phrased it this way in his book God and the Astronomers (New York, W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 116): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Why? Because, as Jastrow explained in a subsequent interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. . . .That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, pp. 15, 18).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/big-bang-theory.html#ixzz3GPlDg8fl
-
There you go! You said in spite of an all powerful God still there is suffering and evil and that Man is the cause of all the misery and suffering, yet at the same time Man is also capable doing great deeds as well. You said it yourself you will do your very best to save him. If you only created an idea of "god" why go through great lengths of saving him? In that instance you've demonstrated attributes like love, compassion, desire to help. All of which are non-material attributes which we all agree exists.
Now doesn't this confirm that when man was created by this Supreme Being, he endowed with intellect to choose his path without force or coercion. Remember "In the image and likeness of God" thus these non-material attributes gives us the notion of right and wrong, good or bad. Its up to us to acknowledge and accept or deny these....
Good or bad can be relative depending on what religion one is in.
-
Kindly read an excerpt from an article "Did God use the big bang to create the universe?"
It is hard not to see the evidence for the Big Bang as a stunning example of where science and theology intersect. Astrophysicist Dr. Robert Jastrow phrased it this way in his book God and the Astronomers (New York, W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 116): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Why? Because, as Jastrow explained in a subsequent interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. . . .That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, pp. 15, 18).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/big-bang-theory.html#ixzz3GPlDg8fl
God and the Astronomers offers a short and very elementary survey of twentieth-century discoveries in cosmology, to which the author has added some startling and remarkably unsupported observations about the bearing those discoveries have on religion. “The details differ,” he writes, “but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” The details differ indeed: the author of Genesis speaks of the earth in the beginning as “being without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” He tells us that “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” before God said at last, “Let there be light.” These are profoundly enigmatic words. To suppose that they must amount to a description of the Big Bang is a speculation which goes far beyond the reasonable limits of evidence.
If, of course, the essential elements Jastrow sees as shared by Genesis and Big Bang theory are merely that both talk about some sort of cosmic beginning, then his thesis is hardly notable, though he might have pointed out that the creation myths of virtually all religions share that element too. If the Big Bang cosmology supports the Bible of the Jews and the Christians (except for those “differing details”), then it just as well stands as evidence for the creation stories of the Nepalese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, or the Hopi. The terms “beginning” and “creation,” applied to the context of cosmology, are notoriously tricky, and Professor Jastrow’s ambiguous use of them is indicative of a carelessness that prevails throughout his whole enterprise. The act of divine creation described in Genesis is a creation by God ex nihilo. The God of traditional theology did not rearrange or remake a previously existing world, he created one from nothing. Throughout most of God and the Astronomers, Jastrow talks about the Big Bang as though it constitutes this sort of unique and miraculous beginning.
http://denisdutton.com/jastrow_review.htm
-
Sa Big Bang like barrister said in another thread nauna ang stars kesa sa earth, plants, etc. Sa creation, nauna ang earth, plants kesa sa stars and sun.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3610/5803193460_c47b8a048a_z.jpg)
seems familiar?
-
Sa Big Bang like barrister said in another thread nauna ang stars kesa sa earth, plants, etc. Sa creation, nauna ang earth, plants kesa sa stars and sun.
Not necessarily, because the very first passage of Genesis says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form". This was followed by "let there be light" .
According to modern interpretations, "This light on Day 1 is not dependent on any celestial body since at that period the universe, celestial bodies including the earth was still in the process of forming. It is God simply pushes aside the darkness without any help, thus demonstrating His complete control of the universe."
So to put things in chronological order...
1. Light.
2. Air, Water.
3. Dry Land and Plants.
4. Lights.
5. Fowl, Fish.
6. Animals and Man
-
http://denisdutton.com/jastrow_review.htm
Both are as you previously said "Just Opinions"....
-
Not necessarily, because the very first passage of Genesis says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form". This was followed by "let there be light" .
According to modern interpretations, "This light on Day 1 is not dependent on any celestial body since at that period the universe, celestial bodies including the earth was still in the process of forming. It is God simply pushes aside the darkness without any help, thus demonstrating His complete control of the universe."
So to put things in chronological order...
1. Light.
2. Air, Water.
3. Dry Land and Plants.
4. Lights.
5. Fowl, Fish.
6. Animals and Man
so you're saying that Earth is older than the stars? so how come there are stars that are older than our Earth and our Sun?
what is this light (#1) you're referring to? The Big Bang or the Sun?
-
It is clear that the sun and moon and stars qere createdafter plants sa genesis. Kung nagawa na sila di na sana ginawa ulit sa latter verses.
-
I’ll answer your question by mentioning the verses first and how I understand it and also based on my readings of discussions and writings both philosophical and scientific point of view. Yes! We believers do USE critical thinking, logic, intellect also! Having said that, I could also be mistaken…this only my honest and humble opinion!
“ In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth, and the earth was without form, void and darkness was on the face of the deep, God’s spirit was moving upon the face of the waters. And God said: Let there be light and there was light”.
First let’s put things in context (that’s right we do this too). The bible was written for people on earth and how the creation relates to them. Now if we were placed on say Mars, Jupiter or planet Vulcan (star trek). Then the first passage would have read “God created the Heavens and ________( insert name of planet here). Next is to think of creation as a process, a continue process. It is not instantaneous, well except for the light!
Next was earth created first and older than the sun? of course not! are you insane? Look at the passage and understand “earth was WITHOUT form” in other words at the start of creation it was not yet! It was in it’s formation or initial stage and not at it’s present state as we see it today! This would be supported in the next verses the gradual formation of the earth. Same goes for the Sun and entire universe. Please remember that Earth was not created in a vacuum (well it is in the vacuum of space) or laboratory separate from it’s environment and then later on placed in it’s supposed location. When God created the Universe He placed the laws of gravity, math, chemistry etc that will govern the formation of the universe. It follows therefore, that ALL celestial bodies would follow these laws in their formation as planets, stars, galaxies…..including EARTH!
Next what was the Light in Genesis 1:3, your guess is as good as mine! However let me take a jab at it. At that point in creation everything was dark, chaotic and formless…then He willed Light to exist! Wow what a God! What a concept!
This is the only thing that was made instantaneously in Day 1! What was the source of this light……most probably from God Himself (we have to ask Him that when we see Him)! Surely this could not have been the sun because it has yet to form at the start of creation. Suffice it to say this light just like” turning on” a light bulb or detonating an atomic bomb… yup! just like that….And there was light! Also, during this (day) period the universe begun to expand rapidly and stars, solar systems, galaxies were also being formed in other parts of the expanding universe! Why was it not mentioned? What for? It’s for us to discover, and discover we did. That there are billions upon millions of stars (both being born and dying), systems, galaxies! Awesome right!?
Next the formation of the Earth: The earth I could definitely say formed gradually as it started out as formless, dark and water was part of that mix. Some say the “water” could be hydrogen as there was no word for it in ancient times. Hydrogen is the most abundant and basic element in the universe from which all other elements came in existence. From that early form, it gradually formed land and separated the waters (at present we know this process of building land as tectonic plate movement).
Next how come the bible says that the sun and moon was created only in Day 4! Again not necessarily, remember the context and the developing earth, solar system, milky way, universe! Everything was developing at it’s own pace. I read an explanation for this, the earth at this point in it’s formation was still surrounded by a think atmosphere that was beginning to gradually thinned out. This could be due to the plants that were oxygenating the atmosphere which made it more translucent. Thus in this context the sun, moon and stars was only now visible from the earth (remember that the point of view is earth).
Next life forms appeared on earth and became more complex in the following periods. Before that were seed bearing plants and trees. Then came the water animals and reptiles. Next birds appeared during the fifth creation period. The mammals multiplied in the 6th period of creation, this culminated in the creation (in His own image and likeness) of Humans!
That to me is how I understand the biblical account of creation as it relates to our present day knowledge of the universe and the laws that govern them. And I must say that science is just gradually confirming what was written long ago….again just my opinion!
-
"Clearly you do not understand Evolution. It is both fact AND theory. The theory is on how species evolved. You should ratther say The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The theory there is "by Natural Selection" not Evolution. It is like saying that gravity is a theory." Sir Leomarley (from religion thread).
Mmmmm.....there's a hint of condescension just a hint!You're correct i did make an assertion that "Evolution is the Atheist's creation theory! I should have specified it. So let me qualifiy my statement.
First you yourself made a bold and sweeping statement: Evolution is both theory and fact
In order for us to understand this statement first let’s define the 3 words. Evolution, Theory, Fact,
Evolution
This is the general term given by science to explain the presence of life form on earth. However, what is important and it should be emphasized that there mainly 3 types of evolutionary processes.
Evolution 1: It can mean that life forms at present are different from the life forms in past. So evolution as “change over time” can also refer to minor changes in the features of individual species. These changes takes place in a relatively short period of time. These can be observed and tested. So in this sense or context “evolution” is a FACT!
Evolution 2: This is where it gets tricky: This type of evolution claims that all organism we see today are descended from a single common ancestor in the distant past! This is the theory of universal common descent. This theory paints a picture that life on earth as one great branching tree.
Evolution 3: This is even trickier: This type use the term evolution to refer to a cause or mechanism of change. This is the biological process that Darwin thought was the mechanism: Unguided Natural Selection! This mechanism according to its proponent had the power to produce fundamentally new life forms. Now this together with “universal common descent” forms the core of Darwinian Evolution. “Neo-Darwinian” evolution adds the knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that “random mutations” in DNA provide the variations upon which “natural selection” acts in a completely unguided fashion to form ever complex and new forms of life forms!
“ I am a physician and been practicing medicine for almost 20 years now. I know a thing or two about DNA, genetics and mutations. Both in my practice, med school and reading of journals on diseases, mutations in the molecular levels has always a negative outcome like diseases, carcinoma, infection. Mutations in bacterias/viruses result in more virulent form of that bacteria/virus. There has never been in the history of medicine where bacteria mutated into another completely different bacteria.”
The first type of evolution called “micro-evolution” I agree with as a fact since has been observed and tested. As I said if we are talking about small-scale changes in species in time, then this type of evolution is indeed a FACT!
However, the second type called “Universal common descent” and the third type “Unguided Natural Selection/Random Mutations. Random mutations have for the most part produce negative effects like diseases, and have not been showed to produce more complex organs much more produce an entirely new organism. Since these two types of Evolutionary mechanisms has not been observed and tested then it stands to reason that this is NOT a FACT!
-
did you watch the video i posted on the other thread?
also, if there were any hints of condescension on my part, i apologize.
-
did you watch the video i posted on the other thread?
also, if there were any hints of condescension on my part, i apologize.
Yes i did! Nice concise video and i did see the resemblance between the guy and the fish!
And there was a "cute" way to explain why there are no "transitional forms", However, it all boils down to what was the mechanism in place? Unguided natural selection acting on random mutations?
No worries there, i was just lightening the mood...
-
that was a brief explanation. i think a better explanation is on Episode 2 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey.
-
To continue...on defining fact and theory
Evolutionist defined Theory as a “well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypothesis”. Also a “comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by vast body evidence”. Thus by saying Theory of Evolution it now implies an idea that is both “well-substantiated and “supported by a vast body of evidence”. This now being used as the reason why it is both fact and theory!
The term “Theory” does not convey the degree of certainty of what is explained. All theories describe objects or events that are not directly observable. This is the main or core concept of theory. It describes aspect of nature that are beyond what we can observe. It also doesn’t necessarily imply that it is a “fact” or is well-supported by the evidence. A theory becomes true only if what it describes really exists and describes them accurately, otherwise it’s false.
The term “Fact” or more specifically “scientific fact” is defined as an observation in nature that has been repeatedly confirmed and therefore accepted as true. In other words it is the “actual” state of affairs in nature. It is also a “scientific observation” that has not been refuted or falsified.
Here are just some failures of the Neo-Darwinian evolution:
-Failure to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features or origin of new functional biological information.
-Failure of the Fossil record to support Darwinian evolution.
-Failure of genetics and chemistry to explain origin of the Genetic Code
Therefore for a theory to be considered as true if should match the facts! In this regard evolution has failed to do so…
Thus to say that Evolution is a theory because it is “well-tested and well-supported” by evidence is redefining the meaning of the word “theory” to imply the validity and truth of the theory!
Having now the definition these two terms, lets apply it to the Theory of Evolution. By this I am referring to the main mechanism being used by the proponents as the driving force for life that of “unguided natural selection acting upon random mutation to produce complexity and new life forms.”
The main argument here is that random and unguided processes DO NOT build new complex biological features. Based on the above definition of Fact and Theory…..Evolution is neither!
-
bookmarked!
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3610/5803193460_c47b8a048a_z.jpg)
seems familiar?
Mmmm....let me test this.
Invent Hypothesis: Unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations to produce complexity of life.
Make Observations: Small-scale changes in each species seen
Fossil records show well-formed life forms and no transitional forms
DNA mutations results in negative outcome
Origin of Genetic code not explained by genetics and Chemistry
Do all of them Fit?: NO!!!
Invent Another Hypothesis!
-
Now, let's test the other side of the argument
Invent Hypothesis: Complexity of life through directed purposeful processes.
Make Observations: Small-scale changes in each species seen
Fossil records show well-formed life forms and no transitional forms
DNA mutations results in negative outcome
Origin of Genetic code not explained by genetics and Chemistry
Do all of them Fit?: YES!!!
Theory: Intelligent Design
-
Do all of them Fit?: YES!!!
Theory: Intelligent Design
Yeah, you can say that. But that intelligent design could be from another alien race, not necessarily God. You just assumed it cannot be other than God.
Science can't accept the intelligent design theory because it raises more questions than answers. This is similar to ancient humans believing that the rain is caused by the rain gods, simply because they don't understand the water cycle yet.
-
Yeah, you can say that. But that intelligent design could be from another alien race, not necessarily God. You just assumed it cannot be other than God.
Science can't accept the intelligent design theory because it raises more questions than answers. This is similar to ancient humans believing that the rain is caused by the rain gods, simply because they don't understand the water cycle yet.
Sir, It is you who assumed just because there's design....... "it cannot other than God".
You're correct it could an alien race ( i like watching Ancient Aliens on History btw!), Beings from other dimensions, or God! Take your pick!
Bottom line is more and more scientific studies on biology, astronomy, chemistry.....points to a intelligent rather
unintelligent material cause.
"Science can't accept ID".....Wow! last time i checked Science is an unbiased observer of nature! It must be the scientists who can't accept ID. That when scientists are doing experiments to recreate the origin of life, they manipulate the environment to for testing.......what they're doing then is....Intelligent Design!
-
Sir, It is you who assumed just because there's design....... "it cannot other than God".
What is it then?
You're correct it could an alien race ( i like watching Ancient Aliens on History btw!), Beings from other dimensions, or God! Take your pick!
Bottom line is more and more scientific studies on biology, astronomy, chemistry.....points to a intelligent rather
unintelligent material cause.
Are you saying that the universe was planned/created so that we can exist?
"Science can't accept ID".....Wow! last time i checked Science is an unbiased observer of nature! It must be the scientists who can't accept ID. That when scientists are doing experiments to recreate the origin of life, they manipulate the environment to for testing.......what they're doing then is....Intelligent Design!
It is unbiased. But the ID theory is just lame. Whenever you encounter something you can't understand, you can invoke ID by default. That's not how it works.
-
So now the question is:
Who designed the Designer??? ;D
That will be another Creation or Evolution question hehe!!!
Did the Designer evolved from nothing? ;D Or he or she was designed by another Designer maybe and Architect? But then who designed the Architect? ;D
-
You're correct it could an alien race ( i like watching Ancient Aliens on History btw!)...
And where did the alien race come from? ;)
-
So now the question is:
Who designed the Designer??? ;D
That will be another Creation or Evolution question hehe!!!
Did the Designer evolved from nothing? ;D Or he or she was designed by another Designer maybe and Architect? But then who designed the Architect? ;D
Easy.
The creator is eternal. He has no beginning and will have no end.
Therefore, He was not "designed," and He did not "evolve."
-
Easy.
The creator is eternal. He has no beginning and will have no end.
Therefore, He was not "designed," and He did not "evolve."
Easy... cop out??? ;D
-
Intelligent design or (ID) is the theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. Another is that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes. It is NOT used to prove that God is that designer! We are talking theory here and not faith or religion. Let's not get confused...
This universe was planned? your guess is a good a mine, you can ask the "designer" when you see him/her/it. However the presence of universal laws, math, physics are evidence of design in nature.
"ID theory is lame" On the contrary sir, ID is in fact a much better explanation of what is observed in nature than an unintelligent material cause producing the complexity of life. It is not a theory by default instead it's a positive inference. The "explanatory filter" is one such tool identify cause from design.
Who designed the designer? If by "designer" you mean the biblical God, that's not what we are discussing here.
-
And where did the alien race come from? ;)
Oh, from a galaxy far far away!
Hehehe, i just noticed your avatar is an alien!
-
Intelligent design or (ID) is the theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. Another is that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes. It is NOT used to prove that God is that designer! We are talking theory here and not faith or religion. Let's not get confused...
An what is the purpose of this ID? Life?
-
Intelligent design or (ID) is the theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. Another is that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes. It is NOT used to prove that God is that designer! We are talking theory here and not faith or religion. Let's not get confused...
This universe was planned? your guess is a good a mine, you can ask the "designer" when you see him/her/it. However the presence of universal laws, math, physics are evidence of design in nature.
"ID theory is lame" On the contrary sir, ID is in fact a much better explanation of what is observed in nature than an unintelligent material cause producing the complexity of life. It is not a theory by default instead it's a positive inference. The "explanatory filter" is one such tool identify cause from design.
Who designed the designer? If by "designer" you mean the biblical God, that's not what we are discussing here.
Well, I did not mention anything about Biblical things so it's safe to assume I am not referring to anything of that sort. Just asking who designed the designer (whoever or whatever you wanna call it...)? There just got to be something or nothing that started it all... or do you sincerely believe that Intelligent Being just pfffttt!!! there goes COCO CRUNCH out of the blue... ;D
-
Easy... cop out??? ;D
:D No, that's not a cop-out.
Notice that the question asks, who designed the designer.
Therefore, the premise is that a designer exists. If the question presumes that the designer exists, then the question is from a religious point of view, which will in turn require an answer from a religious point of view.
What is the answer from a religious point of view? That the creator has no beginning.
Akala mo kasi, walang answer sa bible ang tanong na yon. Ang hindi mo alam, simpleng simple pala ang sagot doon. ;)
-
:D No, that's not a cop-out.
Notice that the question asks, who designed the designer.
Therefore, the premise is that a designer exists. If the question presumes that the designer exists, then the question is from a religious point of view, which will in turn require an answer from a religious point of view.
What is the answer from a religious point of view? That the creator has no beginning.
Akala mo kasi, walang answer sa bible ang tanong na yon. Ang hindi mo alam, simpeng simple pala ang sagot doon. ;)
Ahhh baka ang tinutukoy diyan e yung THE CUBE...
In the beginning, there was the CUBE, we know not where it came from... ;D
-
Well, I did not mention anything about Biblical things so it's safe to assume I am not referring to anything of that sort. Just asking who designed the designer (whoever or whatever you wanna call it...)? There just got to be something or nothing that started it all... or do you sincerely believe that Intelligent Being just pfffttt!!! there goes COCO CRUNCH out of the blue... ;D
As I said earlier ID is a theory or an attempt to explain observation in nature on the presence of an apparent design. It postulates the presence of design is caused by a directed, purposeful , intelligent cause. However, It does not say that this cause is God.
But since insist on asking......I believe (I am now talking as a believer) this designer is God!
God is uncreated, uncaused, eternal....why do I say that He said so!
-
Now, let's test the other side of the argument
Invent Hypothesis: Complexity of life through directed purposeful processes.
Make Observations: Small-scale changes in each species seen
Fossil records show well-formed life forms and no transitional forms
DNA mutations results in negative outcome
Origin of Genetic code not explained by genetics and Chemistry
Do all of them Fit?: YES!!!
Theory: Intelligent Design
So do you believe that chickens and rabbits and dinosaurs and cats and cows coexisted during the Triassic period?
-
Ahhh baka ang tinutukoy diyan e yung THE CUBE...
In the beginning, there was the CUBE, we know not where it came from... ;D
Hindi the cube yon.
Ang the cube, "we know not where it came from."
Ang creator, we know that it did not come from anything. E di hindi nga the cube... :D
-
An what is the purpose of this ID? Life?
If you're talking about the theory, then the purpose is to offer another point of view on the apparent design in nature and the complexity of life. As opposed to evolution where the driving force is undirected natural selection acting upon random mutations to produce complexity and design.
If you're talking about the mechanism involved, then it has been observed designed patterns ultimately produces a purpose or function.
-
If you're talking about the theory, then the purpose is to offer another point of view on the apparent design in nature and the complexity of life. As opposed to evolution where the driving force is undirected natural selection acting upon random mutations to produce complexity and design.
If you're talking about the mechanism involved, then it has been observed designed patterns ultimately produces a purpose or function.
I mean what is the purpose of the ID? It is a design for what? Ano yung goal ng design?
-
In general "design" is closely related to purpose or function. In other words when you make something it is for a particular "function or purpose". For example when you make a car, house, chair, table.....each has it's own purpose or function.
In particular the purpose of design in ID is to make ever complex parts of life forms with clear function for survival by way of an intelligent, directed, purposeful cause. For example The heart, lungs, eyes, wings......each has it's own purpose or function.
Mmmm.....I just realized that in both cases....you need an intelligent designer!
-
So do you believe that chickens and rabbits and dinosaurs and cats and cows coexisted during the Triassic period?
Huh? What gave you that idea?
Of course not, the fossil records does not support that.
-
Easy.
The creator is eternal. He has no beginning and will have no end.
Therefore, He was not "designed," and He did not "evolve."
Ganyan ang definition ko ng God. Energy. Cannot be created nor destroyed.
-
In general "design" is closely related to purpose or function. In other words when you make something it is for a particular "function or purpose". For example when you make a car, house, chair, table.....each has it's own purpose or function.
In particular the purpose of design in ID is to make ever complex parts of life forms with clear function for survival by way of an intelligent, directed, purposeful cause. For example The heart, lungs, eyes, wings......each has it's own purpose or function.
Mmmm.....I just realized that in both cases....you need an intelligent designer!
The universe will go on even without life. If this is its purpose, then it's not so intelligent, does it?
-
Easy.
The creator is eternal. He has no beginning and will have no end.
Therefore, He was not "designed," and He did not "evolve."
This cannot be proven.
-
Huh? What gave you that idea?
Of course not, the fossil records does not support that.
So when did God create the rabbits?
-
So when did God create the rabbits?
This, i gotta hear... ;D or read hehehe!!!
-
The universe will go on even without life. If this is its purpose, then it's not so intelligent, does it?
That is an if question. So allow me to answer sir. if it is its purpose that the universe will go on even without life, it may not be intelligent for us humans from our point of view, but then we still do not know why.
Question sir, why do you find it not intelligent just because the universe can go on without life?
-
That is an if question. So allow me to answer sir. if it is its purpose that the universe will go on even without life, it may not be intelligent for us humans from our point of view, but then we still do not know why.
Question sir, why do you find it not intelligent just because the universe can go on without life?
Because if the main purpose is to have life, the whole universe should crumble after life is gone. It would be meaningless.
Don't get me wrong though. I believe that all of this is intelligently designed by a Creator. But we are just one of the infinite possibilities of this grand design. We are not the main purpose because everything will go on long after we've gone.
-
The creator is eternal. He has no beginning and will have no end.
Therefore, He was not "designed," and He did not "evolve."
This cannot be proven.
You are correct. It's a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.
It cannot be proven. Because if it can be proven, then faith will be out of the question.
=======================================
Compare the two sides:
1. I do not claim that creation is a fact. I admit that it is a matter of faith that is unprovable. Therefore, I cannot be compelled to prove it.
2. Evolutionists claim that evolution is not mere speculation but a matter of fact. If they claim that evolution is a fact, then they have an obligation to prove it.
-
The universe will go on even without life. If this is its purpose, then it's not so intelligent, does it?
The universe is not conscious or intelligent in itself. It was made by the Creator for His own ultimate purpose or reason. Our feeble minds cannot possibly fathom His ultimate purpose.....but He most certainly has a really good reason!
My personal opinion is He made the heavens and the earth to reveal His majesty!
-
You are correct. It's a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.
It cannot be proven. Because if it can be proven, then faith will be out of the question.
=======================================
Compare the two sides:
1. I do not claim that creation is a fact. I admit that it is a matter of faith that is unprovable. Therefore, I cannot be compelled to prove it.
2. Evolutionists claim that evolution is not mere speculation but a matter of fact. If they claim that evolution is a fact, then they have an obligation to prove it.
What is faith?
Is this believing without reason (physical evidence).
What is the Evidence for Evolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
-
The universe is not conscious or intelligent in itself
Sorry for the confusion, I meant the design isn't that intelligent, when I said that "if life is its (ID) purpose" not the universe.
-
What is the Evidence for Evolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg)
Evidence na yon?
That's speculation, not evidence.
Cite one piece of "evidence" and let's discuss in detail.
-
So when did God create the rabbits?
Since you asked God, then let's read His book...The Bible.
We focus on Day 5 and 6 and understand the implication of the passages as it relates to present-day knowledge. Again like last time this is "Just my opinion"
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Gen 1:20-23
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth ……… And the evening and the morning were the sixth day Gen 1:24-31
Putting things in context again, like my previous post on the creation account The creation is a process guided by the laws placed by the Creator, it is divided into 7 (days) period. And we are now on Day 7. The day of rest!
In Day 5, the passage mentions God creating great whales, and every living creature the moves, including winged fowl after its kind. At this time period creatures with hard-shelled bodies like trilobites and shellfish were created, creatures with skeletons such as fish spread throughout the ocean depths. Soon after, the Earth sees the first creatures appearing on land, apparently brought forth by the sea: amphibians, reptiles, and insects. Another great explosion of life begins 225 million years ago as dinosaurs appear and they dominate for 160 million years.
Bible Scholars have noted the differences in the translation of the original Hebrew word “tanniyn”. While the KJV translates the Hebrew tanniyn as whale .The translation used in the NIV is creature but it also means a marine or land monster i.e. a sea serpent or dragon . The NASB translates it sea monster as does the RSV and Darby versions. Young’s Literal translation translates it simply as monster . This has been equated to what is now being called the “Cambrian Explosion” where the was a sudden (by geological time) proliferation of animals from the sea and land. This would now include the dinosaurs. The verse ends with the fowls mulplying by the end of this period. According to studies and interpretation this is the longest period from 700 million to 65 million years ago.
Day six begins as the dinosaurs become extinct about 65 million years ago. We note at this time some animals were mention like cattle, creeping thing and beast of the earth. This is the period that culminates when man was created. At this period Mammals are now the dominant life forms as the age of the dinosaur ended in the previous (day) period. Then True Man appears last with the creation of Adam and Eve. This period is placed from 65 million to about 10,000 years ago.
So, when was the rabbit created? It was most probably created in this time period. Why was it not mentioned? What for? Same way as horse, dogs, cats, elephants etc. were not mentioned as well..
N.B. “Fossil records show that rabbit bones have been found from 30 to about 50 million years!” And the oldest were six times the size of present-day rabbits!”
-
Sorry for the confusion, I meant the design isn't that intelligent, when I said that "if life is its (ID) purpose" not the universe.
When you said "design isn't that intelligent" which are you referring to? hehehe sorry got confused also
-
When you said "design isn't that intelligent" which are you referring to? hehehe sorry got confused also
The intelligent design itself.
-
The intelligent design itself.
So your point is it's not intelligent because life is not perfect ( please correct if i am wrong).
My guess is this, since the universe and everything in it including us are all govern by the laws established by
the designer, then it stands to reason Everything will follow the laws set forth in this environment. From the moment we were born we were already decaying slowly and at some point will cease to exist. Same goes for everything else, yes including the universe! The universe may have a very long life cycle but at some point in the distant future even this universe will cease to exist!
The universe may exist without life( meaning us ), however the universe itself has its own life cycle...and it will eventually "die" as well....
But the reality is the universe exists, and we exists ( unless, as someone suggested this is all a hologram. He must have been watching The Matrix at the time)
-
Evidence na yon?
That's speculation, not evidence.
Cite one piece of "evidence" and let's discuss in detail.
The presentation is better laid out compared to an imagined metaphysical being.
-
The presentation is better laid out compared to an imagined metaphysical being.
Sir,
Let's take on whale evolution
I believe the question is not whether the whale evolved from an earlier specie. The question is whether the amount
of time given for that land-based animal is sufficient enough to drastically change to a whale using the Neo-Darwinian evolution of unguided natural selection acting on random mutations.
An agnostic mathematician put this analogy; you want to change a car to submarine. Then you will need so many things to change that car in order for it to become a submarine. These changes should be purposeful and functional. As well as coordinated w/ the other parts for you to make a functioning submarine. The last to consider is the time period to effect these changes...
An evolutionary biologist made use of Population Genetics to see if the changes from one animal to next, given the time is possible w/ the concept of neo-darwinian processes.
He took 2 animals ( Dorudon and Basilosaurus) in whale evolution to test his computation. Based on current fossil records the time period between them is less than 15 million years. He then made several assumptions the effective population of 100,000 and a generation turn-over of every 5 years. Based the equations of population genetics his findings were:
There could only be 2 changes from one animal to another and this take 43 million years to achieve! Just 2 in 43 Million years!!!
We know that for that land based animal to the whale.....you will need hundreds of deliberate, functional coordinated changes....for this to happen via neo-darwinian evolution....it would take billions years!
Thus this puts in doubt that the mechanism for changes in the animals is via natural selection on random mutation.
-
The presentation is better laid out compared to an imagined metaphysical being.
From a medical point of view: "Ganito sasabihin sayo ng consultant" Doctor, Your Diagnosis is NOT supported by the Signs and Symptoms!
-
Sir,
Let's take on whale evolution
I believe the question is not whether the whale evolved from an earlier specie. The question is whether the amount
of time given for that land-based animal is sufficient enough to drastically change to a whale using the Neo-Darwinian evolution of unguided natural selection acting on random mutations.
An agnostic mathematician put this analogy; you want to change a car to submarine. Then you will need so many things to change that car in order for it to become a submarine. These changes should be purposeful and functional. As well as coordinated w/ the other parts for you to make a functioning submarine. The last to consider is the time period to effect these changes...
An evolutionary biologist made use of Population Genetics to see if the changes from one animal to next, given the time is possible w/ the concept of neo-darwinian processes.
He took 2 animals ( Dorudon and Basilosaurus) in whale evolution to test his computation. Based on current fossil records the time period between them is less than 15 million years. He then made several assumptions the effective population of 100,000 and a generation turn-over of every 5 years. Based the equations of population genetics his findings were:
There could only be 2 changes from one animal to another and this take 43 million years to achieve! Just 2 in 43 Million years!!!
We know that for that land based animal to the whale.....you will need hundreds of deliberate, functional coordinated changes....for this to happen via neo-darwinian evolution....it would take billions years!
Thus this puts in doubt that the mechanism for changes in the animals is via natural selection on random mutation.
So how did the first whale came into being?
-
So how did the first whale came into being?
I just said earlier "the question is not whether the whale evolve from an earlier specie"....which means they have their own ancestors. It is not as if I believe that the whale came into being by magic or out thin air. Whales definitely came from earlier species....the BIG QUESTION is can neo-darwinian account for all the changes from one animal to another given the time period.
What is being put to test is the mechanism in neo-darwinian evolution....which says that all the changes from the land based animal to the whale was possible through unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations....by which the two scientists has doubts on whether it could account for based on population genetics and mathematical probabilities.
-
I just said earlier "the question is not whether the whale evolve from an earlier specie"....which means they have their own ancestors.
Same question. How did the whale's ancestors came about?
-
Same question. How did the whale's ancestors came about?
From the very first organism to man (lahat na!) and everything in between possess the building blocks of life, rna, dna, proteints, molecules , atoms etc. etc. .......By way of an intelligent, purpose manipulation of these materials comes the complexity of life! Key word is "intelligent cause"
Just like when the sperm and egg meet.....first a one cell, two cell etc....the information in the dna starts to form various early stages of all the organs until it matures. This Code is not some random code, it has information, that needs to be understood for it produce new functional system.
the variations and complexity of life is better explained by a Guided natural selection acting through complex but specific information system, rather than Unguided natural selection acting upon Random Mutations...
-
Okay, so you believe in a "guided evolution"? That from single celled organisms, we evolved into more complex organisms but the process is guided?
-
Okay, so you believe in a "guided evolution"? That from single celled organisms, we evolved into more complex organisms but the process is guided?
ayun naunawaan ko na din si docelmo. It looks like he believes in Evolution but guided by an unseen force (God).
-
i dont believe in magic... no... it really doesnt make sense that we just came out from nowhere... so... ill make another theory paano nagkaroon ng buhay o kung saan nagsimula ang mga bagay bagay...
ohh... this fossils looks like a fish... but its not a fish... ah galing ito sa isda... or ito ang simula ng isda
wow... this fossils looks like have wings... but its not a bird...ah ito ang simula ng mga ibon...
amazing discovery... this fossils looks like human but smaller and based on the bone structure more like a monkey... ahh... most probably galing tayo sa monkey....
and the ages of the mountain... univesers, solar systems is way beyond the so called 7 days creation...
well it makes since kesa sa we just came from nowhere... my theory is more acceptable to people who thinks they're smart enough because it makes more sense than the idea of creating all this in just 7 days...
you believe in creation... you're an idiot it doesnt makes sense...
yoiu believe in evolution... you are one of us - matalino at may sense ang sinasabi...
that's how we view things here... if its magical in nature... seems not scientific daw... hindi yan ang totoong nangyari...
-
Okay, so you believe in a "guided evolution"? That from single celled organisms, we evolved into more complex organisms but the process is guided?
Interesting point.
Ganon nga ba, Doc?
that's how we view things here... if its magical in nature... seems not scientific daw... hindi yan ang totoong nangyari...
Tama naman yon, di ba?
Creation = magical. Hindi scientific yon. E hindi nga talaga scientific. Religion na yon.
Evolution = magical din... :D Scientific ba yon? Hindi.
The reality is that science doesn't know how we got here. But they don't want to say "I don't know," kahit iyon naman talaga ang totoo.
Bakit? Kasi ayaw nilang magkaroon ng foothold ang religion sa usapan. Pag sinabi nilang hindi nila alam, the religious nuts will have a foot on the door and say, "Ayun, inaamin na nila na totoo ang creation!" Kaya pinipilit ng science na alam daw nila. Evolution is a provable fact daw.
-
The presentation is better laid out compared to an imagined metaphysical being.
The presentation shows certain perceived similarities between animals, then immediately jumps to the speculation that they all have a common ancestor.
The perceived similarities are a fact. But the conclusion is imagined.
-
The reality is that science doesn't know how we got here. But they don't want to say "I don't know," kahit iyon naman talaga ang totoo.
Let me just correct that.
The reality is that science doesn't know how we got here yet.
We do say "we don't know", yet. Kaya nga po "theory" ang tawag kasi "theory" pa lang. If proven false, we junk it.
-
... Kaya pinipilit ng science na alam daw nila. Evolution is a provable fact daw.
Let me just correct that.
The reality is that science doesn't know how we got here yet.
We do say "we don't know", yet. Kaya nga po "theory" ang tawag kasi "theory" pa lang. If proven false, we junk it.
The word "theory" in ordinary usage has a slightly different meaning in science.
In science, "theory" refers to a comprehensive explanation that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It is so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter it substantially.
Thus, it is still proper to say "heliocentric theory," even if it is so well-established that no new evidence can disprove that the earth revolves around the sun.
It is in that sense that evolution is called a "theory."
Pero yung sinasabing "evolution is just a theory," laos na nga yun e. Ang uso ngayon sa scientific community, they say: "Evolution is both fact and theory."
Do you dispute that according to science, evolution is a fact?
-
In science, "theory" refers to a comprehensive explanation that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It is so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter it substantially.
You've heard of dark energy right? My understanding is that the discovery of dark energy put every theory in question. They basically have to start all over again.
Theories are supported by facts, correct? These facts, we can observe. For example, gravity is something we can observe. But in the farthest reaches of the universe, is there even gravity? Will the known laws of physics be applicable there?
So you see, theories are just that, theories. They are good enough for now.
Do you dispute that according to science, evolution is a fact?
If by fact you mean something that can be observed, yes, in the case of microbes adapting to antibiotics. In the case of humans coming from apes, I don't think we can observe that anymore because we need to simulate the environment back then and observe for millions of years. But again, this is just a theory. And until such time that a discovery as significant as dark energy comes to nullify evolution, the theory is good enough for me.
-
So, you agree that according to science, evolution is both fact and theory? That's how I understood your post.
The view of science is that evolution is both fact and theory. This view started in the 1980s, and I think it's now generally accepted in the scientific community.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree.
My view is that evolution is not a fact. Now, if we want to support the scientific view, this is how the argument should be framed:
According to science, evolution is a fact, not because it is something we can directly observe with the senses, but because it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.
In science, the term "fact" has a slightly different meaning.
It can mean a scientific observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. But it can also mean a scientific observation that has not been refuted.
In science, something can be called a "fact," yet it can be revised when it is refuted by contrary scientific evidence.
-
Interesting point.
Ganon nga ba, Doc?
Tama naman yon, di ba?
Creation = magical. Hindi scientific yon. E hindi nga talaga scientific. Religion na yon.
Evolution = magical din... :D Scientific ba yon? Hindi.
The reality is that science doesn't know how we got here. But they don't want to say "I don't know," kahit iyon naman talaga ang totoo.
Bakit? Kasi ayaw nilang magkaroon ng foothold ang religion sa usapan. Pag sinabi nilang hindi nila alam, the religious nuts will have a foot on the door and say, "Ayun, inaamin na nila na totoo ang creation!" Kaya pinipilit ng science na alam daw nila. Evolution is a provable fact daw.
Hehehe Atty, cross examination ba ito?
Let me again put forth my position. The neo-darwinian evolution of unguided natural selection acting on random mutation. Does not hold water for several reasons, first the fossil evidence show that animals arrived fully formed and functional. Variations only occur within the species. Second from the first microbe to man....contains biological/digital information independent of the organism. Third random mutation would never form new information to form functional system.
From the book Darwin's Doubt
"The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there’s a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don’t limit themselves to materialistic causes. They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).
So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments about what causes will be considered possible before looking at the evidence. If you philosophically rule out intelligent causes beforehand—as the Darwinists do—you will never arrive at the truth if an intelligent being actually is responsible."
As I said before Intelligent design or Intelligent Cause is a much better explanation on the complexity than an unguided natural selection acting on random mutations!
-
The view of science is that evolution is both fact and theory.
Atty, my opinion is Science is unbiased, its the scientists that are biased...
-
Ako, I believe scientists are not biased. Pero pagdating sa evolution, talagang sarado na ang isip, ayaw man lang sabihin na hindi sila sigurado. Talagang siguradong-sigurado na evolution is a fact... :(
Hehehe Atty, cross examination ba ito?
xxx
... As I said before Intelligent design or Intelligent Cause is a much better explanation on the complexity than an unguided natural selection acting on random mutations!
Ikaw naman Doc, hindi pa rin malinaw yung sagot mo... ;D
You don't believe in unguided evolution. You believe in ID (Intelligent Design).
Pero ang tanong ni sir bumblebee, "guided evolution" ba yung belief mo? The term is actually "theistic evolution," pero malinaw naman yung tanong. Sometimes, it's called "EC" (Evolutionary Creationism).
Ang intindi ko, you do not believe in theistic evolution? Tama ba?
Kung ganon, pareho tayo. I don't think theistic evolution is correct.
-
Atty, my opinion is Science is unbiased, its the scientists that are biased...
Ako, I believe scientists are not biased. Pero pagdating sa evolution, talagang sarado na ang isip, ayaw man lang sabihin na hindi sila sigurado. Talagang siguradong-sigurado na evolution is a fact... :(
Ikaw naman Doc, hindi pa rin malinaw yung sagot mo... ;D
You don't believe in unguided evolution. You believe in ID (Intelligent Design).
Pero ang tanong ni sir bumblebee, "guided evolution" ba yung belief mo? The term is actually "theistic evolution," pero malinaw naman yung tanong. Sometimes, it's called "EC" (Evolutionary Creationism).
Ang intindi ko, you do not believe in theistic evolution? Tama ba?
Kung ganon, pareho tayo. I don't think theistic evolution is correct.
That was my point actually scientist are biased....when it comes to evolution;
To make things clear.....I believe an Intelligent, purposeful cause is the "mechanism" for the emergence of life. I don't agree w/ TE also simply because uses unguided cause for life.
-
I don't agree w/ TE also simply because uses unguided cause for life.
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Theistic Evolution is GUIDED evolution, not unguided evolution. It means evolution is correct, but it occurred with the intervention of a supernatural creator.
Non-theistic evolutionists believe that evolution occurred naturally, without supernatural intervention. To accept that a creator caused it to happen would require too many assumptions, in violation of the Occam's Razor principle.
-
So, you agree that according to science, evolution is both fact and theory? That's how I understood your post.
Yes, both.
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--M6-4tJAV--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/rchjajvqek5milidp7ou.jpg)
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--d_Fs9MmD--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/hnkcekwbomxbraxpj3by.jpg)
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ocZlAPyG--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ufc9nhdbrwzuyueeheik.jpg)
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--0x132mKK--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/wgrnfb3eh7xabv0ynqt1.jpg)
-
From a medical point of view: "Ganito sasabihin sayo ng consultant" Doctor, Your Diagnosis is NOT supported by the Signs and Symptoms!
That's my point. Buti nga me signs and symptons, sa kabila, faith - take it or leave it, tapos na.
Tuloy tuloy ang discoveries ng fossils, fossil DNA to shed light on this process of evolution.
-
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Theistic Evolution is GUIDED evolution, not unguided evolution. It means evolution is correct, but it occurred with the intervention of a supernatural creator.
Non-theistic evolutionists believe that evolution occurred naturally, without supernatural intervention. To accept that a creator caused it to happen would require too many assumptions, in violation of the Occam's Razor principle.
My bad, i generalized again. By Theistic evolution i was referring to the movement of combining creation and neo darwinian evolution. Which says that God has placed the building blocks and then lets "nature' take its course. Which means this employs natural selection on random mutation.
My view is that GOD was in full control of the entire creation from the first atom
To man. This intelligent purposeful Cause would result in fully formed functional animals w/ variations in the same level. Which is what is seen in fossil evidence. If this is also a form of theist evulotion, then in this sense i would be a theist evolutionist. The bible has declared GOd created the heavens and the earth and He created all living things. This and what we now know about. Anatomy, chemistry, math, etc.....points to the presence of an intelligent mind!
-
saan pumapasok ang plants sa evolution?
-
That's my point. Buti nga me signs and symptons, sa kabila, faith - take it or leave it, tapos na.
Yup, this is the main difference of evolution and creation.
Evolution is not fact. That's why it's called The Theory of Evolution. However, it is backed up by a lot of scientific evidence and data that has been gathered through centuries.
Creationism is purely based on faith. Yun lang.
-
That's my point. Buti nga me signs and symptons, sa kabila, faith - take it or leave it, tapos na.
Tuloy tuloy ang discoveries ng fossils, fossil DNA to shed light on this process of evolution.
Sir, lahat po nakatingin sa ebidensya( signs/symptoms. Ang pagkakA iba po ay yung pag interpret ng evidence,
Pang hindi tugma ang diagnosis mo base sa nakikita mo ay dapAt maghAnap ka ng ibang diagnosis.....that is what we call differential diagnosis you consider all the posinities. You dont go around disregarding evidence that does not fit your diagnosis, you look for another diagnosis.....same goes for evolution!
-
Yup, this is the main difference of evolution and creation.
Evolution is not fact. That's why it's called The Theory of Evolution. However, it is backed up by a lot of scientific evidence and data that has been gathered through centuries.
Creationism is purely based on faith. Yun lang.
I partly agree with your statement sir, but allow me to clarify;
If by Evolution you are referring to small-scale changes/variations in species. This has been observed and accepted...indeed this is a FACT.
However if by Evolution you are referring to large scale changes via natural selection on random mutations to form complex and functional body plans, then this mechanism has NOT been proved, tested or seen in the research....so this is most certainly NOT a FACT.
.......And that's a Fact!
Creationism is a faith-based biblical account of life. However, It doesn't mean that it's claim cannot be tested or compared w/ present-day knowledge in nature.
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--0x132mKK--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/wgrnfb3eh7xabv0ynqt1.jpg)
Sir, Evolution is a broad term. When you say evolution, what mechanism of evolution are you in agreement with to say that there is evidence of evolution based on say comparative anatomy or DNA?
-
My view is that GOD was in full control of the entire creation from the first atom
To man. This intelligent purposeful Cause would result in fully formed functional animals w/ variations in the same level. Which is what is seen in fossil evidence. If this is also a form of theist evulotion, then in this sense i would be a theist evolutionist.
No, that is not theistic evolution.
Remember, when we say "evolution," we mean a common ancestor for all living things. Theistic evolution means all living things have a common ancestor, but the process of evolving from the simplest to more complex forms of life was caused by the action of an intelligent designer.
But that is not what the bible says.
The bible says living things were created independently and instantly, not gradually through the process of evolution as guided by God.
In other words, a different kind of animal did not come from a simpler kind of animal by evolution. Yung bagong klase ng hayop, biglang lumitaw yon.
For example, sabi ng evolutionist, reptiles evolved into birds. Kung ganon, dapat may transitional fossils, showing that reptiles gradually evolved into birds.
But what is in the fossil records? Reptile; Bird; but nothing in between. Bakit? Kasi biglang lumitaw ang birds; wala talagang in-between. (Yung mga evolutionist na gustong pag-usapan ang archaeopteryx and archaeoraptor, puwede rin ako doon... ;) )
That is why I don't believe in theistic evolution --- because I don't believe in evolution. Kabitan mo man ng "Theistic" ang "evolution," evolution pa rin yon.
-
In that case attorney, since i don't accept that "gradual" changes in animals but the emergence of fully formed functional organism.... I am recanting my earlier statement and now say .....I am NOT a Theistic Evolutionist! ;D
-
I see.
E malinaw na talaga, Doc!
Thanks, ang impression ko kahapon theistic evolutionist ka sir...
-
In that case attorney, since i don't accept that "gradual" changes in animals but the emergence of fully formed functional organism.... I am recanting my earlier statement and now say .....I am NOT a Theistic Evolutionist! ;D
So bigla na lang lumitaw ang manok?
-
magic!
-
So bigla na lang lumitaw ang manok?
Yes, biglang lumitaw ang manok. But remember, that answer is from a religious, not scientific, point of view.
The scientific answer should be, "we're not sure." But what is the answer of the scientist? "It evolved." That is not scientific.
-
so what is the alternative to evolution if it's not true? scientifically of course not based on religion?
-
The alternative is for scientists to simply admit that they don't know, or that they are not sure.
Bakit naman kailangan ng siguradong sagot agad-agad? It is not necessary to have a definitite answer if the scientist is really not sure.
For example, the wave-particle duality of light is still a scientific mystery. Wala namang problema ang mga scientist na aminin na hindi sila sigurado.
But when it comes to evolution, ibang usapan na yon. Magkakamatayan na, hindi pa rin aaminin ng scientist na hindi siya sigurado.
Bakit? Para hindi makasingit yung mga creationist... :D
-
so what is the alternative to evolution if it's not true? scientifically of course not based on religion?
My best guess is the "opposite of natural selection acting on random mutation" paano yun? Di ko rin alam, but fossil records support presence of well-formed life forms rather than millions of transitional life forms that are expected in the neo-darwinian process.
Besides if we were to follow the computation on population genetics that it would take 43 million years to change to 2 parts from two animals in the supposed whale evolution....then it would probably take billions and billions of year to change the microbe to a man! Baka wala na solar system nasa amphibians pala si Darwin...
-
Besides if we were to follow the computation on population genetics that it would take 43 million years to change to 2 parts from two animals in the supposed whale evolution....then it would probably take billions and billions of year to change the microbe to a man! Baka wala na solar system nasa amphibians pala si Darwin...
I've not read that article on whales but if they're able to change 2 parts, then that's evolution for you. As to why it will take 43 million years, I don't know, were they able to simulate the environment back then?
-
My best guess is the "opposite of natural selection acting on random mutation" paano yun? Di ko rin alam, but fossil records support presence of well-formed life forms rather than millions of transitional life forms that are expected in the neo-darwinian process.
Besides if we were to follow the computation on population genetics that it would take 43 million years to change to 2 parts from two animals in the supposed whale evolution....then it would probably take billions and billions of year to change the microbe to a man! Baka wala na solar system nasa amphibians pala si Darwin...
sir, can you site the source that says whales changed to 2 parts only from two animals?
this video from the Ocean Portan website (a part of the Smithsonian Institution's Ocean Initiative) says differently:
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/evolution-whales-animation
-
http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/jonathan-wells-on-whale-evolution/ (http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/jonathan-wells-on-whale-evolution/)
Sir, here is site that mentioned the work by Richard von Sternberg an evolutionary biologist on whale evolution
-
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist, author and advocate of intelligent design.[1] Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." The term Darwinism is often used by intelligent design proponents to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution.[2][3][4] He gained a PhD in religious studies at Yale University in 1986, then became Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City. In 1989, he studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and was published in academic journals.
In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2000), Wells said that a number of examples used to illustrate biology textbooks were grossly exaggerated, distorted the truth, or were patently false; he said that this shows that evolution conflicts with the evidence, and so argued against its teaching in public education.[5][6][7] Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said the Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism.[6][8] Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.[4][5][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)
-
Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said the Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism.[6][8] Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.[4][5][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)
common trait of creationists/anti-evolution "scientists".
-
asan na ang mga fossils ng sinasabing common ancestors... ?
-
the magic of creationism: for evolution, there are a lot of data and observations to support, thus there are a lot of things to challenge. for creationism, there is barely anything to support, thus there is barely anything to challenge. ::)
which is why it's funny that most evolution vs creation discussions really just boil down to proving or disproving evolution alone :P
-
the magic of creationism: for evolution, there are a lot of data and observations to support, thus there are a lot of things to challenge. for creationism, there is barely anything to support, thus there is barely anything to challenge. ::)
which is why it's funny that most evolution vs creation discussions really just boil down to proving or disproving evolution alone :P
The best post ever in this thread... ;D
-
asan na ang mga fossils ng sinasabing common ancestors... ?
Nasa ilalim ng lupa hindi pa nahuhukay... ;D
-
creation: out from nowhere...
evolution: nowhere to be found...
-
evolution: nowhere to be found...
lol. all around you, actually.
RU9's infographics from the previous page alone contain a wealth of information.
-
Nasa ilalim ng lupa hindi pa nahuhukay... ;D
Keep digging! Mahahanap din yan!
-
common trait of creationists/anti-evolution "scientists".
Typical reaction, dismiss outright any findings that seems to contradict your point of view...
What you should do instead is to have an open mind....look at the validity of his piece based on the data
he presented...
Here is that data, take note that the author's also point out that their work also show the flaws on a noted creationist work. But look at the result on how long it would take in humans to have just 2 mutations...
Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.
Durrett R1, Schmidt D.
Author information
1Department of Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.
-
Do creationists actually have any support for creationism besides faith and outside of disproving evolution?
Instead of saying: "No, evolution is wrong because... *stuff* ...therefore I shun evolution and embrace creationism," do creationists ever go "Here is proof that creationism is true: <reasons>" <<< and when I say reasons, I am pertaining to data and information.
It seems like a self-defeating question since my understanding is that creationists purely base their beliefs on faith, but it would be refreshing if creationists argued their side of the discussion by actually supporting creationism and not just citing the shortcomings of the evolution theory.
Like I said earlier, creation vs. evolution basically boils down to proving or disproving evolution almost all the time.
-
Do creationists actually have any support for creationism besides faith and outside of disproving evolution?
Instead of saying: "No, evolution is wrong because... *stuff* ...therefore I shun evolution and embrace creationism," do creationists ever go "Here is proof that creationism is true: <reasons>" <<< and when I say reasons, I am pertaining to data and information.
It seems like a self-defeating question since my understanding is that creationists purely base their beliefs on faith, but it would be refreshing if creationists argued their side of the discussion by actually supporting creationism and not just citing the shortcomings of the evolution theory.
Like I said earlier, creation vs. evolution basically boils down to proving or disproving evolution almost all the time.
By default Evolution is the prevailing world view on the emergence of life. The mechanism that it has presented that of natural selection on random mutations. Is the one being assessed, tested by scientists in such a diverse field.
You're correct though that since the mechanism given has not yet explained what is observed in nature, the search goes on until they can find a mechanism that will fit all the evidence......until then this thread will go on and on and on...
-
until then this thread will go on and on and on...
Evolving thread? ;D
-
Behe's reply......they are actually in agreement pala that will a very long time to have just two mutations!
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
Michael J. Behe
Genetics 181: 819-820, (2009)
Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 1020. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 1020 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years).
-
By default Evolution is the prevailing world view on the emergence of life. The mechanism that it has presented that of natural selection on random mutations. Is the one being assessed, tested by scientists in such a diverse field.
You're correct though that since the mechanism given has not yet explained what is observed in nature, the search goes on until they can find a mechanism that will fit all the evidence......until then this thread will go on and on and on...
this is exactly what I've been saying since a few pages ago. Evolution is a fact. How we evolved, in this case "By Natural Selection", is the theory. the one being tested is the theory that we evolved "By Natural Selection" but since there are no other theories that comes close to "By Natural Selection", it is the widely accepted theory.
And yes, Evolution itself is both fact and theory. It's considered a theory because it answers the question of "How did we get here?".
-
Evolving thread? ;D
Correction bro! this thread was in fact created, and will only have variations( like holographic 3D environment) but it will remain a thread! ;D
-
To the evolutionists
How do you reconcile research like these on genetics that goes against the notion of natural selection on random mutations?
Take note that the research is not even talking about producing new functional body plans but in fact talking about cancer as the the result of mutation.
Since we are in agreement that for a theory to be considered as true all evidence should fit.
-
in my point of view, it doesn't necessarily go against natural selection on random mutations because it only talks about how long it will take for the organism to evolve. the worst that it will do is to change the model to fit the evidence. i'll admit that natural selection is incomplete and finding new evidence will change and modify the theory but that's how science works.
-
in my point of view, it doesn't necessarily go against natural selection on random mutations because it only talks about how long it will take for the organism to evolve. the worst that it will do is to change the model to fit the evidence. i'll admit that natural selection is incomplete and finding new evidence will change and modify the theory but that's how science works.
Well ok, however if these research are accurate, and we have a fair of knowledge of the age emergence of life. At the very least it puts in doubt the mechanism of natural selection on random mutations to produce complex life forms. Then you need a new mechanism for evolution...
-
Well ok, however if these research are accurate, and we have a fair of knowledge of the age emergence of life. At the very least it puts in doubt the mechanism of natural selection on random mutations to produce complex life forms. Then you need a new mechanism for evolution...
yes but as i've said, that's just how science works. if the old model doesn't hold, scientist will think of another theory that would fit the new evidence. just like what happened with Newton's theory on how gravity works. Einstein's Theory of Relativity debunked Newton's theory on gravity but that didn't make gravity much less than a fact. same with Evolution. the theory on how it happened may be changed but doesn't make Evolution false.
-
Evolution is not a fact?
Florida lizards seen evolving in just 15 years
Scientists have documented the evolution of a native Florida lizard species in as little as 15 years as a result of pressure from an invading lizard.
Since Darwin’s time, biologists assumed that evolution takes centuries, or longer, but recent findings have begun to change that view.
(http://www.world-science.net/images2/AnolisCarolinensisFoot.jpg)
The left hind foot of Anolis carolinensis, or green anole. (Credit: Yoel Stuart)
In Florida, researchers found that after contact with the invasive species, the native lizards began perching higher in trees. Then, generation after generation, their feet evolved to become better at gripping the thinner, smoother branches found higher up.
Evolution occurs when ecological conditions favor the survival and reproduction of organisms with some traits, over those with other traits. This leads the favored traits to spread through a population over generations. Given enough time, a whole species can change dramatically, or branch off into multiple new species.
In the lizards, the scientists found that change occurred at an astonishing pace: Within a few months, native lizards had begun shifting to higher perches, and over 15 years and 20 generations, their toe pads had become larger, with stickier scales on the feet.
“We did predict that we’d see a change, but the degree and quickness with which they evolved was surprising,” said Yoel Stuart, a postdoctoral researcher at The University of Texas at Austin and lead author of the study appearing in the Oct. 24 edition of the journal Science.
“To put this shift in perspective, if human height were evolving as fast as these lizards’ toes, the height of an average American man would increase from about 5 foot 9 inches today to about 6 foot 4 inches within 20 generations—an increase that would make the average U.S. male the height of an NBA shooting guard,” said Stuart. “Although humans live longer than lizards, this rate of change would still be rapid in evolutionary terms.”
(http://www.world-science.net/images2/Anoles2.jpg)
Green anoles (left) and brown anoles (right). (Credit: Todd Campbell and Adam Algar)
The native lizards studied, known as Carolina anoles or green anoles, are common in the southeastern U.S. The invasive species, Cuban anoles or brown anoles, are native to Cuba and the Bahamas. Brown anoles first appeared in South Florida in the 1950s, possibly as stowaways in agricultural shipments, and have since spread across the southeastern U.S. and have even jumped to Hawaii.
This latest study is one of only a few well-documented examples of what evolutionary biologists call “character displacement,” in which similar species competing with each other evolve differences to take advantage of different ecological niches. A classic example comes from the finches studied by Charles Darwin. Two species of finch in the Galápagos Islands diverged in beak shape as they adapted to different food sources.
The researchers speculate that the competition between brown and green anoles for the same food and space may be driving the adaptations of the green anoles. Stuart also noted that the adults of both species are known to eat the hatchlings of the other species. “So it may be that if you’re a hatchling, you need to move up into the trees quickly or you’ll get eaten,” said Stuart. “Maybe if you have bigger toe pads, you’ll do that better than if you don’t.”
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/141023_anoles.htm
-
Evolution is not a fact?
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/141023_anoles.htm (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/141023_anoles.htm)
Wala pa rin yan.
It's still a lizard, right? Sana naging ibon, puwede pa... ;D
-
Wala pa rin yan.
It's still a lizard, right? Sana naging ibon, puwede pa... ;D
Almost everything creationists say or write about evolution is ultimately some sort of misrepresentation of science, but there is a special grouping of misrepresentations dealing with microevolution and macroevolution specifically. This is because questions about microevolution and macroevolution lie at the heart of creationist arguments against evolution today. Only the most foolhardy creationist denies the reality of microevolution, but they try to deny that this is "real" evolution. They insist that only macroevolution is real evolution and that there is some essential difference in how microevolution and microevolution occur.
• If we can't see it occurring, then it's not real
The most basic creationist misrepresentation of macroevolution is that we can't observe macroevolution occurring and if we can't observe it, then it's not science and isn't real. This is an ironic position to take because Christian apologists misrepresent atheists as arguing "we can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist." Apologists "respond" to this falsehood by pointing out that there is nevertheless evidence of God. Creationist Christians, though, won't accept such reasoning with macroevolution. It is wrong that science can only study phenomena we directly and personally observe. They are also very wrong to argue that if we haven't directly observed something then it can't be true or real. They key is the presence of real, reliable, and consistent evidence — and we have an overwhelming amount of such evidence for macroevolution.
• Macroevolution has never been observed
As bad as it is to make the invalid argument that some phenomenon has to be directly observed to be treated as real, it's also an argument based on a false premise: macroevolution has been observed. Most aspects of macroevolution take place over thousands and millions of years, far too long for any one human to observe over their lifetime. The most basic aspect of macroevolution, though, is speciation: the development of a new species. This too can take a long time but it has nevertheless been observed. Some creationists respond by simply denying against all evidence that speciation has been observed; others react by denying that speciation really is an example of macroevolution.
• Macroevolution is cats turning into dogs
Creationists who try to deny that speciation is an example of macroevolution and thus of evolution itself try to argue that macroevolution only occurs on some undefined, mysterious level above species which they label "kind." Sometimes "kind" seems synonymous with species but other times it seem equated with family or genus. Rarely do creationists try to explain what "kind" is in any scientific sense because it's a concept they get from the book of Genesis in the Bible; it has no scientific basis whatsoever. Instead, they just keep repeating slogans like "cats don't turn into dogs," as if the only legitimate example of macroevolution would be a cat evolving into a dog or a fish evolving into a zebra. No scientist uses "macroevolution" this way and that's why it's a blatant misrepresentation.
• Biblical "kinds" never change to another kind
It is difficult to underestimate the importance of the concept of "kind" to creationism - even to forms of creationism like Intelligent Design which deliberately avoid any explicit references to biblical concepts like this. Because the idea of "kind" is purely religious, lacking any scientific basis whatsoever, the appearance of this term is an immediate demonstration that a person's argument is ultimately unscientific. It is not possible to make a legitimately scientific argument against or about macroevolution or microevolution with unscientific, biblical concepts like "kinds." Believers are free to make theological arguments with such concepts, but once they introduce them to scientific debates they cannot avoid misrepresenting and misunderstanding the science.
• Microevolution is mere adaptation to the environment
Creationist efforts to deny macroevolution frequently depend on pretending that there is some fundamental difference between macroevolution and microevolution. This goal is advanced by misrepresenting just how important microevolution really is. Creationists effectively denigrate it as "mere adaptation" to the environment, as if it weren't a remarkable event with great power to alter a species over time. The key thing to remember is that adaptations don't happen in retrospect — individuals don't encounter a new environment and then change to fit it. Instead, mutations occur all the time and, with a bit of luck, some of those mutations help individuals survive an environment newly encountered.
• Microevolution isn't real evolution
Creationists want to deny evolution but they can't deny the obvious fact that animals can and do change. Their "solution" is to deny that microevolution is "real" evolution — but this is little more than a lie. Evolution is defined in biology as the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Thus even something as simple as a change in the frequency of blue eyes qualifies as evolution — and it is indeed "real" evolution. When creationists insist that it's only evolution if the changes are great enough to produce a new species, they are blatantly misrepresenting science, biology, and evolution.
• Macroevolution is new information; microevolution is shuffling genes around
There are a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations packed into this short statement. First, moving genes around can produce macroevolution if it produces a new species: individuals that can't mate with their ancestors and produce fertile offspring. Second, "information" is left deliberately vague here. Is information in the presence of a single gene, or how multiple genes are ordered? If the latter, then then introduction of a new gene is only "information" because of the new sequence of genes produced and this means that a new sequence produced by shuffled genes is also new information. Third, we don't need the supernatural to explain the introduction of new genes: we know it happens when bacteria and viruses insert their own genes into the DNA of a host.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/tp/Creationist-Misrepresentations-Of-Macroevolution-And-Microevolution.htm
-
is natural selection explains how new species evolve how new species exist? or just another assumption needed to be test?
generally... natural selection produce the same species... nothing more nothing less... is it observable? (well... it took time of couse... around billion of years)... so well just wait another billion of years to prove this? but for the meantime we need to accept this as a fact because there is no other theories that makes more sense that this... for the evidence... hmmm well... we still need to dig more... maybe its just around the corner... don't worry this is a fact... me and my fellow "bright and genius" scientist" accepted this... so this is a fact...
-
^ yup. it's at least a far better alternative than relying on a baseless "magic" of creationism.
-
is natural selection explains how new species evolve how new species exist? or just another assumption needed to be test?
generally... natural selection produce the same species... nothing more nothing less... is it observable? (well... it took time of couse... around billion of years)... so well just wait another billion of years to prove this? but for the meantime we need to accept this as a fact because there is no other theories that makes more sense that this... for the evidence... hmmm well... we still need to dig more... maybe its just around the corner... don't worry this is a fact... me and my fellow "bright and genius" scientist" accepted this... so this is a fact...
What's the alternative?
Sorry, walang evidence, Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan. Wait for the end of time for proof.
-
^ yup. it's at least a far better alternative than relying on a baseless "magic" of creationism.
Ah so, emergence of life by creation is baseless magic. Even though man has been "creating" things himself from cave drawings, houses, cars, airplanes,computers, jets, microscopes, manipulating chemicals in experimentation, etc. etc.
When all these combine pales in comparison to the complexity of life we see today and what we see in the fossil evidence....
In addition we fail to realize that the very simple "taken for granted" act of posting in this thread is an act of creation.....without an intelligent mind....the posts would be gibberish!
-
What's the alternative?
Sorry, walang evidence, Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan. Wait for the end of time for proof.
To put it in a practical sense. I believe and it is by faith that you sir (RU9) exist because, i have seen, read and understood your post. Without this then you are a figment of my imagination.
-
^ yup. it's at least a far better alternative than relying on a baseless "magic" of creationism.
Why this insistence that there should be an "alternative"?
If evolution is speculation, admit that it's speculation. If you do not believe in creation, that's OK.
Just because you don't believe in creation, it doesn't automatically mean that evolution is a fact, "because there is no other alternative."
What's the alternative?
Sorry, walang evidence, Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan. Wait for the end of time for proof.
Again this insistence on an "alternative."
"Sorry, walang evidence" - Ok yon, aminin mong walang evidence, imbis na sabihin mong sa evolution tayo dapat, kasi wala nang alternative.
"Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan." - Wag mo nang pakialaman ang religion. Basta patunayan mo na lang ang evolution. ;)
You reason that if evidence for creation is weak, then evolution must be correct.
Hindi ganon yon. If evolution is a fact, then prove it.
=======================================
Ganito na lang ang gawin natin:
Science is saying that there is overwhelming evidence proving that evolution is a fact. If so, then must be really easy to prove that reptiles evolved into birds.
Present evidence that reptiles evolved into birds, and let's discuss it.
-
Why this insistence that there should be an "alternative"?
If evolution is speculation, admit that it's speculation. If you do not believe in creation, that's OK.
Just because you don't believe in creation, it doesn't automatically mean that evolution is a fact, "because there is no other alternative."
Again this insistence on an "alternative."
"Sorry, walang evidence" - Ok yon, aminin mong walang evidence, imbis na sabihin mong sa evolution tayo dapat, kasi wala nang alternative.
"Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan." - Wag mo nang pakialaman ang religion. Basta patunayan mo na lang ang evolution. ;)
You reason that if evidence for creation is weak, then evolution must be correct.
Hindi ganon yon. If evolution is a fact, then prove it.
Evidence for Evolution is all around you. You just dismiss it because it doesn't go with your belief in creationism.
-
Evidence for Evolution is all around you. You just dismiss it because it doesn't go with your belief in creationism.
No, I don't care if you believe in creation or not. You can verify that from my previous posts.
What I do care about is that when you say something is a fact, you'd better be prepared to prove it.
You keep making general statements that there is evidence for evolution, yet when challenged to point out a specific piece of proof, all you can come up with is a lizard that stayed a lizard.
-
No, I don't care if you believe in creation or not. You can verify that from my previous posts.
What I do care about is that when you say something is a fact, you'd better be prepared to prove it.
You keep making general statements that there is evidence for evolution, yet when challenged to point out a specific piece of proof, all you can come up with is a lizard that stayed a lizard.
read on my reply to you regarding your "evolution should change a lizard into a bird" statement.
to understand you more, though, what is your stand? how do you think we came about?
-
to understand you more, though, what is your stand? how do you think we came about?
At least you're willing to listen.
My stand is that religion and science should be kept separate.
I believe in the creation story of Genesis, but I don't impose that belief on anyone.
I don't believe that all living things evolved from a common ancestor because there is no evidence that proves it.
My view is that it is not possible to prove evolution, and it is also not possible to prove creation. Notice that I do not only oppose someone who says evolution is a fact; I also object when someone says the Big Bang proves creation and Intelligent Design.
However, just because it is not possible to prove evolution, it does not automatically mean that creation is true. That would be a big speculative jump that is unscientific.
Just admit that evolution is speculation rather than fact, and I'm satisfied.
-
At least you're willing to listen.
My stand is that religion and science should be kept separate.
I believe in the creation story of Genesis, but I don't impose that belief on anyone.
I don't believe that all living things evolved from a common ancestor because there is no evidence that proves it.
My view is that it is not possible to prove evolution, and it is also not possible to prove creation. Notice that I do not only oppose someone who says evolution is a fact; I also object when someone says the Big Bang proves creation and Intelligent Design.
However, just because it is not possible to prove evolution, it does not automatically mean that creation is true. That would be a big speculative jump that is unscientific.
Just admit that evolution is speculation rather than fact, and I'm satisfied.
Sorry but i can't say that it is speculation because there are evidences. Evidences that are scientifically accepted. Scientists do not make compromises. Evolution, whether or not you believe in it, is true. You cannot make scientists say that Evolution is just mere speculation because it is true. Macroevolution, as you creationists would like to argue doesn't happen, has tons of evidences. Macroevolution is just multiple microevolution with the inclusion of other factors over time. it is a gradual change and not a sudden change from one specie to another. Macroevolution does not mean that a lizard will suddenly become a bird after evolving.
below is a good read regarding Macroevolution:
Antievolutionists try to make out that macroevolution is a tautology, the way they claim that natural selection is a tautology. The implication is that macroevolution cannot be tested and shown to be wrong, and therefore it is not science.
To clarify this, consider what it is that scientists test when they test a hypothesis. Let's suppose that we are testing the idea that global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. There are two parts to this – one claim is that CO2 causes the retention of solar and other heat, and the second is that this has happened in the past and is actually happening now. If you show that in a particular case global warming didn't happen (say, in the period of the last interglacial), you haven't thereby shown that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, nor that it isn't doing so now. All you have tested is a particular case.
We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution.
Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution. The original idea was that evolution formed only tree-like patterns – species split like branches. A growing consensus has argued that both hybridisation (species recombining) and lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the "host" taxon's cellular machinery) are more common than we had previously thought. Macroevolution of species is still regarded as the most common way that the diversity of life has developed, but the "tree" now has "vines" that hang across the branches of single celled organisms (Fig. 4).
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution/evolutionvines.jpg)
'Vines'd
Figure 4. Evolutionary "vines" Lateral genetic transfer across the tree of life. Taken from Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom, based on work done by Victor Kunin, et al. This image covers only bacteria and archaea, but the same conclusions apply at the wider scale of other single celled organisms. [Full-sized image]
So the Common Descent Hypothesisas we might call the general idea, or the notion of Descent with modification as Darwin called it in his correspondence, is tested every time a particular hypothesis is tested. When there are problems in enough phylogenies, then Common Descent may be rejected. So far, though, it is a very good first approximation, and the fact that revisions can be and have been made show that it is neither dogma, nor insulated from data.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what
-
Just because you don't believe in creation, it doesn't automatically mean that evolution is a fact, "because there is no other alternative."
My point is that creation is not acceptable because you believe without reason while evolution is based on science, hence a better explanation.
You are very strict on evidence but you have nothing to offer.
-
thing is, Creationism is not even considered as a theory. it is just a myth.
-
"Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan." - Wag mo nang pakialaman ang religion. Basta patunayan mo na lang ang evolution. ;)
Just to remind you, ang thread title ay Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion. You cannot dictate on people here. I believe that our discussions are for educational purposes only.
-
You are very strict on evidence but you have nothing to offer.
That's because I do not claim that creation is a fact. So don't compel me to prove it.
If you claim evolution to be a fact, then you're the one who has the obligation to prove it.
If you admit that evolution is a matter of faith, then I won't compel you to prove it either.
That's fair for both sides.
=======================================
My point is that creation is not acceptable because you believe without reason while evolution is based on science, hence a better explanation.
You misunderstood. We both agree that from the scientific point of view, creation is not acceptable:
To accept that a creator caused it to happen would require too many assumptions, in violation of the Occam's Razor principle.
However, just because it is not possible to prove evolution, it does not automatically mean that creation is true. That would be a big speculative jump that is unscientific.
My point is that in order to prove evolution is true, you are merely pointing out that creation is false.
Your premise is that one of them is correct; hence if one is false, then the other is true. You fail to take into consideration that both might be false.
Therefore, to prove that evolution is true, don't just point out that creation is false. Prove the truth of evolution independently, without any reference to the falsity of creation.
-
all are speculations, as no one among us was there when it happened...
we can reason, we can hypothesize, theorize, but at the end of the day, how do you know?
-
That's exactly my very simple point.
I admit that creation is not a provable fact.
Let them admit that evolution is not a provable fact either, and that's the end of it.
-
all are speculations, as no one among us was there when it happened...
we can reason, we can hypothesize, theorize, but at the end of the day, how do you know?
Correct sir! Problem is the other side keeps insisting that thier view is Both theory and Fact.
Personally, my view is that ID is more plausible than evolution.
-
all are speculations, as no one among us was there when it happened...
we can reason, we can hypothesize, theorize, but at the end of the day, how do you know?
So, in the end if there is indeed a Designer we can ask Him. If there is none then it won't matter we'd all be dust just the same.
-
it all goes back to my question, how do you know?
-
it all goes back to my question, how do you know?
As my earlier post implied....we can never really know the Final Truth, not faith, not science. Because the event we are discussing is in the distant past and therefore cannot be simulated to be tested. What we know of is true is based on our personal experience and the knowledge we get from others. However knowing something doesn't necessarily mean it's True! Based on our total experience and assumptions of what is true directs where we would lean in this topic. Our conviction, faith( or lack thereof), philosophy ultimately dictates what you believe of is the truth....
While science and scientists can provide us with vast information about events that happened a long time ago, they cannot provide final answers. Thus claims such as evolution of the lizard, E.coli etc. cannot be used to prove that evolution occurred in past. Because these observation lack the pre-historic environment that evolution was supposed to have taken place. So in the debate on "creation vs evolution" it all boils to whom you will believe.
-
(http://immizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/lEvolution-nIee.png)
-
it all goes back to my question, how do you know?
How do I know creation is true?
It's not that I know, because I don't. I just choose to believe.
-
How do I know creation is true?
It's not that I know, because I don't. I just choose to believe.
If only the evolutionist would say the same thing.....my guess is they won't. Because they know the Truth!
-
God dictated the story in Genesis because early man was too dumb to understand evolution. God, knowing man will eventually lift itself up and be able to understand a more detailed creation story left clues for man to find, hence evolution.
There is a God and his tool of choice is evolution.
-
God dictated the story in Genesis because early man was too dumb to understand evolution. God, knowing man will eventually lift itself up and be able to understand a more detailed creation story left clues for man to find, hence evolution.
There is a God and his tool of choice is evolution.
Sir,
it's more like God created Man, Man created evolution.
-
Sir,
it's more like God created Man, Man created evolution.
Religion was created by man to make a viable society.
Without religion stupid people would start committing crimes.
With religion almost all stupid people keep in line.
The smart ones "hack" society to get ahead because they know better.
Again, you have to look at holy scriptures within context. A lot of stupid people take it literally.
If I slap you on the right cheek should you present the left or just forgive outright?
-
The smart ones "hack" society to get ahead because they know better.
they make a lot of money, get political power, and meddle with out lives....
all because there are lots of gullible people around....
-
Religion was created by man to make a viable society.
Without religion stupid people would start committing crimes.
With religion almost all stupid people keep in line.
The smart ones "hack" society to get ahead because they know better.
Again, you have to look at holy scriptures within context. A lot of stupid people take it literally.
If I slap you on the right cheek should you present the left or just forgive outright?
Sir, OT na ito but just to respond...
Right, man created religion, but what made him decide one way or another that something
is right or something is wrong? They must have been geniuses( not dumb) to come up with these...
On the other hand I do have my misgivings about organize religion but that's for another thread.
Faith is different from religion.
My initial reaction is to slap you even harder(just kidding) or file a case of Slight Physical Injury and get sir barrister as counsel(that's taking it literally, but i do know which is which).
This is an open discussion forum and we try to keep the insults/name calling to a minimum.
-
Again, you have to look at holy scriptures within context. A lot of stupid people take it literally.
If I slap you on the right cheek should you present the left or just forgive outright?
This was discussed before:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. (Mt. 5:38-39)
Notice that it says "right cheek," not "left cheek."
Right and left are very significant in the bible. The right is good; the left is bad. The right hand does the work; the left hand does not.
In those days, a slap on the face was an extreme insult. Those from the higher ranks of society insult the lower classes by slapping them on the face with the back of the hand. Why backhanded? Because the one delivering the slap doesn't want his palm to touch any part of the body of a lower-class person. Therefore, a backhanded slap is even more insulting than an ordinary slap with the palm.
When two persons are facing each other, and the slapper uses the back of his right hand to strike the other on the cheek, the victim gets hit on his right cheek. And that's the significance of getting a slap on the right cheek --- it means you were given a backhanded slap, which is extremely insulting.
Therefore, it's not really about the physical slap on the face. It's just a poetic way of talking about somebody who receives great insult and humiliation.
Why offer the other cheek? Because by offering the other cheek, the offender will find it difficult to deliver a second slap. How so?
The offender won't use his left hand because that goes against tradition. But his right hand can't use a backhanded slap on the victim's left cheek, so the offender will be forced to use his right palm or a fist. But a non-backhand is more proper for an equal, not for someone of lower status. So, using the palm or fist will deprive the offender the opportunity of displaying his superior status and delivering a more serious insult.
Note that it's talking about how you deal with personal insults. It's not in any way talking about prohibiting self-defense against an axe murderer.
Therefore, turning the other cheek simply means not to take revenge for petty things such as personal insults. By not seeking revenge, you put a stop to a cycle of ever-escalating violence. You turn the other cheek by helping the offender realize that his actions are unjustified, then standing back and allowing God to do the rest.
-
they make a lot of money, get political power, and meddle with out lives....
all because there are lots of gullible people around....
And even when caught they get away with it and become 3rd most likely to be President again or become a figurehead Mayor playing city administrator at the cost of national economic interest.
docelmo, I'm not insulting anyone. There are really stupid people who need a "higher power" to conform to social & civil order. Tell them what they're doing is wrong because it isn't sociable and would wound societal balance isn't a good enough reason for them to stop. They need spiritual rewards to motivate them to keep peace and order. They need "God" for them to behave.
Hence, in my mind religion is still needed. The Book of Leviticus is a good example as to why you need religion or else people would be sleeping with animals or with their children, their sibling's children or their parent's or parent's siblings.
Example, former drug user insists I go to Holy Mass. I don't have a need to go in over a decade's time. I told him that there are people who _need_ to go to service and there are people who do not need to go. The look on his face was as if I told him I enjoyed eating locusts. Mind you the former drug user attends Catholic & Victory service even though he didn't convert to Victory. My guess as to why he goes to both is for peace of mind. He is a bit fragile.
I did not pursue further my stance out of fear that the former drug user would commit suicide. I dont want the guy to kill himself. He's honestly harmless.
I'm perfectly fine with the religion i am given and have no need to switch over. I just dont want to listen to politics during service which has became largely the norm. Last May I went to service for work they were talking about the evil's of selfies and yet the highest ranking amongst them is a large proponent of selfies. They even made standies so you can selfies with him. Ironies of ironies.
Nelson, thanks for the historical context on the left/right.
Again, what is written in Genesis is for a time where in the concepts of billions of years was unfathomable where and when lifespans based on our modern calendar extends only to a person's 20s/30s. It appears today that we as a people are in the transition towards to a time when we can can grasp billions of years then evolution makes sense. When you're considered a "lolo" or "lola" when you hit your early 20s then 4.54 billion years is something you can't mentally grasp. Hence my "stupid" description.
Remember, there was a time that you would be called a heretic and be imprisoned for saying the world was round like a ball. It was only in 1992 that the Pope said a heretic was right all along. There are still people who still believe the world is flat. Thankfully they do not travel much out of fear of falling off the edge of the world. ^_^
-
No problem sir ice storm,
It's just that you did not put your statement in context. It appeared to be a personal statement and not made to illustrate your point or both. Thus my reply was show that i knew the difference...
-
Tiktaalik:
(http://www.gambassa.com/gambassafiles/images/images/2049/tiktaalik_v1.jpg)
...Mr. Dawkins describes a series of fossils that make evolution-connecting arguments in a chapter called "Missing Link? What Do You Mean 'Missing'?" There we can find a Canadian fossil, called Tiktaalik, which University of Pennsylvania paleontologists discovered in 2004. On what is now Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, about 375 million years ago, a fish-like creature, now called Tiktaalik, developed a crocodile's head on a salamander's trunk, attached to a fish's behind and tail. Unlike any fish, it had a neck and could turn its head.
"In almost every particular," Mr. Dawkins says, "Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link." It almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian. It is also perfect because it is no longer missing. "We have the fossil." It's pictured in The Greatest Show on Earth, accompanied by a line about the exodus of fish from the water and their movement onto land.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=6e342103-7e71-420d-b1d7-f4e781034fbd (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=6e342103-7e71-420d-b1d7-f4e781034fbd)
-
Tiktaalik:
(http://www.gambassa.com/gambassafiles/images/images/2049/tiktaalik_v1.jpg)
...Mr. Dawkins describes a series of fossils that make evolution-connecting arguments in a chapter called "Missing Link? What Do You Mean 'Missing'?" There we can find a Canadian fossil, called Tiktaalik, which University of Pennsylvania paleontologists discovered in 2004. On what is now Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, about 375 million years ago, a fish-like creature, now called Tiktaalik, developed a crocodile's head on a salamander's trunk, attached to a fish's behind and tail. Unlike any fish, it had a neck and could turn its head.
"In almost every particular," Mr. Dawkins says, "Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link." It almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian. It is also perfect because it is no longer missing. "We have the fossil." It's pictured in The Greatest Show on Earth, accompanied by a line about the exodus of fish from the water and their movement onto land.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=6e342103-7e71-420d-b1d7-f4e781034fbd (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=6e342103-7e71-420d-b1d7-f4e781034fbd)
hindi kaya atty yan na ang buwaya ngayon? a transitional fossil of an aligator o kung nag backtrack ang evolution eh di hito yan..... :D ;D
-
No, it is not a transitional fossil. I will explain later kung bakit.
Walang kuwenta kasi ang evidence na binibigay dito sa thread in favor of evolution. Kaya para mas interesting, ako na ang nagbibigay ng malakas na ebidensiya para sa kanila.
The media sensation, probably the greatest evidence for evolution ---- the walking fish, the Tiktaalik roseae! ;)
-
^Do tell. I hope you've taken into consideration discoveries that was featured in articles early this year.
-
hindi kaya atty yan na ang buwaya ngayon? a transitional fossil of an aligator o kung nag backtrack ang evolution eh di hito yan..... :D ;D
Nope. I will rebuke you. Walang badge at traffic citation booklet eh. ;D
-
Nope. I will rebuke you. Walang badge at traffic citation booklet eh. ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
nagbacktrack pa lalo konsi......bka tambasakan na yan! ;D ;D in english...salamander ;D ;D
-
So, in the end if there is indeed a Designer we can ask Him. If there is none then it won't matter we'd all be dust just the same.
That is, if you are still capable of asking after life's end... :)
-
That is, if you are still capable of asking after life's end... :)
My guess is God will tell you what I earlier stated. You have to explain it at a kindergarden level for a few millennia and leave clues around for a more high school explanation on how things came about later on.
What I like about us Catholics is our church leaders allow for the teaching of evolution in Catholic schools. What I fear is that those who do not believe in the whole or parts of evolution being given power over other people. If these people are few, widely dispersed and do not congregate in large numbers then it isnt a problem but if they have enough sway for an election then it is scary.
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/1b/b5/0a/1bb50aba5667c469dc4e5eed3540dcbe.jpg)
I failed to put context as I was either too lazy to write it out or I forgot that people arent privy to the thoughts in my head.
-
No, it is not a transitional fossil. I will explain later kung bakit.
Walang kuwenta kasi ang evidence na binibigay dito sa thread in favor of evolution. Kaya para mas interesting, ako na ang nagbibigay ng malakas na ebidensiya para sa kanila.
The media sensation, probably the greatest evidence for evolution ---- the walking fish, the Tiktaalik roseae! ;)
ang dami niyan sa probinsiya namin :) ... sa panahon ngayon nasa transition period pa pala ang mga isdang iyon...
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFFNFCX1SVg2JJa1gAqdVol2KXiJsSjIe3Qa6-wku0SWGjC_zgoAA39zA)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToVhat8RoI6php0zJT0gG3ooy5uLfDinDbIPdL0j8XMTT1AteH4Geg-51m)
billion of years from now... magkakaroon na rin ng leeg ito... another billion of years... matuto nang tumira ito sa lupa... paano ko nalaman? sa tingin ko ganoon talaga ang nangyari... kita mo naman sa anyo mukhang may kamay na...
wala nang ibang puwedeng gawin ang isda kungdi ang umahon sa tubig... alangan namang bigla na lang lumitaw ang mga crawling animals... so ito ang pinaka dabest na puwedeng mangari sa isda :):)
-
Which brings me to a related topic: environmentalists
If evolution is true then being eco-friendly only serves to retard the rise of new species.
Let me explain, during the time of the dinosaurs mammals (and by extension humans) were the dominant species that roamed early Earth. If not for climate change that wiped out dinosaurs then mammals wouldn't have a fighting chance.
Now with climate change happening now if we retard the change it disallows newer species to evolve to replace us.
So yun, if you're eco-minded person you are negating changes. If you are not then you are promoting change in the order of things.
-
Uy ibang topic naman yan. Just a reply though, ang problema sa climate change eh man made ang cause niya and not not natural.
-
Science is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By obsevation, experimentation and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by technology and interpretation may be flawed. Science is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new evidence comes. Also using the word "believe" connotes faith, science does not demand faith, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.
-
leo, climate change for the dinosaurs could be the result of dino-farts so does that make it dino-made? :)
Evidence exists that cow-farts contributes to climate change. So should you stop eating that tasty burger?
-
Science is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By obsevation, experimentation and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by technology and interpretation may be flawed. Science is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new evidence comes. Also using the word "believe" connotes faith, science does not demand faith, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.
Faith is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By oral tradition, ancient texts and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by comprehension and interpretation may be flawed. Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new beliefs come. Also using the word "science" connotes education, faith does not demand education, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.
Check it out, I fixed your post. :)
-
That is, if you are still capable of asking after life's end... :)
Sir,
Since i believe that there is Life after death, then i will be capable to ask Him all questions. If i am wrong then it won't matter since i'll be long dead and gone...
-
Faith need no evidence to be true to a believer.
Science needs observable events to be true.
Religion & faith comforts those in dire straights that's why I dont mind people believing in whatever they want so long it prevents them from committing suicide or crimes against others.
-
Faith is (not always) true. In the sense that what "true" today may not be true tomorrow. By oral tradition, ancient texts and interpretation we arrive at an understanding of what we observed in nature. Hovewer we are limited by comprehension and interpretation may be flawed. Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature, it is continuing process that maybe modified or discarded as new beliefs come. Also using the word "science" connotes education, faith does not demand education, it demands our understanding and acceptance. Thus understanding and acceptance may change in time.
Check it out, I fixed your post. :)
Oh. Now i am confused, others here say that having Faith is accepted without question by "uneducated" people like me, thus unchanging. Yet you say that faith demand undestanding and acceptance and may change in time. which is which?
May mali ba dun sa sinabi ko regarding science not being always true? Yes or no?
Science and faith are two different areas, you cannot use one to disprove the other. Science is physical, faith is spiritual.
So when you say belief in science you are crossing over the territory of faith.
-
leo, climate change for the dinosaurs could be the result of dino-farts so does that make it dino-made? :)
Evidence exists that cow-farts contributes to climate change. So should you stop eating that tasty burger?
yes i've read about that but to stop eating beef is not the only solution. Scientists are testing different diets for cows to reduce the methane production. actually, cows burp more methane than when they're farting. actually around more than 90% of the time.
also, if you think about it, humans are the reason for the population of cows. humans consume cows. the more humans there are, the more cows there are.
Exactly how significant this it to our global environment isn't something that anyone can easily put a number on, but the EPA, NASA, various global agriculture organizations, and the United Nations all recognize that this is a real problem. In recent years, several different solutions have been proposed. Scientists and experts have experimented with cows' diets to see if that could help cut down on the amount of methane gas. For instance, Welsh scientists studied the effects of putting garlic into cows' feed. According to BBC News, "Garlic directly attacks the organisms in the gut that produce methane." So far, results have been positive.
Researchers have also studied adding plants that are high in tannins to the diet, which are believed to lower methane levels in ruminants. Another branch of study focuses on not lowering the amount of methane gas, but figuring out a way to contain it and repurpose it. Some farms have experimented with having their livestock live in a plastic bubble, which takes the expelled gas and converts it into electricity. But this process is both expensive, inefficient, and considered somewhat inhumane, forcing animals to live inside an artificial bubble.
http://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730
-
"Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature" is this your definition of faith?
Medyo malayo....
Faith is strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
-
Oh. Now i am confused, others here say that having Faith is accepted without question by "uneducated" people like me, thus unchanging. Yet you say that faith demand undestanding and acceptance and may change in time. which is which?
May mali ba dun sa sinabi ko regarding science not being always true? Yes or no?
Science and faith are two different areas, you cannot use one to disprove the other. Science is physical, faith is spiritual.
So when you say belief in science you are crossing over the territory of faith.
actually, tama naman yung sinabi mo sir. Science adapts when there's new evidence presented and scrutinized. if accepted, papalitan or babaguhin yung theory. but as long as the theory holds true, it is the accepted truth.
But consider this. Religious beliefs change because of Science. Scientific beliefs change not because of Religion but because of Science itself.
-
yes i've read about that but to stop eating beef is not the only solution. Scientists are testing different diets for cows to reduce the methane production. actually, cows burp more methane than when they're farting. actually around more than 90% of the time.
also, if you think about it, humans are the reason for the population of cows. humans consume cows. the more humans there are, the more cows there are.
http://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730
Isama mo na din ang milk from cows. Di ba dapat they harvest ang mga crap ng cows for fuel?
-
"Faith is an understanding or explanation of nature" is this your definition of faith?
Medyo malayo....
Faith is strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Faith arose because human sentience could not understand existence. For instance:
Early man 1: Why is there a moon, stars, and the sun?
Early man 2: Because it was created by <insert favorite deity here> to give us light.
Early man 1: Why should I believe you?
Early man 2: Because <insert favorite deity here> will smite your heathen ass and punish you and the rest of your kin with eternal darkness.
Early man 1: Oh no! What should I do?
Early man 2: Worship <insert favorite deity here> with prayers and offerings so that he will gift you with grace.
Early man 1: Help me, oh prophet! Tell me what to do!
Early man 2: Ok. Right down everything I say and follow it to the letter...
-
i think faith and belief are now being mixed up here....
Faith is essentially blind on a scientific point of view. Belief on the contrary is based on understanding. To believe is to know, then faith takes over…evolutionist simply refuse to extend logic beyond the scientifically verifiable. cant blame them. anyway we are all free men naman na malayang magisip ng sa tingin natin ay tama.
-
i think faith and belief are now being mixed up here....
Faith is essentially blind on a scientific point of view. Belief on the contrary is based on understanding. To believe is to know, then faith takes over…evolutionist simply refuse to extend logic beyond the scientifically verifiable. cant blame them. anyway we are all free men naman na malayang magisip ng sa tingin natin ay tama.
With all due respect, you have a wrong understanding of what logic is. By definition, logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" - Oxford Dictionary. extending logic beyond the scientifically verifiable is actually the absolute opposite meaning of the word.
-
Faith arose because human sentience could not understand existence. For instance:
Early man 1: Why is there a moon, stars, and the sun?
Early man 2: Because it was created by <insert favorite deity here> to give us light.
Early man 1: Why should I believe you?
Early man 2: Because <insert favorite deity here> will smite your heathen ass and punish you and the rest of your kin with eternal darkness.
Early man 1: Oh no! What should I do?
Early man 2: Worship <insert favorite deity here> with prayers and offerings so that he will gift you with grace.
Early man 1: Help me, oh prophet! Tell me what to do!
Early man 2: Ok. Right down everything I say and follow it to the letter...
So now man fully understands existence? He longer needs faith?
Faith is from the greek word "pitis" which is translated to Trust.
For example: when someone says i have faith in you. This means two things: first the person you are talikng to actually exist. Second, you are convinced that that person is trustworthy.
I ask again what was wrong with my post that it needed fixing? Kindly point it out.
-
With all due respect, you have a wrong understanding of what logic is. By definition, logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" - Oxford Dictionary. extending logic beyond the scientifically verifiable is actually the absolute opposite meaning of the word.
eto sir tatlo nakita kong meaning...
log·ic noun \ˈlä-jik\
: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
for me, being reasonable cannot be construed as in accordance to strict principles of validity....
if thats your way of defining it, i view it differently. anyway believe in what you think is factualy right for you but my faith has guided me to believe otherwise.
-
eto sir tatlo nakita kong meaning...
log·ic noun \ˈlä-jik\
: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
for me, being reasonable cannot be construed as in accordance to strict principles of validity....
if thats your way of defining it, i view it differently. anyway believe in what you think is factualy right for you but my faith has guided me to believe otherwise.
Of course that is your faith and i'm in no position to take that away from you but just one last point of argument. In no way do those meanings align with religion. Religion doesn't teach you how to think, it tells you what to think.
-
Of course that is your faith and i'm in no position to take that away from you but just one last point of argument. In no way do those meanings align with religion. Religion doesn't teach you how to think, it tells you what to think.
who says that its align with religion? anyway i just chose to believe.......
-
Going back on topic: here are some opinions of evolutionists on the problem of trasitional fossil problems....
"Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1
Is it any different today? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2
The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist — see documentation) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
-
Fossils of new species are found all the time so what is lacking now can be completed down the road.
-
Fossils of new species are found all the time so what is lacking now can be completed down the road.
Correct, new fossils are discovered but take note of the statement "absence of fossil evidence of intermediary stages" in other words wala pa talaga for more than a century of digging! At least this guy is being honest and upfront about it.
And the gaps in between is not as wide as the pasig river, it's as wide as the grand canyon!
So, don't hold your breath bro!
Eto pa sir:
"All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:
The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."
And up to now this statement has not been refuted....
-
Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’
VATICAN CITY (RNS) Pope Francis on Monday (Oct. 27, 2014) waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.
The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.”
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.
“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
Francis said the beginning of the world was not “a work of chaos” but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.
“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pope-francis-evolution-inconsistent-notion-creation/
-
This is the latter part of the report: Popes are after all only human.
Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not.”
Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis’ comments, saying he had buried the “pseudo theories” of creationists.
“The pope’s statement is significant,” Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. “We are the direct descendents from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation.”
Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan’s University degli Studi, said he believed Francis was “trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes” with science.
Francis made his speech while unveiling a bust in honor of Benedict, his predecessor, at the Vatican.
“Benedict XVI was a great pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love of the church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety,” he said.
-
Fossils of new species are found all the time so what is lacking now can be completed down the road.
In the meantime, not a single transitional fossil has been found.
Do scientists wait until a transitional fossil is found before declaring that evolution is true? No. How long have they been saying evolution is true? For more than a hundred years.
Consider this:
Darwinists have been claiming for more than a century that the transitional fossils are surely out there, only that they have not yet been found.
The fossil record is immense, with about a billion fossils already found. After 120 years of searching --- not a single transitional form.
Does the scientist now say that the theory of evolution lacks evidence? No. Quite the opposite: science now says evolution is a fact. You'll need a lot of faith to believe that.
I'm not saying that scientists should believe in creation. All I'm saying is that scientists should admit that they don't know, or that they are not sure about evolution, and leave it at that.
-
In the meantime, not a single transitional fossil has been found.
Whut?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
-
Whut?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
Choose one. Start with the fossil, then explain why it is transitional.
You really think I haven't seen that page before? ;)
-
Choose one. Start with the fossil, then explain why it is transitional.
Are you actually saying that the list of transitional fossils as listed on that page, collated from the many references cited at the bottom of the page, throughout years of study... are actually not transitional fossils??
I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why these are not transitional fossils, since all the whats, hows and whys are already listed there and on related pages for all to see.
-
Don't matter what fossil or evidence you present to creationists. They will never accept any of it.
-
For a butterfly, a grown up person is not the same person as when he/she was a child simply because it cannot live long enough to see the transition.
-
I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why these are not transitional fossils, since all the whats, hows and whys are already listed there and on related pages for all to see.
The burden of proof is on the one who alleges, not on the one who denies.
The reasons why all of them are transitional are already there for all to see? Then it should be very easy to quote those reasons here. Just one fossil would suffice.
All I'm asking is that you repeat what the scientists said about just one fossil. How hard can that be? It's not as if I'm requiring you to do an original study.
Or maybe you can simply admit that you really have no idea why any of those fossils are considered transitional, and save us the waste of time?
-
All I'm asking is that you repeat what the scientists said about just one fossil. How hard can that be? It's not as if I'm requiring you to do an original study.
Why repeat? It's all there. Do us all a favor and tell us why they aren't transitional fossils.
We're not scientists. We rely on those who we think are experts. If you know something we don't, please tell.
-
Sasabihin lang nila na speculation lang naman yun and hindi naman nakita mag transition. I.e. Lizard not turning into bird.
-
Don't matter what fossil or evidence you present to creationists. They will never accept any of it.
i am a creationist and i believe in evolution. i accept those transitional fossils except for human.
i believe evolution is God's way of creating diverse life on earth.
i said this because if i were God, i would do the same. i believe this is the best way to populate earth with living creatures instead of creating them one by one which for me, is very tiresome and not practical. what i do instead is just make a blueprint of life that is programmed to evolve and to speciate. it doesn't matter if it would take millions of years since time is of no essence to God.
if we will read the verses in creation account, on the 5th and 6th day, we will notice that God just LET the waters and earth bring forth creatures after their kind. "after their kind" looks "speciation" to me in our science subject.
-
i am a creationist and i believe in evolution. i accept those transitional fossils except for human.
i believe evolution is God's way of creating diverse life on earth.
i said this because if i were God, i would do the same. i believe this is the best way to populate earth with living creatures instead of creating them one by one which for me, is very tiresome and not practical. what i do instead is just make a blueprint of life that is programmed to evolve and to speciate. it doesn't matter if it would take millions of years since time is of no essence to God.
if we will read the verses in creation account, on the 5th and 6th day, we will notice that God just LET the waters and earth bring forth creatures after their kind. "after their kind" looks "speciation" to me in our science subject.
you're not the "creationists" i was referring to. i mean those who believe that living organisms just came out of nowhere by magic.
-
this just in:
Pope Francis says Evolution and the Big Bang are real
The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to something else, but it derives directly from a supreme principle that creates out of love. The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God; on the contrary, it requires it. Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve.
When we read in Genesis the account of creation [we are] in danger of imagining that God was a magician, complete with a magic wand that can do all things. But he is not.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/pope-francis-says-evolution-and-the-big-bang-are-real-1651853568?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
-
aha ha ha... walang standard kasi... kaya ganyan...
-
then magbabacktrack na naman yung ibang Church leaders sa Vatican sasabihin na mali yung sinabi ni Pope.
-
eto ang problema ng evolutionist......yung origin nung universe is in question. maraming inconsistencies ang big bang kaya hanggang ngayon theory pa lang. kse pag eto hindi totoo, pati yung claim ng evolutionist of our origin eh malamang hindi na din totoo...
-
this just in:
Pope Francis says Evolution and the Big Bang are real
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/pope-francis-says-evolution-and-the-big-bang-are-real-1651853568?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
The thing is when you discuss this (evolution) to Catholics, they will think you are crazy by not believeing in "creation" as depicted in Genesis.
I had a professor who is a devout Catholic and a leader in their local Couples for Christ in Marikina, and when the subject of evolution arises he would say, that is against the Bible.
What about now, when it's their pope who's saying otherwise?
many Catholics don't realize that their Church already accepted evolution as a creation process.
-
The thing is when you discuss this (evolution) to Catholics, they will think you are crazy by not believeing in "creation" as depicted in Genesis.
I had a professor who is a devout Catholic and a leader in their local Couples for Christ in Marikina, and when the subject of evolution arises he would say, that is against the Bible.
What about now, when it's their pope who's saying otherwise?
many Catholics don't realize that their Church already accepted evolution as a creation process.
Parang scientist ata. Instead of saying I don't know, nag-speculate na lang. Hehe!
-
the way i comprehend it, he is not saying otherwise:
from pope francis.......
Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.
He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.
>:D >:D
-
the way i comprehend it, he is not saying otherwise:
from pope francis.......
Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.
He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.
>:D >:D
Otherwise meaning "Eve did not come from adam's rib"
-
Otherwise meaning "Eve did not come from adam's rib"
sa inyo pong relihiyon, i assume that your a menmber of INC since ive read your posting at the INC thread, anong ho ang kanilang posisyon tungkol sa evolution and creation?
-
sa inyo pong relihiyon, i assume that your a menmber of INC since ive read your posting at the INC thread, anong ho ang kanilang posisyon tungkol sa evolution and creation?
I believe in evolution regardless of what others say, based on scientific evidences.
My mind is open to other explanations, though, but at present I think the evidences lean toward evolution.
-
I believe in evolution regardless of what others say.
with due respect sir, so you dont believe on what your church teaches you about the bible? so if you dont, why the need of having a religion at all when from the begining you dont believe that he created you?
-
with due respect sir, if you dont believe on what your church teaches you about the bible? so if you dont, why the need of having a religion at all when from the begining you dont believe that he created you?
who says I have one now?
and when did I say he did not create me?
we are talking about a process here.
-
who says I have one now?
and when did I say he did not create me?
we are talking about a process here.
1) the last time ive checked your post is last july of this year and i think you are very much affiliated with your church. but its not july now so you might be out, i dont know.
2)by believing in the evolution process, it contradicts the notion of creationism. and creation tell us that god created us.
3) we are really talking about a process here. and that processes are intertwined with our faith and religion. since youve mentioned catholics in your earlier post, ive asked you whats your church standpoint regarding the matter. but since your not affiliated anymore, as you say, then its moot and academic for me to ask you about it.
-
1) the last time ive checked your post is last july of this year and i think you are very much affiliated with your church. but its not july now so you might be out, i dont know.
2)by believing in the evolution process, it contradicts the notion of creationism. and creation tell us that god created us.
3) we are really talking about a process here. and that processes are intertwined with our faith and religion. since youve mentioned catholics in your earlier post, ive asked you whats your church standpoint regarding the matter. but since your not affiliated anymore, as you say, then its moot and academic for me to ask you about it.
Creationism is not the only process God could have used to create you and me.
-
Ah so now that the pope said BBT is real, you agree that the biblical creation account which I previously posted is very similar to the BBT when it started with God saying “Let there be light”?
Since we have no word to mean the change of life forms we use “evolution” very loosely. The pope probably means that change or complexity of life was fully directed by God Himself not the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of evolution. So, which type of (for lack of a better word) “evolution” do you believe in? God directed where there are fully formed animals or Neo-Darwinian gradual change of animals?
Speaking of “Gradual transition of animals” let’s take on the whale evolution.
Let’s agree first on several aspects claimed by evolutionist;
Since whales are mammals therefore it’s ancestors should also be mammals. This mammal is a fully land dwelling animal with four legs. And as mammals one of it’s features is the pelvis where in the whale has now become vestigial.
If we are to believe this, then at some time in the transition of this land animal to the whale this yet unknown animal would NOT be able to live on land or water! Because by this time this animal now has a non-functioning pelvis (no hind legs), but at the same time no tail yet for aquatic life. How many millions of years do this animal need to survive in this handicapped condition in order for it to “evolve” in the next animal to next until it becomes a whale?
BTW, they may have to change the whale evolution.
An ancient whale jawbone was discovered by paleontologist Marcelo Reguero which has been dated back to 49 millions years! This means that this animal was already swimming at the same time when the so-called walking whale (Ambulocetus) was still walking on land!!
So fully aquatic whales already existed BEFORE its semi-aquatic “ancestors”!
-
naniniwala ako na ang buong creation naganap lamang sa loob ng anim na araw... literally...
if i can believe that Jesus was born of a virgin birth and rose from the dead 3 days after his death... how i cannot believe that creation took only 6 days to finish... the Bible speaks plainly...
i believe that death, sufferings, disesases comes after the fall of man... if we combined creation with evolution... ilang death ang naganap at sufferings ng mga living organism bago mabuo ang tao? magkakaroon ng contradiction...
namatay si Adam sa edad na 930 years old... pero ginawa siya during 6th day of creation and God rested on the 7th day... if these days are not literal 24-hour day then we have another problem... nabuhay si adam from 6th day (thousand/million of years) until 7th day? pero ayon sa Bible nabuhay siya sa loob lamang ng 930 years...
How can God redeem the Earth from death and sufferings if it start from chaos and death? we cannot combine Creation through the process of evolution... it negate the through meaning of salvation and why Jesus died on the cross...
Romans 3:4
-
eto ang problema ng evolutionist......yung origin nung universe is in question. maraming inconsistencies ang big bang kaya hanggang ngayon theory pa lang. kse pag eto hindi totoo, pati yung claim ng evolutionist of our origin eh malamang hindi na din totoo...
oh that's it. you don't know how scientific theories work. i suggest you read what scientific theories are first before claiming that "hanggang ngayon theory pa lang".
here's a hint: Scientific theories does not become a law or does not ascend to a higher level. ;)
-
BTW, they may have to change the whale evolution.
An ancient whale jawbone was discovered by paleontologist Marcelo Reguero which has been dated back to 49 millions years! This means that this animal was already swimming at the same time when the so-called walking whale (Ambulocetus) was still walking on land!!
So fully aquatic whales already existed BEFORE its semi-aquatic “ancestors”!
No, it just means whales evolved more rapidly than previously thought. If they found 53 million year old whale fossils, that's the time that they do it over again.
-
No, it just means whales evolved more rapidly than previously thought. If they found 53 million year old whale fossils, that's the time that they do it over again.
Huh? So what is now the ancestor of this whale since its supposed ancetor is still alive? By this evidence alone they need to remove all the other animals in between. How do you reconcile rapid evolution with limitation in change on studies on population genetics! That you would need at least 43 million years to just change two mutations? You will need thousands of mutAtions in between these animals and that would need even longer period of time!
And what the animal with neither hindlimbs nor tail? This should be the middle point in transition.....incompatible with survival.
-
Huh? So what is now the ancestor of this whale since its supposed ancetor is still alive?
I don't think an ancestor needs to be extinct for new species to exists.
-
I don't think an ancestor needs to be extinct for new species to exists.
Here is the problem in whale evolution the ambulocetus is followed by Delanistes, then rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorundon and Basilosaurus. The Basilosaurus is fully aquatic, and the fossil is in this same family!
The fossil is OLDER that the earliest fossil of all those supposed ancestors!
Its like this how can the son be older than his great great great great great grandfather!?
-
Here is the problem in whale evolution the ambulocetus is followed by Delanistes, then rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorundon and Basilosaurus. The Basilosaurus is fully aquatic, and the fossil is in this same family!
The fossil is OLDER that the earliest fossil of all those supposed ancestors!
Its like this how can the son be older than his great great great great great grandfather!?
Put it like this. You had a son. He's an albino. Say his albino trait is dominant. You had another son, he's the same color as you. The albino married another albino with the albino trait also dominant and you had albino grandchildren. Your other son married a "normal" girl and had "normal" kids. So, you spawned 2 kinds of descendants and they flourished at the same time.
-
oh that's it. you don't know how scientific theories work. i suggest you read what scientific theories are first before claiming that "hanggang ngayon theory pa lang".
here's a hint: Scientific theories does not become a law or does not ascend to a higher level. ;)
Sir leomarley is right.
It's confusing, since the word "theory" has one meaning in ordinary usage and another meaning in science.
A scientific theory is an explanation that is well-substantiated and generally accepted. It's considered true until falsified.
In ordinary usage, a theory is an explanation that may be unsubstantiated; may be personal and not generally accepted; may be considered true by one but not generally considered true.
So it's not correct to say in the scientific viewpoint, ang evolution ay "theory lang" na parang pure speculation without being well-substantiated by evidence and general acceptance by the scientific community.
-
oh that's it. you don't know how scientific theories work. i suggest you read what scientific theories are first before claiming that "hanggang ngayon theory pa lang".
here's a hint: Scientific theories does not become a law or does not ascend to a higher level. ;)
my claim sir is that i dont believe in it either, just like the theory of evolution. as long as there are no direct evidence that will prove that these universe was created out of an event just like the evolution process, it will remain a proposition to me........
btw, assuming that we are an evolving species, sa tingin mo sir ano kaya tayo magiging pag dating ng isang milyong taon? makakalipad na kya ang tao? tutubuan na kaya tayo ng hasang para makatira tayo sa dagat?
-
my claim sir is that i dont believe in it either, just like the theory of evolution. as long as there are no direct evidence that will prove that these universe was created out of an event just like the evolution process, it will remain a proposition to me........
btw, assuming that we are an evolving species, sa tingin mo sir ano kaya tayo magiging pag dating ng isang milyong taon? makakalipad na kya ang tao? tutubuan na kaya tayo ng hasang para makatira tayo sa dagat?
depends on your mutation and the environment you're living in. we might even evolve unnaturally and evolve into machines.
-
Narinig ko lang sa abs cbn news a few minutes ago.
Sabi ni pope di daw salungat sa turo ng simbahan ang big bang at evolution.
Eto pala yung link
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang-theory-are-real-n235696
-
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html)
-
now... ano kaya gagawin ng member ng RC .... sa palagay ba eh hindi Bible ang final authority ng doctrine ng RC?
-
Put it like this. You had a son. He's an albino. Say his albino trait is dominant. You had another son, he's the same color as you. The albino married another albino with the albino trait also dominant and you had albino grandchildren. Your other son married a "normal" girl and had "normal" kids. So, you spawned 2 kinds of descendants and they flourished at the same time.
Sir,
It still doesn't make your grandchildren older than than you!
The case of the fully aquating whale is it predates its suppsed ancestors, and was already existing when the supposed ancestors was still walking on land!
In the whale evolution they have alrready identified these animals as the succesion from the land animal to the whale! And here's "another difficulty you said that this means whales evolved faster than previously thought", then the changes from the land mammal to this fully aquatic animal is so radical and would now contradict "gradual" changes expected in natural selection acting on random mutation!
Assuming you still stick to the previously mentioned succesion, then we place the basilosaurus after the Pakicetus. This would mean that in just a few millon years the fully land animal became a fully aquatic animal! From 10 animals in the sucession it is now reduced to 4!
-
doc, curious lang ako dun sa study na yan and would very much like to read it. may link ka sir kung san?
-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/ (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html)
Sir, eto dalawa article on the same subject
-
Sir,
It still doesn't make your grandchildren older than than you!
Of course. But my point is, if something evolves from something, it doesn't mean that the ancestor specie should go extinct.
The case of the fully aquating whale is it predates its suppsed ancestors, and was already existing when the supposed ancestors was still walking on land!
In the whale evolution they have alrready identified these animals as the succesion from the land animal to the whale! And here's "another difficulty you said that this means whales evolved faster than previously thought", then the changes from the land mammal to this fully aquatic animal is so radical and would now contradict "gradual" changes expected in natural selection acting on random mutation!
Assuming you still stick to the previously mentioned succesion, then we place the basilosaurus after the Pakicetus. This would mean that in just a few millon years the fully land animal became a fully aquatic animal! From 10 animals in the sucession it is now reduced to 4!
This doesn't mean anything. They still evolved, just faster than previously thought. Who knows what can of environment there was back then that sped up the process. You see, the theory still holds.
-
Of course. But my point is, if something evolves from something, it doesn't mean that the ancestor specie should go extinct.
This doesn't mean anything. They still evolved, just faster than previously thought. Who knows what can of environment there was back then that sped up the process. You see, the theory still holds.
Sir, its either you missed the point or significance of the find or you are denying that this discovery and the limitations posted by population genetics has a significant impact on the darwinian mechanism. At its best it puts in question darwinian mechanism of natural selection on random mutation to achieve such a feat, at its worst it puts in question whether these fully land mammals evolved to fully aquatic mammal in such a SHORT period of time .
I did not say that the ancestor should be extinct. My point is that if this fully aquatic whale is part of the so called whale evolution then it follows this in fact older and predates its sopposed ancestors!
-
I did not say that the ancestor should be extinct. My point is that if this fully aquatic whale is part of the so called whale evolution then it follows this in fact older and predates its sopposed ancestors!
Just because you found an older fossil of a younger specie doesn't mean the specie pre-dates it ancestors. Like I said, we don't know the environment then. There must something that happened that sped up the process. Four million years is not a short time.
-
Just because you found an older fossil of a younger specie doesn't mean the specie pre-dates it ancestors. Like I said, we don't know the environment then. There must something that happened that sped up the process. Four million years is not a short time.
4 million is short when put against the population genetics model that you need 43 million years to change just two coordinated changes, you will need lot more time to fully change a land mammal to fully aquatic mammal! That's why they suggest that if whale evulotion is true then its something else and not darwinian mechanism! If its false then evolution from land mammals did not take place.
Here is an evolutionists opinion on fossil evidence:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
—Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p. 140, 1982
-
4 million is short when put against the population genetics model that you need 43 million years to change just two coordinated changes, you will need lot more time to fully change a land mammal to fully aquatic mammal! That's why they suggest that if whale evulotion is true then its something else and not darwinian mechanism! If its false then evolution from land mammals did not take place.
Like I said, was the environment during the time period considered? Did they know what was it like back then? Sorry, but they're talking about models, with specific parameters, hence the 43 million year figure.
Here is an evolutionists opinion on fossil evidence:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
—Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p. 140, 1982
That's his problem in 1982. What does he say now?
-
Like I said, was the environment during the time period considered? Did they know what was it like back then? Sorry, but they're talking about models, with specific parameters, hence the 43 million year figure.
That's his problem in 1982. What does he say now?
In the same manner that evolutionist do not also know the enviroment and yet insist that darwinian evolution occured. That is why scientist use models, genetics etc to test the veracity of the theory. Wait are you telling me that evolutionist do not use models? What then.....imagination? This kind of thinking highlights the plastic nature of the theory that it bends to accomodate presence of new evidence!
I think the guy has passed away already.
But at least this Scientist is intelectually honest enough to admit the lack of fossil evidence. Why? Has there been a new discovery of transitional fossil after 30 years?
-
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila.
Authors
Burke MK1, Dunham JP, Shahrestani P, Thornton KR, Rose MR, Long AD.
Author information
Journal
Nature. 2010 Sep 30;467(7315):587-90. doi: 10.1038/nature09352. Epub 2010 Sep 15.
Affiliation
Comment in
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Nov;11(11):746-7.
Abstract
Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster..... We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
Scientists do indeed use models and systems....this experiment shows that mutation rarely result in positive outcome like hooves to flippers or forelimbs to wings
-
Here is another slightly longer article on mutations...
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
by Brian Thomas, M.S.
The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.
One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.
They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution in the darwinian worldview.
Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.
-
Has there been a new discovery of transitional fossil after 30 years?
Yes there has been tons of new whale fossils found since 95 to the present that supports whale evolution.
-
In the same manner that evolutionist do not also know the enviroment and yet insist that darwinian evolution occured. That is why scientist use models, genetics etc to test the veracity of the theory. Wait are you telling me that evolutionist do not use models? What then.....imagination? This kind of thinking highlights the plastic nature of the theory that it bends to accomodate presence of new evidence!
It's a theory and as far as I know, there hasn't been any evidence that invalidates it. If there was, matagal ng tapos 'to, at hindi na natin pinagtatalunan. The models you mentioned does not invalidate the theory. In fact, it strengthens it. If 2 body parts in 43 million years isn't evolution then I don't know what is.
I think the guy has passed away already.
But at least this Scientist is intelectually honest enough to admit the lack of fossil evidence. Why? Has there been a new discovery of transitional fossil after 30 years?
Just because you can't find fossils doesn't mean they aren't there right? Kaya nga buhay pa yung theory e, kasi wala pang evidence that invalidates it. If and when they ever find one evidence that invalidates Darwin, kaming mga evolutionists pa ang unang-unang matutuwa, because we always like to be proven wrong.
-
Just because you can't find fossils doesn't mean they aren't there right?
That's true. But calling evolution a fact even before the fossil is found is not scientific.
Here is an evolutionists opinion on fossil evidence:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
—Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p. 140, 1982
That's his problem in 1982. What does he say now?
You're not familiar with Gould? He died in 2002 without changing his views.
Gould's statement that the fossil evidence is a problem for "gradualistic" accounts of evolution does not mean that he rejected evolution per se.
To my mind, it only meant that he was merely rejecting the notion of gradualistic evolution, but still believed in evolution itself.
Gould believed that most species show little net evolutionary changes. Instead, they remain in a state of stasis for long periods of time, before the occurrence of major and rapid evolutionary change. Gould called this "punctuated equilibrium," which is now a very important model in evolutionary theory.
I disagree with the creationists' implication (not docelmo) that Gould's statement means he doubted the validity of evolutionary theory as a whole.
I understand that doc's comment was limited to the "gradualistic" aspect, but there are many rabid creationists who point to the Gould quote to imply that a respected evolutionist rejected evolution as a whole.
-
That's true. But calling evolution a fact even before the fossil is found is not scientific.
Evolution doesn't just depend on fossils.
You're not familiar with Gould? He died in 2002 without changing his views.
Am now. Thanks for the info.
-
Correct sir Barisster, i was pointing out that even some evolutionist are having some questions on the power of natural selection on random mutation when seen against the backdrop of fossil evidence. While some on the basis of genetics and experiments on mutation.
Here's the thing between the fully land mammal and the fully aquatic whale the time period is around 4 million years. Population genetics points limitations on mutations based on population size, generation and time. There is simply not enough time to change from one animal to the next based on darwinian mechanism.
Just like what the above experiments has concluded:
"They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. "
-
The models you mentioned does not invalidate the theory. In fact, it strengthens it. If 2 body parts in 43 million years isn't evolution then I don't what is.
Then let's do some simple calculations...
And take into account the ratio of 2:43 as starting point. These are the ratio for 10, 20, 30 character changes.....,10:210, 20:430, 30:645
So if we are to have only10 mutations to change from a land dwelling mammal to a fully aquatic whale (we know that there are a lot more). It would take a staggering 210 million years to change just 10 characterestics!
Now the supposed land dwelling ancestor of the whale is the Pakicetus which lived about 50 million years ago. If that is correct, then this suggests that the pakicetus could NOT have evolved to a whale by 2014, it still needs about 160 million to complete the change! Or we need to find a 210 million year old pakicetus fossil!
-
Then let's do some simple calculations...
And take into account the ratio of 2:43 as starting point. These are the ratio for 10, 20, 30 character changes.....,10:210, 20:430, 30:645
So if we are to have only10 mutations to change from a land dwelling mammal to a fully aquatic whale (we know that there are a lot more). It would take a staggering 210 million years to change just 10 characterestics!
Now the supposed land dwelling ancestor of the whale is the Pakicetus which lived about 50 million years ago. If that is correct, then this suggests that the pakicetus could NOT have evolved to a whale by 2014, it still needs about 160 million to complete the change! Or we need to find a 210 million year old pakicetus fossil!
hmm... well... keep on digging :):):)
-
Now the supposed land dwelling ancestor of the whale is the Pakicetus which lived about 50 million years ago.
Speaking of Pakicetus, what is the scientists' basis for saying that it's the ancestor of whales?
Sasabihin ng mga evolutionists sa ating thread: Ah, basta ancestor yan. Sabi ng scientist, e.
Ano nga ang reason nila?
Basahin mo na lang. Bakit ko pa uulitin sa iyo?
Kasi, ang tingin ko, hindi mo rin alam ang reason nila, kunyari ka lang na naintindihan mo.
Bakit ko pa uulitin. Sinabi na nga nila lahat. Basahin mo na lang.
Lakas ng faith, talo pa ako... :D
-
a group of sceintist vs Bible...
aba eh kung gusto mong magmukhang matalino doon ka na lang sa "group of scientist" maniniwala :):):)
-
hmm... well... keep on digging :):):)
Let them dig sir dpogs.....there is a more plausible reason why there are no transitional animals found in the fossils.......they don't exist.
-
hmm... well... keep on digging :):):)
While people are digging, please share your thoughts on this:
The young Earth creationist belief that the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old conflicts with the actual age of 4.54 billion years measured using independently cross-validated geochronological methods including radiometric dating.
What is wrong with radiometric reading?
Malay mo maniniwala ako sa iyo.
-
a group of sceintist vs Bible...
aba eh kung gusto mong magmukhang matalino doon ka na lang sa "group of scientist" maniniwala :):):)
Now is your chance to prove this "group of scientist" wrong.
Show them what is wrong with radiometric reading?
Majority of this thread is is about about evolution.
Please educate us about your stand.
-
Now is your chance to prove this "group of scientist" wrong.
Show them what is wrong with radiometric reading?
Majority of this thread is is about about evolution.
Please educate us about your stand.
how i can i educate a group of scientist... i am just an idiot believing that all in this world nagawa lamang sa loob ng 7 days...
:)
but for the sake of conversatin:
-mt.helen erupted 1980 - vulcanic rocks dated million years old :)
-deep earth diamond contains trace of C-14
-lab diamond contains trace of C-14
-dinosaur fossils contains trace of C-14
-marami pa google na lang :)
radiometric method - just series of assumption :):):)
> test on igneous and metamorphic but never on sedimentray where most of the fossils found
1. decay rate constant - assumption 1
- sigurado ba tayo na walang change on rate of decay 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? million years ago?
2. closed system - assumption 2
- external factor not considered
3. starting point contains only parent element - assumption 3
- what is the initial percentage of parent and daughter element?
-
Speaking of Pakicetus, what is the scientists' basis for saying that it's the ancestor of whales?
Sasabihin ng mga evolutionists sa ating thread: Ah, basta ancestor yan. Sabi ng scientist, e.
Ano nga ang reason nila?
Basahin mo na lang. Bakit ko pa uulitin sa iyo?
Kasi, ang tingin ko, hindi mo rin alam ang reason nila, kunyari ka lang na naintindihan mo.
Bakit ko pa uulitin. Sinabi na nga nila lahat. Basahin mo na lang.
Lakas ng faith, talo pa ako... :D
Taken from berkely.edu site:
The evolution of whales
"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv150/docelmo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps80b65002.jpg (http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv150/docelmo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps80b65002.jpg)
Wait...so now NONE of the individual animals are Direct ancestors of any other, and here is the kicker statement.......AS FAR AS WE KNOW!!!
-
Wait...so now NONE of the individual animals are Direct ancestors of any other, and here is the kicker statement.......AS FAR AS WE KNOW!!!
that's because scientist don't claim to know everything. if they did, there wouldn't be anymore research and no reason anymore to find new fossils. as we've discussed earlier, a theory can change, evolve or be discarded altogether if new evidence is discovered that contradicts the current model. that is also the reason why there are peer reviews in science unlike in theology where once they saw that it is written it is the truth and it should not be changed.
your claims that whales need more than 200 million to evolve and could not have evolved in tens of millions of years may be true, or perhaps they just evolved faster. now i haven't read the papers fully but from what i gather, they based it purely on mathematical computations and our current understanding of DNA and perhaps didn't consider other factors like what do they eat, how the environment is back then, what are the predators preying on the whales or proto-whales, so on and so forth. mathematics alone cannot predict how fast a specie can evolve. as with my example in earlier posts, we witness a lizard evolve with bigger limbs in 15 years due to a competing specie. that's just one factor, imagine what other factors there might have been 40-50 million years ago.
-
radiometric method - just series of assumption :):):)
Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon and others, are able to measure much longer time periods, and are not restricted to things that were once alive. Generally applied to igneous rocks (those of volcanic origin), they measure the time since the molten rock solidified. If that happens to be longer than 10,000 years, then the idea of a young-Earth is called into question. If that happens to be billions of years, then the young-Earth is in big trouble.
The putative age of the Earth, about 4,500,000,000 years is based on the radiometrically measured age of meteorites, and is also about 500,000,000 years older than the oldest rocks. But regardless of the accuracy of this age for the earth, the existence of rocks circa 4,000,000,000 years old puts the squeeze on a 10,000 year old Earth.
So the natural response from a young-Earth perspective is to claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate or untrustworthy. Unfortunately, while the young-Earthers are long on criticism, they are short on support.
It's easy to assert that radiometric methods don't work, but it's quite another thing to prove it. This the
young-Earth creationist regularly fails to do.
Radiometric dating gives reliable results.
1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results
Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
--The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but
observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being
positioned over the hot spot.
--Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precission of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.
--Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method.
--Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older".
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
-
Radiometric dating gives reliable results. ...
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html (http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html)
Radiometric dating is indeed reliable.
The Young Earth Creationsists (YEC) are the only ones opposing it. But the "science" they present as basis is lacking.
YECs say that it is falsely assumed that radioactive decay rates are constant. They say the decay was actually faster in the historical past, and is progressively slowing down. This causes radiometric dates to be overstated.
But it is reasonable to assume that decay rates were the same today as they were thousands or billions of years ago. It is the assumption that decay rates are slowing down that is the unreasonable speculation.
-
that's because scientist don't claim to know everything. if they did, there wouldn't be anymore research and no reason anymore to find new fossils. as we've discussed earlier, a theory can change, evolve or be discarded altogether if new evidence is discovered that contradicts the current model. that is also the reason why there are peer reviews in science unlike in theology where once they saw that it is written it is the truth and it should not be changed.
your claims that whales need more than 200 million to evolve and could not have evolved in tens of millions of years may be true, or perhaps they just evolved faster. now i haven't read the papers fully but from what i gather, they based it purely on mathematical computations and our current understanding of DNA and perhaps didn't consider other factors like what do they eat, how the environment is back then, what are the predators preying on the whales or proto-whales, so on and so forth. mathematics alone cannot predict how fast a specie can evolve. as with my example in earlier posts, we witness a lizard evolve with bigger limbs in 15 years due to a competing specie. that's just one factor, imagine what other factors there might have been 40-50 million years ago.
Actually the berkeley "evogram" shows essential differences between other whale evolution scenario where they show the gradual march from pakicetus, ambulocetus......to modern whale. In my opinion this adds more complications and difficulty for natural selection to act on random mutations in so short a time. Given the lack of more transitional animals in between the branches they have previously identified as part of the whale family tree!
The change in the Whale evolution pattern is i believe a "convenient" way to point to another as yet unknown animal in the past w/o admitting that a mistake was made in previously tagging the Pakicetus as the original whale ancestor. Thereby extending the whale evolution further back into the past.
And another point, since it stated that no one is the ancestor of the other then the conclusion/implication is that all the animals from the pakicetus to the basilosaurus were NOT transitional species of the whale!
On the contrary sir Leo
Population genetics is the study of the distributions and changes of allele frequency in a population, as the population is subject to the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow.
the equation actually do take into account environmental aspect as well....
-
Pakicetus:
Early 1980s --- Discovery of Pakicetus skull fragments:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_skull.jpg)
The light blue area represents the fragments actually discovered; the white area represents an artist's reconstruction. Note that only those skull fragments were discovered and nothing more. No complete skull; not a single body skeleton fragment.
Based on the skull fragments, here was the original artist's reconstruction:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_reconstruction.jpg)
Wow, parang flippers yung paa. Sumisisid pa sa dagat... !
"This same picture also appeared in a journal for teachers to help them indoctrinate students into evolution. The author, Philip Gingerich, proclaimed in another article for popular consumption: ‘In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales."
Galing ng imagination, konting skull fragments lang, nalaman nila lahat yon!
Whale ancestor nga! Perfect transitional fossil! Missing Link! --- Tindi talaga... :D
2001 --- Discovery of an almost complete Pakicetus fossil:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_skeleton.jpg)
Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_pakicetus.jpg)
Oops... Ang layo pala ... :P
"New discoveries have blown away this imaginative ‘reconstruction’. A prominent evolutionary whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues, unearthed more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature. The commentary on this paper in the same issue says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an animal right at home in the sea!"
So, hindi na raw transitional fossil ngayon ang Pakicetus?
Transitional pa rin daw.
Bakit transitional pa rin?
Basta transitional pa rin daw ... ;D
http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale (http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale)
-
pakicetus... :)
lakas ng faith sa scientist...
-
Pakicetus:
Early 1980s --- Discovery of Pakicetus skull fragments:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_skull.jpg)
http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale (http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale)
Siyempre naman, ang source ay creation.com so the slant is to to prove evolution wrong.
The Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing God, never changes. This shows the folly of churchians who ‘reinterpret’ (i.e. disbelieve) the Bible because of ‘science’. If they had reinterpreted the biblical teaching on the creation of whales because of Pakicetus, then they would have to reinterpret their reinterpretation now that Pakicetus has been shown to be a swift land animal. from Creation.com
"The Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing God"--Creation.com
Back to the same question--How would they know? A more unsupported claim in my opinion.
Eto naman, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 , kaya lang mas scientific ang approach.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/whale_evo.jpg)
-
Sir RU9
That's precisely the evogram I was referring to where the site said this:( You might want to read carefully and understand the implication of the statement...)
"The evolution of whales"
"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
So if these are NOT the ancestors of whales then they are...
NOT...transitional species and have lived independently of each other!
The missing links....STILL MISSING!
-
Siyempre naman, ang source ay creation.com so the slant is to to prove evolution wrong.
You're correct. Creation.com is indeed biased towards the bible and against evolution.
But merely stating that the source site is biased is not enough to conclude that the Pakicetus is a transitional form.
Ganito kasi ang logic mo sir:
- Creation.com says Pakicetus is not a transitional fossil.
- Creation.com is biased towards the bible.
- Therefore Pakicetus is a transitional fossil.
That kind of reasoning is illogical and non-sequitur.
Why don't you point out what's wrong with my post and prove that the Pakicetus is transitional to a whale?
"The Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing God"--Creation.com
Back to the same question--How would they know? A more unsupported claim in my opinion.
You're corrrect. The claim that the bible is the Word of God is unsupported.
But merely stating that the claim about the bible is unsupported is not enough to conclude that the Pakicetus is a transitional form.
Ganito kasi ang logic mo sir:
- The bible says evolution is wrong.
- The claim that the bible is the Word of God is unsupported.
- Therefore, evolution is true.
That kind of reasoning is again illogical and non-sequitur. The fact that creation is unprovable does not automatically mean that evolution is true, since it's possible that both creation and evolution are wrong.
Specify what's wrong with my post and prove that the Pakicetus is transitional to a whale.
=======================================
Sir heisenbergman pointed out many transitional fossils via Wikipedia:
Whut?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
In response, I issued this challenge:
Choose one. Start with the fossil, then explain why it is transitional.
You really think I haven't seen that page before? ;)
None of the evolutionists here took me up on it.
Akala ko atapang atao. Atulin pala atakbo ... :D
-
But merely stating that the claim about the bible is unsupported is not enough to conclude that the Pakicetus is a transitional form.
Ganito kasi ang logic mo sir:
- The bible says evolution is wrong.
- The claim that the bible is the Word of God is unsupported.
- Therefore, evolution is true.
ito ang conclusion ko:
therefore the theory of evolution is more rational than the belief in god.
-
isang pirasong buto fossil
ginawa ng scientist nagdrawing ng transitional species "kuno" galnig sa isang pirasong buto
aba eh scientific approach nga... :)
hindi nga naman magic... pero minagic :):):)
parang LGBT lang ah... kapag may naipost na link against sa evolution... sinasabihan agad na bias :):):).... kaya hindi dapat paniwalaan...
-
Sir heisenbergman pointed out many transitional fossils via Wikipedia:
In response, I issued this challenge:
None of the evolutionists here took me up on it.
Akala ko atapang atao. Atulin pala atakbo ... :D
I disagree. You did not respond to the last statement on the subject --"Please tell".
Are you actually saying that the list of transitional fossils as listed on that page, collated from the many references cited at the bottom of the page, throughout years of study... are actually not transitional fossils??
I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why these are not transitional fossils, since all the whats, hows and whys are already listed there and on related pages for all to see.
Why repeat? It's all there. Do us all a favor and tell us why they aren't transitional fossils.
We're not scientists. We rely on those who we think are experts. If you know something we don't, please tell.
-
Sir RU9
That's precisely the evogram I was referring to where the site said this:( You might want to read carefully and understand the implication of the statement...)
I was trying to show the approach of creation.com vs. http://evolution.berkeley.edu on the subject.
Who is more systematic?
-
I disagree. You did not respond to the last statement on the subject --"Please tell".
I did respond later with the Paki fossil.
I asked evolutionists here to start with a fossil, then explain why it is transitional. Instead of complying, they just threw the question back at me.
I waited for someone to comply, but when it seemed that none was coming, I pointed out a fossil claimed to be transitional (Pakicetus) then explained why it is not.
Now we go back to your side. Point out a fossil, then explain why it's transitional.
-
I was trying to show the approach of creation.com vs. http://evolution.berkeley.edu on the subject.
Who is more systematic?
Sir,
Both sites are actually saying the same thing......The Pakicetus is NOT a Whale ancestor!!! Same goes for the ambulocetus, rodhocetus etc etc....
So there goes your systematic whale evolution!
-
I waited for someone to comply, but when it seemed that none was coming, I pointed out a fossil claimed to be transitional (Pakicetus) then explained why it is not.
Now we go back to your side. Point out a fossil, then explain why it's transitional.
Well you told them what you know. No reply, so I presume it was accepted. End of story.
-
Sir,
Both sites are actually saying the same thing......The Pakicetus is NOT a Whale ancestor!!! Same goes for the ambulocetus, rodhocetus etc etc....
So there goes your systematic whale evolution!
Ganito iyon--
creation.com says the whale is created by god as is, instantly. while
evolution.berkeley.edu show how the whales evolved.
-
Ganito iyon--
creation.com says the whale is created by god as is, instantly. while
evolution.berkeley.edu show how the whales evolved.
Evolved how? From which animal? Since apparently not one of those animals are its ancestor?
-
Do we all agree with this definition? (from wikipedia)
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.
-
Ganito iyon--
creation.com says the whale is created by god as is, instantly. while
evolution.berkeley.edu show how the whales evolved.
I've been following this thread for a while now. Allow me to share my 2 cents worth. I've been formulating my own opinion on the matter based on what has been shared in this thread.
Here's my argument, for those opposed to creationists, they say that the higher being "Instantly" created each being right? I'm thinking, why does it have to be "Instantly"? Why do those opposed to creationist have to ridicule intelligent design as "magical" and has no scientific basis, I don't know but with the scientific progress that were being exposed to right now, DNA and genetic material manipulation is being done, would it be possible that the creator designed these beings on a genetic level and somehow, DNA is an evidence of how the creator programs the beings he designed?
The berkeley, whale evolution really looked awkward to me. I know Scientists based those findings on observable information such as skeletal features and such, but I find it lacking.
Apology if i could not present any studies supporting my claim as as of the moment, this just sprung out of my mind and thought of contributing to the thread.
-
Evolved how? From which animal? Since apparently not one of those animals are its ancestor?
So you find evolution.berkeley.edu lacking in detail? Here:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text/1
Do we agree on the definition of evolution as shown:
The article title from which this info-graphic was lifted is Top five misconceptions about evolution according to science.
So Humans descend fro chimps is a misconception.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ocZlAPyG--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ufc9nhdbrwzuyueeheik.jpg)
-
Here's my argument, for those opposed to creationists, they say that the higher being "Instantly" created each being right? I'm thinking, why does it have to be "Instantly"? Why do those opposed to creationist have to ridicule intelligent design as "magical" and has no scientific basis, I don't know but with the scientific progress that were being exposed to right now, DNA and genetic material manipulation is being done, would it be possible that the creator designed these beings on a genetic level and somehow, DNA is an evidence of how the creator programs the beings he designed?
It is not my intention to ridicule intelligent design. If you look at creation.com closely, it is a ‘Young-Earth Creationist" site (http://creation.com/biblical-creationists). They believe the earth is actually old—very old—to the order of 6,000 years where science put it at 4,000,000,000 years. Their interpretation of the bible is literal hence my use of "instantly".
-
2001 --- Discovery of an almost complete Pakicetus fossil:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_skeleton.jpg)
Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_pakicetus.jpg)
Oops... Ang layo pala ... :P
Kanina pa ako tawang-tawa ako sa hirit na to. Hehehe.
Para mo na ding sinabi na...
(http://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/composite/51,84/human-skeleton-vector-1335184.jpg)(http://visual.merriam-webster.com/images/human-being/human-body/man/anterior-view.jpg)
Oops... Ang layo pala ... ;D ;D ;D
-
Kanina pa ako tawang-tawa ako sa hirit na to. Hehehe.
Para mo na ding sinabi na...
(http://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/composite/51,84/human-skeleton-vector-1335184.jpg)(http://visual.merriam-webster.com/images/human-being/human-body/man/anterior-view.jpg)
Oops... Ang layo pala ... ;D ;D ;D
I really have to explain this?
Sir, hindi ito ang sinabi kong malayo:
2001 --- Discovery of an almost complete Pakicetus fossil:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_skeleton.jpg)
Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_pakicetus.jpg)
Ito ang sinasabi kong malayo:
Based on the skull fragments, here was the original artist's reconstruction:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_reconstruction.jpg)
Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_pakicetus.jpg)
Oops... Ang layo pala ... :P
I can't believe I had to explain something so simple... ;D
OK lang sir, kung talagang nahihirapan ka pa rin, e wala na kong magagawa ... :P
-
hahaha! sige lang sir ;)
-
Evolved how? From which animal? Since apparently not one of those animals are its ancestor?
The Title of the evogram is The evolution of whales. Are you saying that
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ is wrong?
-
(http://www.conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Pakicetus_reconstruction.jpg)
This jpg was made created by a certain AddisonDM.
http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Pakicetus_reconstruction.jpg (http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Pakicetus_reconstruction.jpg)
http://www.conservapedia.com/User:AddisonDM (http://www.conservapedia.com/User:AddisonDM)
There is no indication that it was "made/created" by username AddisonDM, an administrator of conservapedia.com. All that indicates is who uploaded it to the conservapedia.com site, not who originally authored it.
Notice that the image was uploaded by AddisonDM on 01 July 2009. But the creation.com article is earlier --- it's a reprint from an issue of Creation magazine, dated March 2005 (http://creation.com/creation-magazine-table-of-contents-272 (http://creation.com/creation-magazine-table-of-contents-272). on pp. 20-22)
This was not made by the authors or included in the cited references by creation.com. Very deceiving indeed.
Gingerich, P.D., Wells, N.A., Russell, D.E. and Shah, S.M.I., Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science220(4595):403–406, 22 April 1983.
Gingerich, P.D., Evidence for evolution from the vertebrae fossil record, J. Geol. Educ. 31:140–144, 1983.
The cited reference is the cover of Science.
Here's the creation.com article: http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale (http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale)
The info box on the left reads:
Right: The original reconstruction1,2 based on only the skull fragments represented in blue1,2 (below). Evolutionists often make grandiose claims based on insignificant fossil finds. Artists’ reconstructions can exaggerate their significance. The general public doesn’t realise just how much artistic and imaginary licence is added to these announcements
Here's footnote #1:
Gingerich, P.D., Wells, N.A., Russell, D.E. and Shah, S.M.I., Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science220(4595):403–406, 22 April 1983.
That's Science, Vol. 220, Issue No. 4595, dated 22 April 1983. "Science" is a scientific journal.
The body of the creation.com article reads:
For example, on the cover of the prestigious journal Science,4 there was a picture of an alleged transitional creature. It looked like it had just splashed into the sea, and was chasing fish. However, it had feet and legs more like a land animal’s, but on the way to becoming flippers.
Footnote #4 reads:
Gingerich, P.D., Wells, N.A., Russell, D.E. and Shah, S.M.I., Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science 220(4595):403–406, 22 April 1983.
That's the same issue: Science, Vol. 220, Issue No. 4595, 22 April 1983.
=======================================
This is the cover of the journal "Science," Vol. 220, Issue No. 4595, 22 April 1983:
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/PDGpaksciencecov.jpg)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595.toc (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595.toc)
Here's a trace outline of the Science cover (upper left):
(http://www.apologeticspress.org/images/Pakicetus-2.png)
Here's the creation.com illustration:
(http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol27/whale_reconstruction.jpg)
It's just a reverse image based on the trace drawing, which was in turn based on the Science journal cover, which creation.com cited.
-
The Title of the evogram is The evolution of whales. Are you saying that
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ is wrong?
You tell me, when the site itself says "none of the animals are the direct ancestors of any other". All we see are fully formed animals in the past, but no proof that one evolved to another.
Simply stated they Don't Know of any direct ancestors in the fossil records!
-
Paulit-ulit na lang ang discussion. Bago naman, para interesting...
Here's another controversial area. Sana may interesado... ^-^
Some creationists say that evolution is evil, because some of the most evil men of the 20th century based their murderous ideas on the theory of evolution.
I don't believe that's true, since it's a bit extreme and not convincingly supported by evidence. Howewer, there might be a slight connection... Anyway, I still think it's an interesting topic...
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution
by Raymond Hall
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impact-the-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution (http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impact-the-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution)
Darwin, Hitler, and the Hijacking of Evolutionary Theory
By Michael Schulson | March 11, 2014
http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/11/darwin-hitler-and-the-hijacking-of-evolutionary-theory/ (http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/11/darwin-hitler-and-the-hijacking-of-evolutionary-theory/)
-
You tell me, when the site itself says "none of the animals are the direct ancestors of any other". All we see are fully formed animals in the past, but no proof that one evolved to another.
Simply stated they Don't Know of any direct ancestors in the fossil records!
To avoid misconceptions-What are evograms?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_02
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/tetrapod_evo.jpg)
To the left of the colored drawings is a set of branching lines — an evolutionary tree, or phylogeny, showing the relationships among these animals. It shows that, among the forms pictured here, Tulerpeton is the animal most closely related to today's tetrapods. Ichthyostega is equally closely related to Tulerpeton and to living tetrapods. Acanthostega is the next most closely related to these three groups. And so on. It's important to remember that none of these animals is directly ancestral to the other; they are just the closest relatives that we have yet discovered in the fossil record. This is a bit like comparing you, your sibling, your first cousin, and your second cousin: none of them is directly ancestral to you or to the others, but they are successively less closely related to you. You are most closely related to your sibling because you only have to go back one generation to find a common ancestor, whereas you have to go back two generations to find the common ancestor linking you to your cousin. Similarly, Tulerpeton is most closely related to living forms because it shares the most recent common ancestor with these forms compared to the other organisms on the phylogeny.
-
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
in our faith though: "For God, none is impossible." :)
for others: "All things is possible if you add billion of years."
-
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
in our faith though: "For God, none is impossible." :)
for others: "All things is possible if you add billion of years."
From wikipedia:
“ the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. ”
This quotation of Watson is often used in Creationist writings in an attempt to show that Watson, and thus by extension promoters of evolution in general, dismiss creationism due to antitheistic bias. A slightly different version of the quotation, derived from a secondhand source,[3] is sometimes used (e.g., by C. S. Lewis[4]):
“ [Evolution is] accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. ”
Sometimes the words in square brackets are incorrectly incorporated into the quotation, and/or the ellipsis is omitted.[5]
Watson's original statement first appeared in a 1929 article, "Adaptation," in the journal Nature:[6] The second version of the quotation, given above, is formed by combining parts of two similar passages in Watson's paper, one from the first page and one from the third. The first passage reads:
“ [1] Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.[7] ”
The second passage reads:
“ [2] If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible[8] ”
The ellipses in the second version of the standard quotation from Watson elide his statement in [1] that evolution fits "all the facts" of taxonomy, paleontology, and geographical distribution. They also omit his statement, which directly follows quotation [1] above, that "Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable."
Watson thus considered evolution a fact, belief in which was supported by its fit to a wide range of other facts. He thought "special creation" unbelievable and the mechanisms of evolution disputable (his article was devoted to emphasizing the inadequacy of contemporary theories of adaptation, and mentions "special creation" only in passing). This was in 1929, several years before the inception of evolutionary biology's Modern Synthesis, which integrated Mendelian genetics into Darwinian thought and produced widespread scientific consensus about basic evolutionary mechanisms. Stephen Jay Gould describes 1900–10 as “the period of greatest agnosticism and debate about evolutionary mechanisms” and adds that even the 1920s were still “not happy times of consensus for evolutionary theory in general.”[9]
When it was made, over 80 years ago, Watson's complaint that the mechanisms of evolution were poorly understood was accurate. His statement that evolution was believed "because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible" was a provocative exaggeration, contradicted by his own remarks (i.e., evolution already "fit all the facts" of several major knowledge fields).
-
http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/life-health/74197-ichthyosaur-fossil-solves-reptile-riddle
For years, proof that this sea-dwelling species had ever had terrestrial adaptations was missing. Now, that vital evidence has been found.
-
To avoid misconceptions-What are evograms?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_02
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/tetrapod_evo.jpg)
To the left of the colored drawings is a set of branching lines — an evolutionary tree, or phylogeny, showing the relationships among these animals. It shows that, among the forms pictured here, Tulerpeton is the animal most closely related to today's tetrapods. Ichthyostega is equally closely related to Tulerpeton and to living tetrapods. Acanthostega is the next most closely related to these three groups. And so on. It's important to remember that none of these animals is directly ancestral to the other; they are just the closest relatives that we have yet discovered in the fossil record. This is a bit like comparing you, your sibling, your first cousin, and your second cousin: none of them is directly ancestral to you or to the others, but they are successively less closely related to you. You are most closely related to your sibling because you only have to go back one generation to find a common ancestor, whereas you have to go back two generations to find the common ancestor linking you to your cousin. Similarly, Tulerpeton is most closely related to living forms because it shares the most recent common ancestor with these forms compared to the other organisms on the phylogeny.
So now the way to show evolution is through "evograms" which shows "second, first cousins and siblings and not great grandparents, grandparents or parents". So if you want to know the ancestor of say pakicetus or ambulocetus.....the whale evogram won't be able to show that!
Here is an interesting read.......Intelligent Evolution.
THe author said this about:
ID....it is nonsense!( i disagree )
Darwinian Evolution........While Darwin-mechanism can explain some species/sub-species movements, there is not a single evidence to show that Darwin-mechanism is the cause of any taxonomic diverging point (not a single one, either in the fossil records or in the molecular biology). In fact, all (not a single exception) biological evolutionary mechanisms do not depend on the Darwin-mechanism.
http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/ (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/)
-
http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/life-health/74197-ichthyosaur-fossil-solves-reptile-riddle (http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/life-health/74197-ichthyosaur-fossil-solves-reptile-riddle)
For years, proof that this sea-dwelling species had ever had terrestrial adaptations was missing. Now, that vital evidence has been found.
In other words, the reptile remained a reptile.
-
So now the way to show evolution is through "evograms" which shows "second, first cousins and siblings and not great grandparents, grandparents or parents". So if you want to know the ancestor of say pakicetus or ambulocetus.....the whale evogram won't be able to show that!
Evograms are diagrams that convey information about how a group of organisms and their particular features evolved. Evograms are consistent with the scientific definition of evolution.
(http://i.imgur.com/7OtxCNQ.jpg)
-
ID....it is nonsense!( i disagree )
The vast majority of the scientific community is opposed to intelligent design. Critics argue that it is based on shoddy scientific arguments and that it attempts to reconcile two mutually exclusive bodies of human thought, science and religion. While they concede that evolutionary theory has not been proven totally and that gaps in the evolutionary record exist, they argue that science has amassed a wide amount of knowledge on these matters and is successfully working to fill in the gaps.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/intelligent-design/overview-intelligent-design-and-evolution
-
In other words, the reptile remained a reptile.
You want the reptile change to a bird?:)
Is this your definition of evolution?
(http://i.imgur.com/NYcFDon.jpg)
Magic :) No wonder...
Seriously, the article shows that :
1. vital evidence has been found that this sea-dwelling species had terrestrial adaptations
2. your favorite --
The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis.:)
-
You want the reptile change to a bird? :)
Yes.
Are you admitting that reptiles did not evolve into birds?
You want the reptile change to a bird? :)
Magic :) No wonder...
In other words, you are admitting that it is "magic" to say that reptiles evolved into birds?
Maybe my question should be, "Do you even know what you're talking about?" ;D
The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis. :)
Ikaw pala sir, nabasa mo lang yung "University of California at Davis," bilib na bilib ka na at hindi ka na nag-iisip.
Transition from what to what?
From an ichthyosaur that dwells on water to an ichtyosaur that can walk on land.
From reptile to bird?
No. From reptile to reptile.
Naging ano yung ichthyosaur? Ichthyosaur pa rin. Wala naman palang kakuwenta-kuwenta.
===================================
Gusto mo, isda --- naglakad sa lupa, isda pa rin:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Periophthalmus_gracilis.jpg/220px-Periophthalmus_gracilis.jpg)
Mudskipper
It can even jump up to 2 feet in the air --- from land, not from the water. That's anatomical and behavioral adaptation, not a transition from fish to reptile. The fish remained a fish.
Siguro naman sir, naintindihan mo na ngayon kung ano yung sinasabing "terrestrial adaptations"?
Seriously, the article shows that :
1. vital evidence has been found that this sea-dwelling species had terrestrial adaptations
-
Hehe... the first part is me having fun. kaya nga me seriously ako sa part 2. Sorry if I was not clear.
The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis.
Si Motani ang nagsabi niyan. Is he wrong? Mas tama ka ba?
Siya ay
Ryosuke Motani
Ph.D., University of Toronto, Canada (1997)
Professor
Major research focus is on the use of physics-based functional morphology to probe physical constraints behind the evolution of animal shapes. Questions along this line include: what made tunas, lamnid sharks, cetaceans, and ichthyosaurs all look similar in silhouette; what constraints were behind the long necks of elasmosaurs (long-necked plesiosaurs)?
-
ang scientist na yan atheist yan... :)
-
The vast majority of the scientific community is opposed to intelligent design. Critics argue that it is based on shoddy scientific arguments and that it attempts to reconcile two mutually exclusive bodies of human thought, science and religion. While they concede that evolutionary theory has not been proven totally and that gaps in the evolutionary record exist, they argue that science has amassed a wide amount of knowledge on these matters and is successfully working to fill in the gaps.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/intelligent-design/overview-intelligent-design-and-evolution
Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence 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" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.
This to my mind is a more plausible explanation than the belief that life came by chance. You have more chance of winning the lotto than creating the complexity of life by natural selection on mutations!
The author of the article Intelligent Evolution did not mince words when he said...
Claiming that Darwin-mechanism is the ‘major’ evolution force and the ‘only’ mechanism for adaptation is a total nonsense. the Darwin-mechanism is also powered by the ideology, not by science.
The body's immune system for example is very similar to a nation's armed forces. In both cases when an "invading force" is present it responds accordingly to identify, mobilize a response and neutralize the threat. In both cases an "intelligent agent" must be present to have a coherent responds.
-
Evograms are diagrams that convey information about how a group of organisms and their particular features evolved. Evograms are consistent with the scientific definition of evolution.
(http://i.imgur.com/7OtxCNQ.jpg)
I can identify who my great grandparents, grandparents, parents, 1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins and siblings in our geneology based on records, pictures and other means. But to say that this exactly the same as evolution is a stretch to say the least!
Based on the evolution diagram or evogram as they fondly call it.....There should be MORE common ancestors for each of the supposed branch in the family right?
But where are these supposed "common ancestors" for fish and reptiles, reptiles and birds....and so on.
Sa ngayon Parang Fill in Blanks.....they just speculate that they will eventually find these common ancestors!
Not very scientific.....
-
The fossil shows "the transition," said Ryosuke Motani of the University of California at Davis.
Si Motani ang nagsabi niyan. Is he wrong? Mas tama ka ba?
Siya ay
Ryosuke Motani
Ph.D., University of Toronto, Canada (1997)
Professor
Major research focus is on the use of physics-based functional morphology to probe physical constraints behind the evolution of animal shapes. Questions along this line include: what made tunas, lamnid sharks, cetaceans, and ichthyosaurs all look similar in silhouette; what constraints were behind the long necks of elasmosaurs (long-necked plesiosaurs)?
That's exactly what I meant.
You read the credentials, assumed that Motani cannot possibly be wrong, then immediately concluded that this is unquestionable evidence of evolution.
You did not see any picture of the discovered fossil. You do not know if there is sufficient morphological basis for saying that the fossil is amphibious. Yet you immediately accept his word as unimpeachable truth.
Assuming that the fossil was correctly interpreted. Motani did not say it was transitional from reptile to bird, but only only that it was transitional from aquatic reptile to amphibious reptile.
Clearly, the reptile remained a reptile.
Hehe... the first part is me having fun. kaya nga me seriously ako sa part 2. Sorry if I was not clear.
OK lang sir. Puwede rin naman ako sa asaran, basta hindi ako ang mag-uumpisa... ;)
What is clear to me is that you thought it was ridiculous for a reptile to turn into a bird, until I pointed out that it was in fact part of evolution theory.
So now, you are saying that you agree that reptiles evolved to birds.
Don't just agree without thinking. Tell us why scientists say reptiles evolved to birds, and I'll tell you why they are wrong.
-
ru9 question lang, let's say year 1 up to now year 2014, we as human beings looks the same right? Our inside organs are the same? So when will we evolve to a different kind? Maybe to a hulk? Aquaman? Maleficent? Four kidneys, four eyes? Billion years dapat? or human evolution is not like that? Or From now we will just have longer legs, fingers, private parts?
Curious lang. Kasi if it takes billion of years we will not be able to see new kind of humans. Sayang. Or are we the supreme being now and wala na evolution tayo?
I believe in creation so i say we will look the same. For evolutionists? Or you guys have to wait for evidences muna?
-
Another question naman, when will we be able to survive on our own once we are born? Kasi diba dapat meron existing human to take care of us like breastfeeding, change diaper diba.?
Kasi i believe in adam and eve. Humans are created. we reproduce babies and take care of them. There are some animals like elephant that can take care of themselves once they are born. Did we start like that? Sample lang something evolved to a monkey, an animal that can take care of themselves once born, then become humans, but then we need somebody to take care of us now.
From evolutionist standpoint, how did this happen?
-
Another question naman, when will we be able to survive on our own once we are born? Kasi diba dapat meron existing human to take care of us like breastfeeding, change diaper diba.?
Kasi i believe in adam and eve. Humans are created. we reproduce babies and take care of them. There are some animals like elephant that can take care of themselves once they are born. Did we start like that? Sample lang something evolved to a monkey, an animal that can take care of themselves once born, then become humans, but then we need somebody to take care of us now.
From evolutionist standpoint, how did this happen?
Train an animal not to do anything then he/she will be dependent... look at the modern dogs. Sure they can eat by themselves kung may pagkain na ihahain, subukan mong ilagay sa wild tingnan naten kung magsusurvive yan. ;)
-
Train an animal not to do anything then he/she will be dependent... look at the modern dogs. Sure they can eat by themselves kung may pagkain na ihahain, subukan mong ilagay sa wild tingnan naten kung magsusurvive yan. ;)
Ya those are animals nga, that is why I said mga elephants, zebras etc kaya. Let's do an experiment. Let's say you have a newborn human baby. Lagay mo lang siya sa cavite sa mga plant fields, you really think after 1 month na survive yan on its own? Come on now. Kahit 10 to 20 human newborn, lagay mo lang sa open field with food around them he/she will not survive.
That's why I believe humans are created. Then they take care of their generations after.
-
Sample lang something evolved to a monkey, an animal that can take care of themselves once born, then become humans, but then we need somebody to take care of us now.
From evolutionist standpoint, how did this happen?
Wala namang problema yon from the evolutionist view.
You mean nung lumitaw yung human baby, walang human mother na nag-alaga?
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Una may ape - nanay is ape, baby is ape.
Sumunod, transitional ape-human - nanay is ape, baby is transitional.
Sumunod, human - nanay is transitional, baby is human.
Sino ang nag-alaga sa baby na human? E di yung nanay niya na transitional.
-
Ya those are animals nga, that is why I said mga elephants, zebras etc kaya. Let's do an experiment. Let's say you have a newborn human baby. Lagay mo lang siya sa cavite sa mga plant fields, you really think after 1 month na survive yan on its own? Come on now. Kahit 10 to 20 human newborn, lagay mo lang sa open field with food around them he/she will not survive.
That's why I believe humans are created. Then they take care of their generations after.
You did not get my point.
Ang ibig kong sabihin, maaring nabago tayo or ang pamamaraan naten dahil yung mga ancestors naten ginawa tayong super dependent. So yung mga nauna saten hindi ganyan, dahil may nagumpisa later on ganyan na tayong lahat.
Palagay mo noon may asong dependent sa amo?
-
You did not get my point.
Ang ibig kong sabihin, maaring nabago tayo or ang pamamaraan naten dahil yung mga ancestors naten ginawa tayong super dependent. So yung mga nauna saten hindi ganyan, dahil may nagumpisa later on ganyan na tayong lahat.
Palagay mo noon may asong dependent sa amo?
that is just purely impossible imo. How can our ancestors make us super dependent? Unless we are born 10 to 15 years old agad pag labas ka ng womb ng mom natin. It doesn't change the fact that when humans are born somebody has to take care of us. Do you mean before when humans were born, we can walk, crawl, with teeth to eat grass, climb trees to get the fruit to eat etc.? That's impossible. Tulog and higa lang tayo for several months. You are comparing us to animals (like the dogs). Animals are different. Nakita mo yun mga deers na pag labas sa womb, takbo agad sila. Making us super dependent doesn't change the fact that we are born helpless and need somebody to take care of us.
We are the supreme beings on earth imo. Our human body and its organs are one of a kind. And the world has changed to the more sophisticated. How can we be more super dependent now than before when there is nothing on earth back then? Also, It is just purely impossible to say adaptation yan. We adapt as environment changes. No way in terms or newborn survival.
-
National Geographic 2009: The missing link is finally found!
Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found
Jamie Shreeve
Science editor, National Geographic magazine
October 1, 2009
Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye.
Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html)
-
that is just purely impossible imo. How can our ancestors make us super dependent? Unless we are born 10 to 15 years old agad pag labas ka ng womb ng mom natin. It doesn't change the fact that when humans are born somebody has to take care of us. Do you mean before when humans were born, we can walk, crawl, with teeth to eat grass, climb trees to get the fruit to eat etc.? That's impossible. Tulog and higa lang tayo for several months. You are comparing us to animals (like the dogs). Animals are different. Nakita mo yun mga deers na pag labas sa womb, takbo agad sila. Making us super dependent doesn't change the fact that we are born helpless and need somebody to take care of us.
We are the supreme beings on earth imo. Our human body and its organs are one of a kind. And the world has changed to the more sophisticated. How can we be more super dependent now than before when there is nothing on earth back then? Also, It is just purely impossible to say adaptation yan. We adapt as environment changes. No way in terms or newborn survival.
Nakita mo ba ang mga unggoy kung pano iraise ng magulang nila? Tingin mo hindi sila dependent at first? Maybe not as helpless as us, but that's precisely the point. Because we after many generations the newer ones became different.
-
Wala namang problema yon from the evolutionist view.
You mean nung lumitaw yung human baby, walang human mother na nag-alaga?
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Una may ape - nanay is ape, baby is ape.
Sumunod, transitional ape-human - nanay is ape, baby is transitional.
Sumunod, human - nanay is transitional, baby is human.
Sino ang nag-alaga sa baby na human? E di yung nanay niya na transitional.
Hi atty. na misunderstand ata yun question ko hehe. I was in a rush kanina and did not get to proofread. For me kasi, evolution is something that gets better and better. We don't change to something worse than we are hundreds of years ago. My question is in relation to the response to tempter. Some animals can take care of themselves when they are born. We humans cannot. We need somebody to take care of us. So if we evolve to something better, assuming we were apes or any animal before (which can take care of themselves when born), why is it now we can't take care of ourselves (newborn)?
Unless their argument is of course,
Example lang
Algae evolve to ape (or any animal that can take care of themselves when born) then which evolve to humans. Because I don't believe when our human ancestors are newly born during that time, they will be able to take care of themselves.
-
Hi atty. na misunderstand ata yun question ko hehe. I was in a rush kanina and did not get to proofread. For me kasi, evolution is something that gets better and better. We don't change to something worse than we are hundreds of years ago. My question is in relation to the response to tempter. Some animals can take care of themselves when they are born. We humans cannot. We need somebody to take care of us. So if we evolve to something better, assuming we were apes before (which can take care of themselves when born), why is it now we can't take care of ourselves (newborn)?
Looks like you are very sure of yourself... ;)
Better is relative.
-
Nakita mo ba ang mga unggoy kung pano iraise ng magulang nila? Tingin mo hindi sila dependent at first? Maybe not as helpless as us, but that's precisely the point. Because we after many generations the newer ones became different.
But why does it have to take so long before we change? Again the argument of million or billion of years before something change. Like I say, start tayo kahit sa year 1800 up to now. It has been 214 years, bakit ganun pa rin tayo? Helpless when we are born?
The evolutionists or non believers argument is always before may be different (possible naman), pero bakit palagi ang tagal? I use year 1800 above to be conservative. Can you give me a year you think we are born the way we are now? then lets count how many years na up to now ganun tayo?
And also around when will we start to evolve to something independent, where we can walk, with teeth and eat on the first day?
Don't tell me we are not independent now. A lot of us now are independent sa young age pa, especially the squatters (no offense meant) where they just leave the kids run around. Pero meron pa rin aalaga. :P Kahit ilan years na ganun, it will not change the fact we are born helpless.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrical_dilemma
The obstetrical dilemma began when human ancestors started to evolve into a bipedal creature. Because humans are the only obligately bipedal primates, meaning their body shape requires them to only use two legs, major alterations had to be made to the shape of the female pelvis.[1] A number of structures in the body changed size, proportion, or location in order to accommodate bipedal locomotion and allow a person to stand upright and face forward. To help support the upper body, a number of structural changes were made to the pelvis. The ilial pelvic bone shifted forward and broadened, while the ischial pelvic bone shrank, narrowing the pelvic canal. These changes were occurring at the same time as humans were developing larger craniums. Therefore, in order to successfully undergo childbirth, the infant must be born earlier and earlier, thereby making the child increasingly developmentally premature.[4] The concept of the infant being born underdeveloped is called altriciality. Other ways of evolving to cope with bipedalism and larger craniums were also important such as neonatal rotation of the shoulders to allow the infant to fit through the canal, shorter gestation length which allows the infant to be born smaller, assistance with birth, and a malleable neonatal head which is softer and leaves the birth canal more easily.
-
But why does it have to take so long before we change? Again the argument of million or billion of years before something change. Like I say, start tayo kahit sa year 1800 up to now. It has been 214 years, bakit ganun pa rin tayo? Helpless when we are born?
The evolutionists or non believers argument is always before may be different (possible naman), pero bakit palagi ang tagal? I use year 1800 above to be conservative. Can you give me a year you think we are born the way we are now? then lets count how many years na up to now ganun tayo?
And also around when will we start to evolve to something independent, where we can walk, with teeth and eat on the first day?
Don't tell me we are not independent now. A lot of us now are independent sa young age pa, especially the squatters (no offense meant) where they just leave the kids run around. Pero meron pa rin aalaga. :P Kahit ilan years na ganun, it will not change the fact we are born helpless.
Do you really believe that 200 years is a long time? Especially for a insignificant(universally speaking) specie like us?
-
But why does it have to take so long before we change? Again the argument of million or billion of years before something change. Like I say, start tayo kahit sa year 1800 up to now. It has been 214 years, bakit ganun pa rin tayo? Helpless when we are born?
The evolutionists or non believers argument is always before may be different (possible naman), pero bakit palagi ang tagal? I use year 1800 above to be conservative. Can you give me a year you think we are born the way we are now? then lets count how many years na up to now ganun tayo?
And also around when will we start to evolve to something independent, where we can walk, with teeth and eat on the first day?
Don't tell me we are not independent now. A lot of us now are independent sa young age pa, especially the squatters (no offense meant) where they just leave the kids run around. Pero meron pa rin aalaga. :P Kahit ilan years na ganun, it will not change the fact we are born helpless.
Isa pang tanong, sigurado ka ba na simula noong unang panahon walang nabago sa katawan naten? Pinagaralan mo ba lahat ng parte ng katawan ng lahat ng tao noon at ngayon???
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrical_dilemma
The obstetrical dilemma began when human ancestors started to evolve into a bipedal creature. Because humans are the only obligately bipedal primates, meaning their body shape requires them to only use two legs, major alterations had to be made to the shape of the female pelvis.[1] A number of structures in the body changed size, proportion, or location in order to accommodate bipedal locomotion and allow a person to stand upright and face forward. To help support the upper body, a number of structural changes were made to the pelvis. The ilial pelvic bone shifted forward and broadened, while the ischial pelvic bone shrank, narrowing the pelvic canal. These changes were occurring at the same time as humans were developing larger craniums. Therefore, in order to successfully undergo childbirth, the infant must be born earlier and earlier, thereby making the child increasingly developmentally premature.[4] The concept of the infant being born underdeveloped is called altriciality. Other ways of evolving to cope with bipedalism and larger craniums were also important such as neonatal rotation of the shoulders to allow the infant to fit through the canal, shorter gestation length which allows the infant to be born smaller, assistance with birth, and a malleable neonatal head which is softer and leaves the birth canal more easily.
what is their proof that we human ancestors started to evolve to bipedal creatures? Kasi the problem with evolution is they say 1 + 1 = 2. Then after a few years "mukha 3 yun answer ah..sige 1 + 2 = 3
They are not so sure.
From your link.
This change seems to have evolved over time because this dilemma does not seem to pose a problem for our most recent relatives, non-human primates, who still manage to give birth with little difficulty.
Human ancestors seemed to originally give birth in a similar way that non-human primates do. Most primates have neonatal heads that are close in size to the mother’s birth canal.
ito sa bipedalism
There are at least twelve distinct hypotheses as to how and why bipedalism evolved in humans, and also some debate as to when.
Recent studies of 4.4 million years old Ardipithecus ramidus suggest bipedalism, it is thus possible that bipedalism evolved very early in homininae and was reduced in chimpanzee and gorilla when they became more specialized. According to Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale", chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us (see Homininae). Early homininaes such as Ardipithecus ramidus may have possessed an arboreal type of bipedalism that later independently evolved towards knuckle-walking in chimpanzees and gorillas[48] and towards efficient walking and running in modern humans (see figure). It is also proposed that one cause of Neanderthal extinction was a less efficient running.
-
Isa pang tanong, sigurado ka ba na simula noong unang panahon walang nabago sa katawan naten? Pinagaralan mo ba lahat ng parte ng katawan ng lahat ng tao noon at ngayon???
I don't need to study human anatomy or investigate it from the early ages because nga I believe in creation. I believe God created Adam and Eve and eventually multiplied. Now whether Adam and Eve looked like apes, that I can't answer because nga meron ako Faith na, God created mankind in his own image. Genesis 1:27.
-
Do you really believe that 200 years is a long time? Especially for a insignificant(universally speaking) specie like us?
That's why I'm asking you, From your estimate or studies (if you are in the scientific field) at what period of time or how many years ago did modern humans appear? I read somewhere 50,000 years ago? Tama ba?
-
The body's immune system for example is very similar to a nation's armed forces. In both cases when an "invading force" is present it responds accordingly to identify, mobilize a response and neutralize the threat. In both cases an "intelligent agent" must be present to have a coherent responds.
The reverse always enters my mind. Evolution has perfected the immune system... etc, that is why we are alive and rational to create god.
-
I can identify who my great grandparents, grandparents, parents, 1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins and siblings in our geneology based on records, pictures and other means. But to say that this exactly the same as evolution is a stretch to say the least!
Based on the evolution diagram or evogram as they fondly call it.....There should be MORE common ancestors for each of the supposed branch in the family right?
But where are these supposed "common ancestors" for fish and reptiles, reptiles and birds....and so on.
Sa ngayon Parang Fill in Blanks.....they just speculate that they will eventually find these common ancestors!
Not very scientific.....
My term is consistent (in agreement). Where did you get "to say that this exactly the same as evolution?"
Critics of evolution sometimes charge that scientists don't have fossils that show the transitions between major evolutionary features and the origins of new adaptations, but that is a misrepresentation. We don't have fossils of every extinct organism, but we do have fossils from many, many extinct organisms — enough to piece together the stories of some very important evolutionary transitions. And we are learning more every day. All of the examples that we'll show you here could not have been explained in this detail twenty years ago. The fossils that we've discovered in just the last few decades have thrown new light onto these transitions. The longer we search for fossils and study them, the more detailed our knowledge of past life becomes — and the more confident we can be in that knowledge.
By the way, science is defined as knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
-
That's exactly what I meant.
You read the credentials, assumed that Motani cannot possibly be wrong, then immediately concluded that this is unquestionable evidence of evolution.
You did not see any picture of the discovered fossil. You do not know if there is sufficient morphological basis for saying that the fossil is amphibious. Yet you immediately accept his word as unimpeachable truth.
In issues like this one has to look for credibility.
You are accusing me of not seeing a picture, believing without sufficient info.--- without any basis.
Bawal iyan sa law, Atty.
It is not my fault if you missed the the link in the rappler article.
Here:
(http://i.imgur.com/6iPYYPg.jpg)
Montani took the above picture.
(http://i.imgur.com/lP0EWnY.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/7t3gKzx.jpg)
The incompleteness of the fossil record obscures the origin of many of the more derived clades of vertebrates. One such group is the Ichthyopterygia, a clade of obligatory marine reptiles that appeared in the Early Triassic epoch, without any known intermediates. Here we describe a basal ichthyosauriform from the upper Lower Triassic (about 248 million years ago) of China, whose primitive skeleton indicates possible amphibious habits. It is smaller than ichthyopterygians and had unusually large flippers that probably allowed limited terrestrial locomotion. It also retained characteristics of terrestrial diapsid reptiles, including a short snout and body trunk. Unlike more-derived ichthyosauriforms, it was probably a suction feeder. The new species supports the sister-group relationships between ichthyosauriforms and Hupehsuchia4,
-
That's why I'm asking you, From your estimate or studies (if you are in the scientific field) at what period of time or how many years ago did modern humans appear? I read somewhere 50,000 years ago? Tama ba?
you are prescisely right boss, ang burden of proof ay sa mga hindi naniniwala sa creation..... i just dont know why they are throwing all the questions on those who belive in it. eh magical nga. yung knila ang hindi so dapat sila ang magpaliwanag ng maayos para tayo maniwala o maging kapanipaniwala yung standpoint nila. iisa lang naman ang question sa creation, if you dont believe that there is no higher being that created this universe then its over. we question evolution because we think that whats happening around us is not based on simple mutation....
-
ru9 question lang, let's say year 1 up to now year 2014, we as human beings looks the same right? Our inside organs are the same? So when will we evolve to a different kind? Maybe to a hulk? Aquaman? Maleficent? Four kidneys, four eyes? Billion years dapat? or human evolution is not like that? Or From now we will just have longer legs, fingers, private parts?
This is better explained here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/06/07/how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/
http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/evolution/how-will-evolution-change-humans.html
-
I believe God created Adam and Eve and eventually multiplied.
nasaan ang "tree of life" ngayon?
-
That's why I'm asking you, From your estimate or studies (if you are in the scientific field) at what period of time or how many years ago did modern humans appear? I read somewhere 50,000 years ago? Tama ba?
Close..
Man’s Genome From 45,000 Years Ago Is Reconstructed
Scientists have reconstructed the genome of a man who lived 45,000 years ago, by far the oldest genetic record ever obtained from modern humans. The research, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, provided new clues to the expansion of modern humans from Africa about 60,000 years ago, when they moved into Europe and Asia.
And the genome, extracted from a fossil thighbone found in Siberia, added strong support to a provocative hypothesis: Early humans interbred with Neanderthals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/science/research-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals.html
-
Hi atty. na misunderstand ata yun question ko hehe. I was in a rush kanina and did not get to proofread. For me kasi, evolution is something that gets better and better. We don't change to something worse than we are hundreds of years ago. My question is in relation to the response to tempter. Some animals can take care of themselves when they are born. We humans cannot. We need somebody to take care of us. So if we evolve to something better, assuming we were apes or any animal before (which can take care of themselves when born), why is it now we can't take care of ourselves (newborn)?
Unless their argument is of course,
Example lang
Algae evolve to ape (or any animal that can take care of themselves when born) then which evolve to humans. Because I don't believe when our human ancestors are newly born during that time, they will be able to take care of themselves.
Thanks for the clarification.
Pero ganon din ang point ko sir. Kung nagkaroon man ng degeneration, that would still not be enough to show inconsistency or conflict in evolution theory.
Evolution refers to a change resulting in a genetic difference. The change need not be more complex or more advanced; it can sometimes be less complex or more primitive and still count as evolution rather than devolution.
In your example, human babies may require a longer time to mature, but if this longer period before maturity results in a more intelligent life form upon reaching maturity, then over-all, progressive pa rin ang naging development.
-
In issues like this one has to look for credibility.
You are accusing me of not seeing a picture, believing without sufficient info.--- without any basis.
Bawal iyan sa law, Atty.
It is not my fault if you missed the the link in the rappler article.
Here:
If you did see the picture, then I admit that I was wrong in saying that you did not.
But the fact remains that, as I said previously, even assuming that the fossil was correctly interpreted, Motani only said that it was transitional from aquatic ichtyosaur to amphibious ichthyosaur.
In other words, the ichthyosaur remained an ichthyosaur. Still not evidence of evolution.
==================================
I notice you were eager to reply to one part of my post, yet content to ignore other parts:
What is clear to me is that you thought it was ridiculous for a reptile to turn into a bird, until I pointed out that it was in fact part of evolution theory.
So now, you are saying that you agree that reptiles evolved to birds.
Don't just agree without thinking. Tell us why scientists say reptiles evolved to birds, and I'll tell you why they are wrong.
-
nasaan ang "tree of life" ngayon?
Genesis 3
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Nasa Garden of Eden pa din, pero matindi ang bantay sir. :)
-
Thanks for the clarification.
Pero ganon din ang point ko sir. Kung nagkaroon man ng degeneration, that would still not be enough to show inconsistency or conflict in evolution theory.
Evolution refers to a change resulting in a genetic difference. The change need not be more complex or more advanced; it can sometimes be less complex or more primitive and still count as evolution rather than devolution.
In your example, human babies may require a longer time to mature, but if this longer period before maturity results in a more intelligent life form upon reaching maturity, then over-all, progressive pa rin ang naging development.
Ah yes totally agree with you.
-
Ah yes totally agree with you.
Pero hindi pa rin totoo ang evolution... ;)
Si sir RU9 nga, sabi "magic" daw yung reptile na naging ibon.
Nung sinita ko, binawi... joke lang daw... :D
-
"The reverse always enters my mind. Evolution has perfected the immune system... etc, that is why we are alive and rational to create god."
On the contrary the immune system is not perfect. If it where then there would be no diseases, medicine, wala sana kamin trabaho ngayon!
It is a complex, but specific procceses of mechanism whose primary work is protection of the organism. It is a learning/ adapting mechanism that responds to its environment. This mechanism would sometimes breakdown or be overwhelm causing diseases liks cancer, hiv and other infection. In giving vaccination or immunization we are actually inducing the body to produce the immunity. If our cells did not have these genetic codes or proteins in the first place then no amount of vaccination will produce immunity. If you don't want to call this "intelligent agent" thats fine. Fact is though without this system already in place and responding to whatever is attacking it then the organism would not survive.
In other words the immune system should "evolve" a lot faster than host for the host to survive! Thats not the darwinian mechanism of gradual change through time. Like i said it like having your very own armed forces inside to protect you! Without the coordinated mechanism that will have to work , the whole system breaks down.
-
Pero hindi pa rin totoo ang evolution... ;)
Si sir RU9 nga, sabi "magic" daw yung reptile na naging
Nung sinita ko, binawi... joke lang daw... :D
Magic naman talaga.
-
I just saw Interstellar last night.
Interesting premise, but I didn't like it. Maybe the science buffs would like it, though.
Sir bumblebee, baka mahilig ka sa astrophysics, you might like Interstellar. Spectacular visuals. It's still just science fiction, but its "science" is still solid. Warning --- it's a long movie.
-
Thanks, but I don't think we can travel back in time.
-
Ganon ba sir? Akala ko kasi hard-core science buff ka.
Consultant daw dito si Kip Thorne (theoretical physicist). Kaya merong space-time-gravity in general relativity theory.
-
Hindi naman ako hardcore. Travel to the future, I can imagine that. But back in time, no. Maybe it's possible but there isn't enough science yet to support it.
-
Genesis 3
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Nasa Garden of Eden pa din, pero matindi ang bantay sir. :)
Sir, kung may bantay, bakit hindi na natin makita yung bantay, yung flaming sword at yung binabantayan?
Wala nang bantay yon ngayon, kasi wala na ring babantayan.
The great flood of Noah's time destroyed the world, including the garden of Eden.
-
Hindi naman ako hardcore. Travel to the future, I can imagine that. But back in time, no. Maybe it's possible but there isn't enough science yet to support it.
theoretically, it is possible but in actuality, it is not. you need to attain the speed of light because at that rate time does not exist to you and you can move forward and backward in time but the equation E=MC2 tells us it is impossible unless you're Hiro Nakamura or The Flash.
-
theoretically, it is possible but in actuality, it is not. you need to attain the speed of light because at that rate time does not exist to you and you can move forward and backward in time but the equation E=MC2 tells us it is impossible unless you're Hiro Nakamura or The Flash.
parang evolution --->>>> theoritically, it is possible... but in actuality, it is not. :):):)
-
theoretically, it is possible but in actuality, it is not. you need to attain the speed of light because at that rate time does not exist to you and you can move forward and backward in time but the equation E=MC2 tells us it is impossible unless you're Hiro Nakamura or The Flash.
Still can't imagine it though. Maybe see the past but not be in it. Note that I'm referring to our reality's past and not another reality or universe.
-
parang evolution --->>>> theoritically, it is possible... but in actuality, it is not. :):):)
Para ding Creation... ;D
-
I don't need to study human anatomy or investigate it from the early ages because nga I believe in creation. I believe God created Adam and Eve and eventually multiplied. Now whether Adam and Eve looked like apes, that I can't answer because nga meron ako Faith na, God created mankind in his own image. Genesis 1:27.
I rest my case... ;D
-
My term is consistent (in agreement). Where did you get "to say that this exactly the same as evolution?"
Critics of evolution sometimes charge that scientists don't have fossils that show the transitions between major evolutionary features and the origins of new adaptations, but that is a misrepresentation. We don't have fossils of every extinct organism, but we do have fossils from many, many extinct organisms — enough to piece together the stories of some very important evolutionary transitions. And we are learning more every day. All of the examples that we'll show you here could not have been explained in this detail twenty years ago. The fossils that we've discovered in just the last few decades have thrown new light onto these transitions. The longer we search for fossils and study them, the more detailed our knowledge of past life becomes — and the more confident we can be in that knowledge.
By the way, science is defined as knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
I was referring to the "family tree/evolution" graphics you posted to illustrate that human family tree has the same dynamics as evolution. When the dynamics and mechanisms in place between the two are different and therefore not correct to imply that just because it might be true in the family tree it will be true with evolution.
Speaking of science, in the medical field we make use of EBM w/c means (evidence based medicine). This a method of collating all relevant, research, experinents, journals to come up with updated treatment protocol. We classify data as level of reliabilty and relevance. Level A is the highest most reliable with B,C, D in descending fashion. Now if i make use of this classification on evolution, i would place the current evidence as Level C or D
-
Para ding Creation... ;D
there is no such "theory of creation" :):) nalagyan lang ng "theory of" dahil sa idea ng evolution...
creation --->>> theoritically impossible, but in actuality, it happened. :):):)
-
Tapos na ba tayo sa fossils?
DNA naman. Next time, ibang aspect, like embryology.
Papatunayan natin na kahit saan sila pumunta, mintis pa rin sila.
=======================================
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found
that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
August 31, 2005
"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html)
-
Tapos na ba tayo sa fossils?
Not yet. How do you define transitional fossils? Say, from reptile to bird, what characteristics are you looking for before you can call it transitional?
Sorry, pero sa inyo Lang mukhang mintis.
-
Not yet. How do you define transitional fossils? Say, from reptile to bird, what characteristics are you looking for before you can call it transitional?
Sorry, pero sa inyo Lang mukhang mintis.
Since this is a phrase coined by evoluionists, then the definition should come from those who believe in evolution. Then give us examples of these animals and explain why these (if there are any)animals are transitional form....
-
I already pointed to a definition but you guys seem to have a different definition which you use to invalidate our findings.
-
I already pointed to a definition but you guys seem to have a different definition which you use to invalidate our findings.
sir, para di na ako mag read back, kindly repost your definition and also your example of these animals...thanks.
-
by their definition...
mudskipper (fish) is considered transitional form :):):)
-
sir, para di na ako mag read back, kindly repost your definition and also your example of these animals...thanks.
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.
-
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.
"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1]"
Your above definition came from Wikipedia (as acknowledged by you in your prior post), and the Wikipedia footnote states that the definition came from Herron, et al.
The definition is composed of two parts:
1. The existence of an ancestral group and a derived descendant group; and
2. Traits common to both groups.
In order that the definition can be properly applied, the existence of part 1 is a prerequisite. Part 1 must first be established before we can proceed to part 2 --- the identification of common traits between the two groups.
However, in the application of the definition, they immediately presume the existence of the two groups without proper basis. Then they point to the common traits as "transitional," and conclude that this is evidence for evolution.
Using that flawed logic, whether they find similarities or differences, they will always call it proof of evolution.
Pag may similarities? --- Common ancestry daw kasi.
Pag may differences? --- Transitional daw kasi.
In reality, their conclusion is pure speculation.
If you find similarities, just say you found similarities and stop there. If you find differences, just say you found differences and stop there.
Anything more would be baseless conjecture.
-
^So what happens to the rest of the paragraph?
I think it's fair for you to say it's speculation. A lot of things in science started as speculations until new technologies or discoveries helped prove them. Baseless conjecture? That's your opinion.
-
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.
Atty, has already dissected the definition very well. Allow me to just add some comments. The definition makes an assumption that animals did evolved from one animal to another. Thus you are using transition(evolution) to prove evolution!
The last two sentences makes an ambigious encompasing statement which at least admits the lack of fossil records that if new discoveries to the contrary( and there are a lot) are made, then the hypothesis will be modified anew!
On whale transitional specie......just speculation!
"The most important transitional fossil in the whale evolutionary sequence is Rodhocetus. It is what we should expect from a genuine transitional fossil — it had a fluked tail (as we see in today’s whales) and flipper-like ‘arms’. But there’s just one slight problem. It’s based on speculation! Dr Phillip Gingerich admitted the tail and the limbs of Rodhocetus are based on imagination. He said:"
“I speculated that it might have had a fluke... I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail. ... Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.”[4]
-
^So what happens to the rest of the paragraph?
The first sentence is the definition. The rest of the paragraph is not.
The definition is a quotation form the book of Herron, et al. The rest of the paragraph expounds on the definition, but is not itself a definition. There is no footnote for the rest of the paragraph because that was the opinion of an unknown Wikipedia uploader rather than a cited scientist (Wikipedia is freely editable by the general public).
You want me to discuss the rest of the paragraph? Puwede rin ako doon:
...This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group.
Again, we see that the existence of an "ancestral group" is presumed without proper basis.
...These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation.
Here, he says that the variation between life forms is a "continuum" --- that life forms gradually evolved, from one form to another, continuously. Thus, the truth of the process of evolution is presumed without proper basis.
...Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.
This part admits that until the fossil record is complete, it is not yet possible to know exactly how close the life form is to the ancestor.
But note that the author is sure that common ancestry exists; he's only saying that he is not sure how close the fossil is to the ancestor. Therefore, the existence of common ancestry is again presumed without proper basis.
...Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.
He admits he's not sure of what? --- He's not sure of direct ancestry only, not of ancestry per se.
How about common ancestry? He's sure of that.
Therefore it is clear that once again, common ancestry is presumed without proper basis.
Baseless conjecture? That's your opinion.
Go ahead and keep telling yourself that. ;)
-
On whale transitional specie......just speculation!
"The most important transitional fossil in the whale evolutionary sequence is Rodhocetus. It is what we should expect from a genuine transitional fossil — it had a fluked tail (as we see in today’s whales) and flipper-like ‘arms’. But there’s just one slight problem. It’s based on speculation! Dr Phillip Gingerich admitted the tail and the limbs of Rodhocetus are based on imagination. He said:"
“I speculated that it might have had a fluke... I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail. ... Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.”[4]
Thanks for this. I'm not familiar with Rodhocetus, so I'm going to have to read up. Dr Phillip Gingerich din pala ito.
Sabi ko, tapos na siguro tayo sa fossils, kaya ibang aspect naman like DNA. Ayaw ni sir bumblebee, gusto fossils pa rin. Pagbibigyan natin siya.
Akala yata maiiipit niya ako sa definition, mintis din naman pala.
Bakit ayaw niya ng DNA? Kasi ang meaning ng DNA --- "Di Namin Alam"... :D
-
Sabi ko, tapos na siguro tayo sa fossils, kaya ibang aspect naman like DNA. Ayaw ni sir bumblebee, gusto fossils pa rin. Pagbibigyan natin siya.
Akala yata maiiipit niya ako sa definition, mintis din naman pala.
Bakit ayaw niya ng DNA? Kasi ang meaning ng DNA --- "Di Namin Alam"... :D
Wow, you really are too full of yourself. And ang dami mong assumptions about me. And dude, bakit naman kita iipitin? Hindi ko naman kaligayahan ang magpahiya ng tao.
Anyway, the definition does presume ancestors and descendants, I thought that was obvious. Hindi naman magkakaroon ng definition ng "transitional" without that presumption di ba? It'll be just "fossils".
Now, you claim that those fossils mentioned before aren't transitional. Based on the definition I mentioned, they are. So why aren't they? Ano ba definition mo?
-
Wow, you really are too full of yourself. And ang dami mong assumptions about me. And dude, bakit naman kita iipitin? Hindi ko naman kaligayahan ang magpahiya ng tao.
I apologize if you were offended, sir.
I really thought OK lang sa yo ang asaran.
-
Pero hindi pa rin totoo ang evolution... ;)
Si sir RU9 nga, sabi "magic" daw yung reptile na naging ibon.
Nung sinita ko, binawi... joke lang daw... :D
The statement was in connection with the accompanying infographic that shows the reptile cannot instantly turn to a bird.
The article showed one reptile fossil. So you want to see a bird in there?
You want the reptile change to a bird?:)
Is this your definition of evolution?
(http://i.imgur.com/NYcFDon.jpg)
Magic :) No wonder...
-
"The reverse always enters my mind. Evolution has perfected the immune system... etc, that is why we are alive and rational to create god."
On the contrary the immune system is not perfect. If it where then there would be no diseases, medicine, wala sana kamin trabaho ngayon!
Perfect in the sense that human beings were able to survive. If the system failed, no human will be alive today.
-
Now if i make use of this classification on evolution, i would place the current evidence as Level C or D
I am not surprised. You are a believer of ID.
How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?
-
I am not surprised. You are a believer of ID.
How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?
Would you honestly grade as Level A the evidence for say rodhocetus when the discoverer admitted that he speculated on the anatomy of the animal?
-
Would you honestly grade as Level A the evidence for say rodhocetus when the discoverer admitted that he speculated on the anatomy of the animal?
i am not the authority to grade theories or beliefs. there is a big scientific community out there with better credentials.
-
I notice you were eager to reply to one part of my post, yet content to ignore other parts:
I was amused by outburst to the joke. First time I saw you lose your cool.
So I just let it go.
-
malakas ang faith sa scientist :):):)
kapag sinabi ni scientist na transitional ito... un din ang paniniwalaan... :):):)... pero kapag ang scientist na may 'better credentials" ang magtestify na walang enough proof ang evolution sasabihin bias ang scientist kasi laban sa evolution :):):)
-
i am not the authority to grade theories or beliefs. there is a big scientific community out there with better credentials.
That's a Non-answer! Let me put it this way, you believe in evolution right? Now here is a scientist w/ all credentials mind you. He discovered the first rodhocetus fossil! He says he speculated about the anatomy of the animal and subsequent finds reveals that he was incorrect. Do you still accept this as part of your evidence for whale evolution? Or at the very least you have some questions on validity?
-
That's a Non-answer! Let me put it this way, you believe in evolution right? Now here is a scientist w/ all credentials mind you. He discovered the first rodhocetus fossil! He says he speculated about the anatomy of the animal and subsequent finds reveals that he was incorrect. Do you still accept this as part of your evidence for whale evolution? Or at the very least you have some questions on validity?
Hi docelmo, I can't find any site other than creation sites, that mentions his quote. Is this from a paper or something?
-
You are demanding an answer. hehe..
I asked first..
How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?
-
malakas ang faith sa scientist :):):)
kapag sinabi ni scientist na transitional ito... un din ang paniniwalaan... :):):)... pero kapag ang scientist na may 'better credentials" ang magtestify na walang enough proof ang evolution sasabihin bias ang scientist kasi laban sa evolution :):):)
Are you referring to Carl Werner?
-
there are two group of scientists with better credentials:
1. group of scientist that doesnt believe in evolution on a basis of there is not enough proof that evolution exist
2. group of scientist that believe in evolution in evolution
Group 2 and believers of evolution ang lagi nilang argument ay kung merong scientist na hindi naniniwala sa evolution tatawgin nilang not true scientst, bias kasi christian daw, and etc... parang lgbt lang eh... lahat ng research, studies puro bias bastat hindi ayon sa gusto nila...
but if a scientist believes (kahit nga hindi scientist eh) in evolution iyon daw ang totoong scientist kasi evolution daw ay 'science' :):):)... and hindi bias ang findings...
-
You are demanding an answer. hehe..
I asked first..
How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?
My short answer, I believe that an "intelligent cause" is a more plausible explanation for the emergence and complexity of life. Take note I said Plausible and not absolute certainty.
While on the other hand i think you believe in the absolute certainty of evolution. That when presented with opposing view some coming from evolutionary scientists themselves are immediately labelled as bias and unscientific statements....
-
there is no such "theory of creation" :):) nalagyan lang ng "theory of" dahil sa idea ng evolution...
creation --->>> theoritically impossible, but in actuality, it happened. :):):)
Really? Can you prove it??? ;D Of course you will aswer the usual... FAITH... ;D
And yes, you are correct, it is NOT a theory or to put it appropriately, not SCIENTIFIC theory. Because its a theory of ignorant people who perceived things of course from what else... their personal experience, nothing more. nothing less. San pa ba naman nila ibabase ang mga isusulat nila? E sa mga karanasana lang nila at sa abot lang ng utak nila... ;D And this is not directed to all of you who believes in Creation, but for those who wrote your basis.
-
Hi docelmo, I can't find any site other than creation sites, that mentions his quote. Is this from a paper or something?
That's right sir bumblebee, there is also a video clip of that interview sa you tube....doesn't make it any less credible...
para ding Raissa Robles "Binay Tapes" yun....
If you checkout the wiki definition you'll find something very peculiar......there is NO description of the tail!
(http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv150/docelmo/rhodocetus_zps9653d365.jpg)
"Through a principal components analysis Gingerich 2003 demonstrated that Rodhocetus had trunk and limb proportions similar to the Russian desman, a foot-powered swimmer using its tail mainly as a rudder. From this Gingerich concluded that Rodhocetus was swimming mostly at the surface by alternate strokes of its hind feet, and that it was insulated by fur rather than blubber, as are Dorudon and modern cetaceans, which made it buoyant and incapable of deep diving."
The holotype of Rodhocetus balochistanensis, GSP-UM 3485, is:[8][9]
A weathered braincase found at the surface next to a partial dentary with an unfused mandibular symphysis, a characteristic of protocetids.
Large parts of the axial skeleton including cervical, thoracic, and proximal caudal vertebrae, but excluding sacral vertebrae.
Forelimb material including the left distal humerus, radius and ulna, and two virtually complete hand skeletons including all carpal bones, unfused and lacking an os centrale, and phalanges.
Parts of the pelvis including an acetabular rim.
Hind limb material including right femur, patella, tibia, possible partial fibula; two virtually complete foot skeletons including tarsal and metatarsal bones and phalanges. The astragalus (heel bone) is characteristic of artiodactyls with a deep tibial trochlea restricting lateral movements and a large calcaneal tuber (posterior part of heel bone) providing leverage for powerful extension. The metatarsals and phalanges are very long and thin and can not have been weight-bearing, suggesting that Rodhocetus was predominantly aquatic and on land must have walked on the plantar surface of the tarsals. The shape of the metatarsal and phalanges reveal that these bones could be tightly compressed during flexion and widely separated during extension.
-
That's right sir bumblebee, there is also a video clip of that interview sa you tube....doesn't make it any less credible...
para ding Raissa Robles "Binay Tapes" yun....
Thanks, I've seen the clip. I was hoping there was an un-edited version though.
If you checkout the wiki definition you'll find something very peculiar......there is NO description of the tail!
(http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv150/docelmo/rhodocetus_zps9653d365.jpg)
"Through a principal components analysis Gingerich 2003 demonstrated that Rodhocetus had trunk and limb proportions similar to the Russian desman, a foot-powered swimmer using its tail mainly as a rudder. From this Gingerich concluded that Rodhocetus was swimming mostly at the surface by alternate strokes of its hind feet, and that it was insulated by fur rather than blubber, as are Dorudon and modern cetaceans, which made it buoyant and incapable of deep diving."
The holotype of Rodhocetus balochistanensis, GSP-UM 3485, is:[8][9]
A weathered braincase found at the surface next to a partial dentary with an unfused mandibular symphysis, a characteristic of protocetids.
Large parts of the axial skeleton including cervical, thoracic, and proximal caudal vertebrae, but excluding sacral vertebrae.
Forelimb material including the left distal humerus, radius and ulna, and two virtually complete hand skeletons including all carpal bones, unfused and lacking an os centrale, and phalanges.
Parts of the pelvis including an acetabular rim.
Hind limb material including right femur, patella, tibia, possible partial fibula; two virtually complete foot skeletons including tarsal and metatarsal bones and phalanges. The astragalus (heel bone) is characteristic of artiodactyls with a deep tibial trochlea restricting lateral movements and a large calcaneal tuber (posterior part of heel bone) providing leverage for powerful extension. The metatarsals and phalanges are very long and thin and can not have been weight-bearing, suggesting that Rodhocetus was predominantly aquatic and on land must have walked on the plantar surface of the tarsals. The shape of the metatarsal and phalanges reveal that these bones could be tightly compressed during flexion and widely separated during extension.
Yeah, seen this, but I really can't make out anything out it other than that Rodhocetus isn't a transitional animal as was originally believed. But it doesn't disprove evolution. In my opinion, if a new specie suddenly spring out of thin air, then that's the time evolutionists should call it a day.
-
Really? Can you prove it??? ;D Of course you will aswer the usual... FAITH... ;D
And yes, you are correct, it is NOT a theory or to put it appropriately, not SCIENTIFIC theory. Because its a theory of ignorant people who perceived things of course from what else... their personal experience, nothing more. nothing less. San pa ba naman nila ibabase ang mga isusulat nila? E sa mga karanasana lang nila at sa abot lang ng utak nila... ;D And this is not directed to all of you who believes in Creation, but for those who wrote your basis.
not personal experience... i read it from the Bible... not just from group of scientist... its from the Bible...
no one taught me about creation... i read it myself... compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...
i maybe ignorant but i am not a fool to believe in evolution... hindi ako feeling matalino just like others... para magmukhang matalino paniniwalaan na lahat ng sinasabi ng mga 'magagaling' kuno na scientists :( and because of that they become fools :):):)
simple lang naman yan... if numbers cant explain it then dont believe it...
-
Thanks, I've seen the clip. I was hoping there was an un-edited version though.
Yeah, seen this, but I really can't make out anything out it other than that Rodhocetus isn't a transitional animal as was originally believed. But it doesn't disprove evolution. In my opinion, if a new specie suddenly spring out of thin air, then that's the time evolutionists should call it a day.
I am sure it was edited but not in the way you are implying, but the message in the clip is crystal clear.
So, now you think rodhocetus is not a transitional animal, what is it then? How about the pakicetus, ambulectus, basilosaurus etc? Btw, as posted by sir barisster earlier the pakicetus was also "liberally illustrated" by Gingerich!
If not a trasitional then a sister or relative of the whale? Since according to the whale evogram none are ancestor of any other in the whale evolution!
Threfore evolution proves nothing! Para syang smorgasboard, buffet, eat all you can! Parang clay very mallable ang theory. It would adapt all data acquired, use a diffent mechanism to explain a finding eventhough one mechnism contradicts the other......nevermind that is still evolution!
-
^I just want to see the whole thing (interview).
Like I said, if a fossil is proven not linked to anything, it should be dumped and move on to the next fossil. If after sometime, that same fossil is proven true by newer, better methods, then put it back in.
Species materializing out of thin air will disprove evolution. But until then, I'm sticking with this.
-
not personal experience... i read it from the Bible... not just from group of scientist... its from the Bible...
no one taught me about creation... i read it myself... compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...
i maybe ignorant but i am not a fool to believe in evolution... hindi ako feeling matalino just like others... para magmukhang matalino paniniwalaan na lahat ng sinasabi ng mga 'magagaling' kuno na scientists :( and because of that they become fools :):):)
simple lang naman yan... if numbers cant explain it then dont believe it...
So can you explain the BIBLE with numbers??? ;D
You just contradicted your beliefs... ;D
-
The monkey on a typewriter:
The Crumbling Facade of the Theory of Evolution
By: Josh Greenberger (March, 2008)
... Where are all these relics of an evolutionary past?
Did nature miraculously get billions of species right the first time? Of the fossils well-preserved enough to study, most appear to be well-designed and functional-looking. With the low aberration ratio of fossils being no more significant, as far as speciation is concerned, than common birth deformities, there seems to have been nothing of a random nature in the development of life.
One absurd response I've gotten from a scientist as to why a plethora of deformed species never existed is: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation.
This is like asking, "How come everybody leaves the lecture hall through exit 5, but never through exit 4?" and getting a response, "Because people don't leave the lecture hall through exit 4." Wasn't this the question?
What scientists have apparently done is look into the fossil record and found that new species tend to make their first appearance as well-formed, healthy-looking organisms. So instead of asking themselves how can a random series of accidents seldom, if ever, produce "accidents," they've simply formulated a new rule in evolutionary biology: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation. This answer is about as scientific, logical and insightful as, "Because I said so." ...
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/119265/science/the_crumbling_facade_of_the_theory_of_evolution.html (http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/119265/science/the_crumbling_facade_of_the_theory_of_evolution.html)
-
^I just want to see the whole thing (interview).
Like I said, if a fossil is proven not linked to anything, it should be dumped and move on to the next fossil. If after sometime, that same fossil is proven true by newer, better methods, then put it back in.
Species materializing out of thin air will disprove evolution. But until then, I'm sticking with this.
"Sticking with this" ......sounds a lot like belief or faith.
When it comes to naming fossils there is the tendency to link it to another animal. So when you name an animal "walking whale" there is already an assumption of a connection to whales. Even though anatomically it is a land mammal!
My point exactly if you remove one animal then look for another as the transional, what about the others already in that supposed line? What mechanism are you now invoking as the explanation? Removing an animal will create more pressure for natural selection on mutation to do its magic!
What about the limitations posed by population genetics? Or the finding of say the fully aquatic whale that is older that the pakicetus? The supposed ancestor of whales?
All these factors flies in face of darwinian evolution...
-
"Sticking with this" ......sounds a lot like belief or faith.
When it comes to naming fossils there is the tendency to link it to another animal. So when you name an animal "walking whale" there is already an assumption of a connection to whales. Even though anatomically it is a land mammal!
My point exactly if you remove one animal then look for another as the transional, what about the others already in that supposed line? What mechanism are you now invoking as the explanation? Removing an animal will create more pressure for natural selection on mutation to do its magic!
What about the limitations posed by population genetics? Or the finding of say the fully aquatic whale that is older that the pakicetus? The supposed ancestor of whales?
All these factors flies in face of darwinian evolution...
Like I said, if you find evidences contrary to your current evidences, start over again. Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences and see where it takes you. Like I said again, new species materializing on thin air disproves evolution. I can't think of anything else that will disprove it. But let Darwinian's keep working to find more evidences for their theory. All the creationists ever done is criticize their methods and evidences but not the theory itself.
-
More Evidence that the Theory of Evolution is Falling Apart
Apr 1, 2012 by Gary DeMar
(http://americanvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/evolution-300x208.jpg)
... Evolutionists are all about the certainty of their hypothesis even when they admit that uncertainty is a pillar of science. ...
... The only theory thing in science that does not seem to change is the theory of evolution. Every time evolutionists can’t explain the theory experimentally or rationally, they create a new theory. Gradual evolutionary change “evolved” into rapid species change called “punctuated equilibrium.” Some have even argued that Earth was seeded with space sperm (panspermia or exogenesis). The late Nobel Prize winner Professor Francis Crick proposed a theory named “directed panspermia” whereby the seeds of life were purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. The most obvious question is, “Where did the seed come from, whether undirected or directed?
http://americanvision.org/5653/more-evidence-that-the-theory-of-evolution-is-falling-apart/ (http://americanvision.org/5653/more-evidence-that-the-theory-of-evolution-is-falling-apart/)
-
The Church of Darwin
Phillip E. Johnson
This article is reprinted from the Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999.
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments:
"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm (http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm)
-
Richard Lewontin (American evolutionary biologist):
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ... because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. ... Morevover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm (http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm)
-
Like I said, if you find evidences contrary to your current evidences, start over again. Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences and see where it takes you. Like I said again, new species materializing on thin air disproves evolution. I can't think of anything else that will disprove it. But let Darwinian's keep working to find more evidences for their theory. All the creationists ever done is criticize their methods and evidences but not the theory itself.
So evidences not to your liking or contrary to your belief are discarded and dismissed because it does not fit your theory? Then you look for another candidate that fits the bill of a transitional animal and by your words "Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences"? wow! anu yan planting of evidence? That's illegal! ;D
Another after thing once you've discarded an animal as transitional part of the evolution, then you are in effect saying that evolution is much faster than previously thought......So which is which now? Is evolution a slow change from one animal to another or a fast change from one animal to the next?
I repeat...evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that contradict themselves!
-
Pierre-Paul de Grasse (French Zoologist; author of over 300 publications, including the influential 52-volume Traité de Zoologie), from his book, "Evolution of Living Organisms":
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."
-
parang tag team ni ultimate warrior(doc) >:D at hulk hogan(atty) >:D ang peg........ ;D ;D ;D ;D unbeatable!!!
-
Ayoko na nga mag comment, may nagalit na sa akin, e. :P Copy and paste na lang ...
Behave muna ako ngayon... :D
-
kunyari nga mga matatalino... kaya sa evolution na lang maniniwala... kala naman nila eh payak na ang pinaniniwalaan aba eh by FAITH pa rin pala hane! :):):)
malamang lamang naniniwala ng evolution naniniwala din sa mga alien...
-
So evidences not to your liking or contrary to your belief are discarded and dismissed because it does not fit your theory? Then you look for another candidate that fits the bill of a transitional animal and by your words "Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences"? wow! anu yan planting of evidence? That's illegal! ;D
That's not what I meant. Tatagalugin ko na. Kung meron kang nakitang fossil at sa umpisa inakala mong transitional animal, ngunit sa masusing pagsisiyasat, nakita mong hindi pala, tanggalin mo sa yung fossil sa theory mo. Ia-abandona mo ba yung therory mo? Hindi, di ba? Kasi ang tanging makakadisprove nung theory e pag may biglang bagong specie na lumitaw.
Another after thing once you've discarded an animal as transitional part of the evolution, then you are in effect saying that evolution is much faster than previously thought......So which is which now? Is evolution a slow change from one animal to another or a fast change from one animal to the next?
I repeat...evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that contradict themselves!
Evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that is constantly evolving depending on evidences and technology. It still stand kasi wala pang bagong specie na lumilitaw out of thin air.
Maiba naman, meron ka bang sasabihin kung bakit creation ang totoo?
-
tapos na ang creation...
same lang din... creation still stand kasi wala pa namang new species na nag evolve from different species... :)
-
tapos na ang creation...
same lang din... creation still stand kasi wala pa namang new species na nag evolve from different species... :)
Hindi same e. Evolution is not mutually exclusive with creation. Base sa sinabi mo, they are. If they are, meron ka bang evidence? Kahit anong evidence, that will lead you to think about creation?
-
Hindi same e. Evolution is not mutually exclusive with creation. Base sa sinabi mo, they are. If they are, meron ka bang evidence? Kahit anong evidence, that will lead you to think about creation?
tingnan mo na lang sorrounding, the ecosystems, the dna, the universe... lahat yan reveals that there is a creator, these cannot be explained by any logic or probablities... numbers cant explain the whole universe or DNA or atom... random chance has no place in the universe...
there are lot's of physical evidence na leading to creation... hindi man siya diretsang nagsasabi na human/animals/plants biglang lumitaw....
we are also looking for evidence of evolution... what I read/learned... no evidence... ang meron lang is assumptions over assumptions... theories to support other theories :)
sabi nga ni barrister, kung hindi totoo ang creation it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... i may be wrong believing creation... kaya show us why and how evolution happened... what we read/learned pawang mga assumptions lamang... :):):)
-
tingnan mo na lang sorrounding, the ecosystems, the dna, the universe... lahat yan reveals that there is a creator, these cannot be explained by any logic or probablities... numbers cant explain the whole universe or DNA or atom... random chance has no place in the universe...
there are lot's of physical evidence na leading to creation... hindi man siya diretsang nagsasabi na human/animals/plants biglang lumitaw....
we are also looking for evidence of evolution... what I read/learned... no evidence... ang meron lang is assumptions over assumptions... theories to support other theories :)
sabi nga ni barrister, kung hindi totoo ang creation it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... i may be wrong believing creation... kaya show us why and how evolution happened... what we read/learned pawang mga assumptions lamang... :):):)
Yeah totoo nga ang creation... napanood ko nga sa sine e. The CUBE ang pinagmulan ng lahat... ;D
-
Yeah totoo nga ang creation... napanood ko nga sa sine e. The CUBE ang pinagmulan ng lahat... ;D
puwede... bakit hindi... kung meron ngang nakapag assume na galing tayo sa 'sabaw'... why not... kung meron ngang nkapag sabi na ginawa lang ang lahat sa loob ng 7 days... why not the cube... :)
-
Yeah totoo nga ang creation... napanood ko nga sa sine e. The CUBE ang pinagmulan ng lahat... ;D
I just watched dawn of the planet of apes. After watching, Yes we really evolved from apes. ;D ::)
-
tingnan mo na lang sorrounding, the ecosystems, the dna, the universe... lahat yan reveals that there is a creator, these cannot be explained by any logic or probablities... numbers cant explain the whole universe or DNA or atom... random chance has no place in the universe...
there are lot's of physical evidence na leading to creation... hindi man siya diretsang nagsasabi na human/animals/plants biglang lumitaw....
we are also looking for evidence of evolution... what I read/learned... no evidence... ang meron lang is assumptions over assumptions... theories to support other theories :)
sabi nga ni barrister, kung hindi totoo ang creation it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... i may be wrong believing creation... kaya show us why and how evolution happened... what we read/learned pawang mga assumptions lamang... :):):)
Yun lang? Titingnan ko lang surroundings ko, meron ng Creator? Tapos hindi ko pwedeng tingnan fossils para sa evolution? Don't get me wrong though, I also believe in a Creator and use my surroundings, but I don't consider them as "evidence".
Another question I'd like to ask is what will disprove creation? Meron ba?
-
Peter J. Bowler (fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; member, Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences):
"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."
-
Yun lang? Titingnan ko lang surroundings ko, meron ng Creator? Tapos hindi ko pwedeng tingnan fossils para sa evolution? Don't get me wrong though, I also believe in a Creator and use my surroundings, but I don't consider them as "evidence".
Another question I'd like to ask is what will disprove creation? Meron ba?
Logic?
e.g. Richard Daw/Hawkins claim science has proven that somethings can just come from Absolutely Nothing. (disclaimer, I haven't backread yet.)
Sounds like Faith to me though. A reasoned one but but... ;D
-
YouTube:
"Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g)
-
Eugene V. Koonin (Russian-American biologist; expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology; senior investigator, National Center for Biotechnology Information, under the United States National Library of Medicine):
“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”
-
Peter J. Bowler (fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; member, Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences):
Complete paragraph from Evolution: The History of an Idea. p199:
"Although Darwin argued that available knowledge of the fossil record was compatible with his theory, he knew that paleontology harbored a major problem. The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type. Darwin devoted a chapter of the Origin explaining the "imperfection of the geological record" arguing that fossils we discover represent only a tiny fraction of the species that actually have lived. Many species, and many whole episodes in evolution, will have left no fossils at all, because they occured in areas where conditions were not suitable for fossilization. Apparently, sudden leaps in the development of life are thus illusions created by gaps in the evidence available to us. Future discoveries may help fill in some of the gaps, but we can never hope to build up a complete outline of the history of life."
-
Henry Gee (British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist):
“To recall what I said in chapter 1, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. …To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
-
David M. Raup (American paleontologist):
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information…”
-
I can't think of anything else that will disprove it.
That's not what I meant. Tatagalugin ko na. Kung meron kang nakitang fossil at sa umpisa inakala mong transitional animal, ngunit sa masusing pagsisiyasat, nakita mong hindi pala, tanggalin mo sa yung fossil sa theory mo. Ia-abandona mo ba yung therory mo? Hindi, di ba? Kasi ang tanging makakadisprove nung theory e pag may biglang bagong specie na lumitaw.
Evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that is constantly evolving depending on evidences and technology. It still stand kasi wala pang bagong specie na lumilitaw out of thin air.
Maiba naman, meron ka bang sasabihin kung bakit creation ang totoo?
First I suggest that the theory be renamed......The Evolving Theory of Evolution.
There are some confusion here on what is a Scientific Theory...here are a few qualifications.
It must be explanatory. It must explain actual observation made by our five senses.
It must not contradict itself and is self-consistent.
It must be falsifiable or testable and must be vulnerable to observation. In principle envision a set of observation that would render it false.
It must have a clear logical structure that prevents it from bending and twisting to accommodate every observation. The structure provides the connection between a scientific explanation and its predictions. Because of the structure, a theory explains our observation while also predicting observations we should NOT see. This is a key feature of a scientific theory. The theory ultimately predicts that we will not observe certain things. This makes the theory testable. The theory could be refuted by the observations that contradict it.
So does this Evolving theory of evolution qualify?
-
Henry Gee (British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist):
From his book, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life.
“To recall what I said in chapter 1, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. …To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
His answer after creationists extracted and presented this out of context (The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution, p103):
The chain of ancestry and descent we contruct after the fact is just that - a human construction, a way of interpreting evidence. However, this does not negate the existence of evolutionary ancestry and descent. I suspect creationists are sometimes motivated by the suggestion that when evoutionary biologists are in company, away from the public eye, they "admit" evolution is wrong, while perpetuating some enermous cover-up to set before the masses.
-
That's not what I meant. Tatagalugin ko na. Kung meron kang nakitang fossil at sa umpisa inakala mong transitional animal, ngunit sa masusing pagsisiyasat, nakita mong hindi pala, tanggalin mo sa yung fossil sa theory mo. Ia-abandona mo ba yung therory mo? Hindi, di ba? Kasi ang tanging makakadisprove nung theory e pag may biglang bagong specie na lumitaw.
Evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that is constantly evolving depending on evidences and technology. It still stand kasi wala pang bagong specie na lumilitaw out of thin air.
Maiba naman, meron ka bang sasabihin kung bakit creation ang totoo?
First I suggest that the theory be renamed.......The Evolving Theory of Evolution.
Just what is a (good) Scientific Theory. Here are a few qualifications.
It must be explanatory. It must explain actual observation made by our five senses.
It must not contradict itself and is self-consistent.
It must be falsifiable or testable and must be vulnerable to observation. In principle envision a set of observation that would render it false.
It must have a clear logical structure that prevents it from bending and twisting to accommodate every observation. The structure provides the connection between a scientific explanation and its predictions. Because of the structure, a theory explains our observation while also predicting observations we should NOT see. This is a key feature of a scientific theory. The theory ultimately predicts that we will not observe certain things. This makes the theory testable. The theory could be refuted by the observations that contradict it.
Does the theory of evolution qualify?
-
Sorry, kung hindi clear. What I meant by "evolving" are methodologies, techonologies used, evidences to prove that exact same thing - evolution.
Maiba naman, how about creation? What can you say about it?
-
David B. Kitts (Professor of Geology,University of Oklahoma):
“Despite the bright promise – that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record.”
-
http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm
Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)
Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.
And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:
Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)
The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about.
-
Sorry, kung hindi clear. What I meant by "evolving" are methodologies, techonologies used, evidences to prove that exact same thing - evolution.
Maiba naman, how about creation? What can you say about it?
Of course, what else??? NOTHING... ;D
It is all about FAITH baby!!!
-
Steven M. Stanley (American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist):
“The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.”
-
Stephen Jay Gould (American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist):
“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. …The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."
-
Dawkins interview from the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt) (2008):
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
YouTube: "Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8)
-
Sorry, kung hindi clear. What I meant by "evolving" are methodologies, techonologies used, evidences to prove that exact same thing - evolution.
Maiba naman, how about creation? What can you say about it?
you can have new methodologies, technologies till kingdom come.....but the theory should remain consistent!
As for evolution it is still large-scale change from molecules to man through natural selection acting on random mutation...any deviation from this will make the theory meaningless!
Lets compare creation and evolution:
Creation/ID:
In terms of explanation: It explains the origin of life. An intelligent designer is demanded by the data.
In terms of testability: It predicts certain observation on the complexity of life. Presence of fully-formed functional organisms from the smallest to the biggest. It could be falsified if natural processes could demonstrate the origin of life.
Evolution
In term of explanation:it explains that life came from natural selection acting on random mutation.
In term of testability: It predicts the presence of gradual changes from animal to animal.
Fossil record shows full formed functional organism!
Sino and tama ang prediction?
-
you can have new methodologies, technologies till kingdom come.....but the theory should remain consistent!
As for evolution it is still large-scale change from molecules to man through natural selection acting on random mutation...any deviation from this will make the theory meaningless!
Saan bang part nag deviate?
Lets compare creation and evolution:
Creation/ID:
In terms of explanation: It explains the origin of life. An intelligent designer is demanded by the data.
In terms of testability: It predicts certain observation on the complexity of life. Presence of fully-formed functional organisms from the smallest to the biggest. It could be falsified if natural processes could demonstrate the origin of life.
You mean to say bacteria being immune to certain antibiotics is by intelligent design? Would bacteria immune to say, penicillin, be immune to penicillin if penicillin wasn't invented?
Evolution
In term of explanation:it explains that life came from natural selection acting on random mutation.
In term of testability: It predicts the presence of gradual changes from animal to animal.
Fossil record shows full formed functional organism!
Sino and tama ang prediction?
So, if you want to prove reptile to bird, by this you mean, you want a fossil that looks like a reptile but with beaks and wings?
-
Dawkins interview from the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt) (2008):
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
YouTube: "Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8)
So this all means to you that everything is by ID??? ;D
Or an Evolution advocate now bumabalimbing??? ;D
-
You mean to say bacteria being immune to certain antibiotics is by intelligent design? Would bacteria immune to say, penicillin, be immune to penicillin if penicillin wasn't invented?
Well, its definitely NOT evolution and here are the reasons why....
There are 3 genetic mechanism where resistance may occur. They are mutation, conjugation and dna transposition(transformation or transduction). Mutations produce antibiotic resistant strain of microorganism. Conjugation is the joining of two bacterial cells and exchange genetic material. DNA transpositon occur in two ways; transformation where dna from the environmet(or a dead bacteria) is absorbed in wall and transduction where dna is absorbed from a virus.
Now are these types of changes evolution......NO!
First, mutations causing resistance does not occur as a result of the "need" of the organism. Simply put this means that mutations do have causes but the need to adapt is NOT one of them. Therefore mutation did not occur as result of exposure to antibiotis. Lederbergs experiment in 1952 showed that streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance.
Second, though resistance is a somewhat positive mutation it comes with a price. The surviving organism has less viabilty and reduced rate if metabolish resulting in slow growth. Acquiring these resistance does not result to new species or organism.
Lastly, and more importantly these bacterias even after years or generations though having resistance is..........The same bacteria, the same type and only differs in the population in its resistance to antibiotic!
-
^You cited Lederberg. So now you believe in random mutation?
-
Fred Hoyle (English Astronomer)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
-
^You cited Lederberg. So now you believe in random mutation?
Sir the issue is not whether mutations occur, because they do. The issue is whether natural selection acting on mutation result in emergence of new species! Evolution claims that there is change across specie bounderies using this mechanism. In the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria that has NOT occured!
In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:
...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tDCnioPc0KM/TqGqmnwNOMI/AAAAAAAAAOY/n6wxLkpCFDY/s1600/bus-no-god.jpg)
Richard Dawkins: 'immoral' not to abort if foetus has Down's syndrome
Scientist says a mother has a responsibility to ‘abort it and try again’ if she knows her baby would have the disorder
Press Association
theguardian.com, Thursday 21 August 2014 05.14 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus)
-
Sir the issue is not wether mutations occur, because they do. The issue is wether natural selection acting on mutation result in emergence of new species! Evolution claims that there is change across specie bounderies using this mechanism. In the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria that has NOT occured!
In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:
...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).
Ok, so why can't natural selection acting on random mutation not work? Is it because very stabilized species aren't affected by it?
-
Fruit fly generations have been studied longer than the presumed time man has been on earth.
According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."
"Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. For example, Ernst Mayr reported on two experiments performed on the fruit fly back in 1948.
"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.
xxx
..."For 80 years scientists have been experimenting with the lowly fruit fly (Drosophila), trying to prove that all life on planet earth is the result of a series of `good accidents.'
"Evolutionists, through a marvelous leap of faith, believe that the almost endless variety and complexity of plants and animals `evolved' from an ancient pool of `primordial soup.'
"How do they believe this is possible? By millions and billions of accidents. For example, an early fish might accidentally grow a new kind of fin which helped him swim faster and escape his enemies. Then his fins might accidentally turn to legs he could use to walk on land, and so on.
"All this is based on a faith by the evolutionists that somehow, somewhere a gene changed to give this higher life form. It has to be faith, because there is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better.
"The evidence is overwhelming that such accidents either make the gene worse or, at best, no better than the original.
"After all, how often do you see a car run faster and more smoothly after a head-on collision?
"Well, back to fruit flies. Because fruit flies reproduce many generations in a very short time, scientists picked them for the experiment hoping to compress thousands of years of `evolution' into a few years of lab work.
"After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies.
"And—more importantly—they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died.
"And when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form.
"One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution.
"God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly."—"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm)
-
My short answer, I believe that an "intelligent cause" is a more plausible explanation for the emergence and complexity of life. Take note I said Plausible and not absolute certainty.
While on the other hand i think you believe in the absolute certainty of evolution. That when presented with opposing view some coming from evolutionary scientists themselves are immediately labelled as bias and unscientific statements....
You got me wrong.
I believe a C rating is better than "plausible" in scientific terms.
Pag ID: ignore the method of collating all relevant, research, experinents, journals to come up with updated treatment protocol. We classify data as level of reliabilty and relevance.
Where's the fairness?
-
i read it from the Bible... ... pulpol ang 'evolution'...
mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...
I also read that the bible were written by drunks in the dessert..is this true?
statistician ka -- anong odds na ang existence of god is true?
-
I also read that the bible were written by drunks in the dessert..is this true?
statistician ka -- anong odds na ang existence of god is true?
for us believers wala naman loss for us to believe there is a God and meron heaven and hell. If we die we have the possibility of going to heaven if indeed meron God, based on his judgement. If there is no God, if we die, wala na, that's the end of it.
For non-believers, if there is a God, if namatay, there is a possibility of going to Heaven or hell based on God's judgement. Pero there is more possibility of going to hell. If there is no God then if namatay, wala na, that's the end of it.
If there is really a hell, ang sakit nun to go there. Eternity yan, not several days or years lang. Try burning your hand for ten second and see how much it hurts.
-
If there is really a hell, ang sakit nun to go there. Eternity yan, not several days or years lang. Try burning your hand for ten second and see how much it hurts.
Sigurista ka pala.
So its our physical body that goes to hell. Hindi ba maging ashes ito dahil sa apoy?
-
wow! so you're just believing and doing good just for the sake na hindi ka mapunta ng hell. that's a selfish reason.
-
You got me wrong.
I believe a C rating is better than "plausible" in scientific terms.
Pag ID: ignore the method of collating all relevant, research, experinents, journals to come up with updated treatment protocol. We classify data as level of reliabilty and relevance.
Where's the fairness?
So, you dont believe in the absolute certainty of evolution?
Lets have some definiton.
Level C: At least fair scientific evidence suggests that there are benefits provided by the clinical service, but the balance between benefits and risks are too close for making general recommendations. Clinicians need not offer it unless there are individual considerations.
In fact in medicine we dont recommend level c in the treatment protocol.
plau·si·ble
ˈplôzəb(ə)l/
adjective
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"
synonyms: credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable;
So in fact saying something is plausible has a higher level of credibility!
Speaking of science, can you state categorically your mechanism of evolution? What does it predict? What does it not predict and what will make it false?
-
Sigurista ka pala.
So its our physical body that goes to hell. Hindi ba maging ashes ito dahil sa apoy?
Its our spirit that goes to heaven or hell. Hell is called the lake of fire. One will burn there forever. Sa religion na yun and thats what i believe in. Like i say, wala naman loss sa amin kung hindi totoo yan. Pero if totoo we just all wait for judgement day to see where we are going. If we die wala na forum to say, hoy sabi ko nga tama ako or ikaw tama diba? Hehe
-
wow! so you're just believing and doing good just for the sake na hindi ka mapunta ng hell. that's a selfish reason.
No its not, i believe in Jesus Christ and what the Bible teaches since bata pa. To me there is a beautiful place prepared for us in heaven. Eternal life yan. No more suffering. Eternal din ang hell. Forever suffering. Paano if you killed somebody and want to go to heaven? We have freewill nga. Kaya sa judgement day we will know where we will go. Well that is what i believe in and not forcing anybody. Sa religion thread nalang yan pero related din ito sa topic dito imo.
-
So, if you want to prove reptile to bird, by this you mean, you want a fossil that looks like a reptile but with beaks and wings?
First do you agree with my explanation of theory of evolution that of being natural selection acting on random mutation? Based on this, what do you think will this mechanism predict? Not predict and what observations will make it false?
-
^I don't quite get your explanation. But from what I gather you wanted new species, pronto.
Here's something I got from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32)
First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
Something about ebola too: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola)
-
C- At least fair scientific evidence
plausible - (with zero evidence) has no credibility
My belief is that the theory of evolution is more rational than the belief in god.
-
Jerry Bergman, PhD (Professor, biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology; Intelligent Design advocate):
“[A] factor that moved me to the creationist side was the underhanded, often totally unethical techniques that evolutionists typically used to suppress dissonant ideas, primarily creationism. Rarely did they carefully and objectively examine the facts, but usually focused on suppression of creationists, denial of their degrees, denial of their tenure, ad hominem attacks, and in general, irrational attacks on their person. In short, their response in general was totally unscientific and one that reeks of intolerance, even hatred.”
William Dembsky (American mathematician, philosopher, theologian; advocate of Intelligent Design):
Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.’ ... Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. ... Overzealous critics of intelligent design regard it as their moral duty to keep biology free from intelligent design, even if that means taking extreme measures. I’ve known such critics to contact design theorists’ employers and notify them of the ‘heretics’ in their midst. Once ‘outed,’ the design theorists themselves get harassed and harangued with e-mails. Next, the press does a story mentioning their unsavory intelligent design associations. (The day one such story appeared, a close friend and colleague of mine mentioned in the story was dismissed from his research position at a prestigious molecular biology laboratory. He had worked in that lab for ten years. ... Welcome to the inquisition.”
The Darwinian Inquisition
Oct/14/14 06:00
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/the_darwinian_inquisition.html (http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/the_darwinian_inquisition.html)
-
^I don't quite get your explanation. But from what I gather you wanted new species, pronto.
Here's something I got from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32)
First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
Something about ebola too: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola)
Simply this, the theory of evolution should be able predict what you will observe and what you will not. You should be able also to envision obsevations that would make the theory false. All you have to do is provide answers to this question based on the mechanism of the theory of evolution.
What i understand from the berkeley quote is that nAtural selection result in slow progresive process of changes in organisms. But what is actually observed in the macro and microscopic organisms do have changes but only as far the species is concern. There is no cross specie change.
-
Lynn Margulis (American biologist; developed a theory of the origin of eukaryotic organelles, and contributed to the endosymbiotic theory):
"More and more, like the monasteries of the Middle Ages, today's universities and professional societies guard their knowledge. Collusively, the university biology curriculum, the textbook publishers, the National Science Foundation review committees, the Graduate Record Examiners, and the various microbiological, evolutionary, and zoological societies map out domains of the known and knowable; they distinguish required from forbidden knowledge, subtly punishing the trespassers with rejection and oblivion; they. . . . determine who is permitted to know and just what it is that he or she may know."
Margulis was fuming about the difficulty she was having in getting her concepts of evolutionary mechanisms considered. She goes on to complain that
". . . if an individual with ambition to study nature rejects neo-Darwinist biology in today's ambience, he becomes a threat to his own means of livelihood . . ."
Willingly Ignorant
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/willingly-ignorant/ (http://www.icr.org/article/willingly-ignorant/)
-
Saan bang part nag deviate?
Its not a matter of just deviation but the inclusion of many other observations/theories/mechanisms to explain what is observed that the theory of natural selection cannot. This in effect makes Evolution not testable and impossible to predict. At the same time impossible to envision what will make it false……In this regard evolution does not rise to the level of a scientific theory.
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.
The "punctuated equilibrium" theory of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould was proposed as a criticism of the traditional Darwinian theory of evolution. Eldredge and Gould observed that evolution tends to happen in fits and starts, sometimes moving very fast, sometimes moving very slowly or not at all. On the other hand, typical variations tend to be small. Therefore, Darwin saw evolution as a slow, continuous process, without sudden jumps.
Convergent evolution describes the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function, but that were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.[1] The cladistic term for the same phenomenon is homoplasy, from Greek for same form.
Divergent evolution is the accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species, usually a result of diffusion of the same species to different and isolated environments which blocks the gene flow among the distinct populations allowing differentiated fixation of characteristics through genetic drift and natural selection.
Parallel Evolution is the development of a similar trait in related, but distinct, species descending from the same ancestor, but from different clades.[1][
-
^Well forget about these sub-theories for the time being and let's look at evolution in a larger scale. I'd like to think we agree on evolution, yours through ID, mine through natural selection.
-
^Well forget about these sub-theories for the time being and let's look at evolution in a larger scale. I'd like to think we agree on evolution, yours through ID, mine through natural selection.
Sir, you can't set aside all those so-called sub-theories precisely because all those is Evolution in a larger scale. If you say there are changes within the species level then this occurs and have been observed. But this is not what evolution claims, it claims that this changes jumps or crosses across species barrier (eg. Fish to reptiles) with natural selection acting on mutation as the mechanism of change. Thus this view of Evolution is not compatible with ID.
-
No its not, i believe in Jesus Christ and what the Bible teaches since bata pa. To me there is a beautiful place prepared for us in heaven. Eternal life yan. No more suffering. Eternal din ang hell. Forever suffering. Paano if you killed somebody and want to go to heaven? We have freewill nga. Kaya sa judgement day we will know where we will go. Well that is what i believe in and not forcing anybody. Sa religion thread nalang yan pero related din ito sa topic dito imo.
yan brother, na gag ka tuloy kse you believe in creation eh ;D ;D ;D and you believe in god too! ;D ;D ;D
basa basa na lang tayo..si DOCelmo, one man wrecking machine na yan!
cmmn doc, schooled us big tym >:D >:D >:D
-
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 1999 Creation Research Society.
Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. ...
xxx
... As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.
At this rate he estimates it would require 10119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)
-
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
- Richard Dawkins
-
yan ang sinasabi ko... numbers can't explain evolution... :):):)
-
Allen Clifton (Co-founder, Forward Progressives):
"The Simple Truth About Creationists: They’re Too Stupid to Understand Science"
-
'Oh God': Dawkins forgets name of evolution's bible
St Valentine's massacre in religion wars as Dawkins forgets full name of seminal Darwin book
BY Tim Edwards
LAST UPDATED AT 13:54 ON Tue 14 Feb 2012.
... Dawkins made much of the fact that 64 per cent of people who said they were Christians in the census were not able to identify Matthew as the first book of the New Testament.
The second time Dawkins mentioned the finding, Fraser asked him if he could tell him the full title of On the Origin of Species, the book by Charles Darwin considered to be the 'Bible' of evolutionary biology.
Dawkins stated emphatically: "Yes I could."
"Go on then," said Fraser.
Dawkins's halting reply, complete with an improbable appeal to a higher authority, went thus: "On the Origin of Species, er, with... oh God... On the Origin of Species, um... There is a subtitle... er, um, with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
The correct answer is, of course, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
A triumphant Fraser said: "You are the High Pope of Darwinism. If you asked people who believe in evolution that question and only two per cent got it right it would be terribly easy for me to say they don't really believe it after all.
"It's just not fair to ask people these questions."
http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45324/oh-god-dawkins-forgets-name-evolutions-bible (http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45324/oh-god-dawkins-forgets-name-evolutions-bible)
=================================
YouTube radio recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv2U2Xp2Nu8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv2U2Xp2Nu8)
-
plausible - (with zero evidence) has no credibility
My belief is that the theory of evolution is more rational than the belief in god.
So, if I say that it is "plausible" that your comment is a result of intelligence........it has zero evidence or no credibility?
Or if I say that it is more plausible that the post/comment was "created" by an Intelligent Being.....It has ZERO evidence?
Sir, you just made use of a faith-based word BELIEF! Thats not very scientific.
The fact is it is Evolution that has Zero evidence!
If the theory is really more rational( as you claim) than our belief in God, then it would be really easy for you to answer the following:
What is the mechanism of the theory of evolution?
What will this mechanism predict?
What observations can make it false?
Has there been any experiments that has demonstrated abiogenesis?
Has anyone observed macroevolution? Cause-less effect? Sponteneous generation?
All of these needs to be present for evolution to be true!
This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science, all evolution has are assumptions to prove an assumption! The fact that evolution is also unobservable highlights that evolutionary theory is “faith-based” in the sense that direct evidence is lacking for several of its fundamental assumptions.
On the other hand is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified? In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example of the testability of intelligence. According to this program mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithm and fundamental laws are just some of the evidence that some type of intelligence exists!
And one more thing: Is your comment/post a result of or evidence for Evolution or Intelligent Design?
-
Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten
(http://creation.com/images/sml_cmi_logo.png)
... Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
... While previous studies have focused on base substitutions, they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides. Although the number of substitutions is about ten times higher than the number of indels, the number of nucleotides involved in indels is greater. These indels were reported to be equally represented in the chimp and human sequences. Therefore, the insertions or deletions were not occurring only in the chimp or only in the human and could also be interpreted as intrinsic differences.
http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity#f7 (http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity#f7)
-
The theory of evolution originally included abiogenesis. But there's one big problem these days --- it is now commonly accepted that abiogenesis is impossible.
The evolutionist's solution?
Very simple. Just pretend that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”
by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
... There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.
... Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded.
... atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. ...Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.
... The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific phenomenon.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631)
-
well one benefit of believing in evolution... magmumukha kang matalino :):):)
-
PZ Myers (American evolutionary biologist; atheist, Darwinist, anti-creation, anti-ID), on the issue that abiogenesis is part of evolution:
"[Myth] #15 is also a pet peeve [of mine]: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life” is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that “abiogenesis is not evolution,” but it’s a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don’t understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it."
-
So, if I say that it is "plausible" that your comment is a result of intelligence........it has zero evidence or no credibility?
Or if I say that it is more plausible that the post/comment was "created" by an Intelligent Being.....It has ZERO evidence?
Plausible is not a rating in EBM. You rated evolution a C.
You may want to prove the existence of God.
Sir, you just made use of a faith-based word BELIEF! Thats not very scientific.
Definition of belief:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
The fact is it is Evolution that has Zero evidence!
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important
distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad
areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution
looks at changes within species over time—changes
that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups
above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently
from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to
reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that
microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory
(as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in
the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes
among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other
mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis
and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations
over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves
inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct
observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include
astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary
biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking
whether they accord with physical evidence and
whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the
idea of descent with modification, one may also speak
of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation
that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record
and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have
evolved through time. Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous
and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence.
Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance,
so they verify their existence by watching for telltale
tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers.
The absence of direct observation does not make
physicists’ conclusions less certain.
What observations can make it false?
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If
we could document the spontaneous generation of just
one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at
least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have
originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared
and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular
species), the purely evolutionary explanation
would be cast in in doubt. But no one has yet produced
such evidence.
This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science,
Sorry but evolution is defined as knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
On the other hand is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified? In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified.
Intelligence yes but not an intelligent designer.
My turn to ask questions about ID?
When and how did a designing intelligence intervene in
life’s history?
By creating the first DNA?
The first cell?
The first human? Was every species designed, or just a
few early ones?
And one more thing: Is your comment/post a result of or evidence for Evolution or Intelligent Design?
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Your statements agreeing with evolution:
If by Evolution you are referring to small-scale changes/variations in species. This has been observed and accepted...indeed this is a FACT.
You dont go around disregarding evidence that does not fit your diagnosis, you look for another diagnosis.....same goes for evolution!
-
n. compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...
Hindi nah ang answer. Totoo ba ang evolution? yes or mo lang ang answer. so ang odds is 1:1.
Natutunan ko ito sa high school:)
-
Hindi nah ang answer. Totoo ba ang evolution? yes or mo lang ang answer. so ang odds is 1:1.
Natutunan ko ito sa high school:)
he he he... nice... same lang din sa creation... totoo ba ang creation... so ang odds is 1:1... kasi yes or no lang din... :)
you really dont understand the probability of non-living matters becoming a living matter...? based on observable experiement... the probability is zero... and the probablity of the fish becoming a salamander/lizard... based on observable experiment .. is zero... :)
but if creation is not true it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... same lang din sa evolution... if mali ang evolution it doesnt mean na totoo na agad ang creation...
just show us actual proof that evolution really happened not just assumption... malay mo baka magiba paniniwala ko :)... do you actually observe evolution for you to believe it? if not then it's really by faith... nakita mo ba actual paano nagevolve ang isang species to another species? or just an assumption since magkapareho ang body structure? so assumption to prove other assumption? another theory to backup other theory?
there are two group of scientist agreeing and not agreeing to evolution theory... so sino nagsasabi sa kanila ng totoo...???
-
he he he... nice... same lang din sa creation... totoo ba ang creation... so ang odds is 1:1... kasi yes or no lang din... :)
you really dont understand the probability of non-living matters becoming a living matter...? based on observable experiement... the probability is zero... and the probablity of the fish becoming a salamander/lizard... based on observable experiment .. is zero... :)
but if creation is not true it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... same lang din sa evolution... if mali ang evolution it doesnt mean na totoo na agad ang creation...
ito ang original statement mo--
not personal experience... i read it from the Bible... not just from group of scientist... its from the Bible...
no one taught me about creation... i read it myself... compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...
i maybe ignorant but i am not a fool to believe in evolution... hindi ako feeling matalino just like others... para magmukhang matalino paniniwalaan na lahat ng sinasabi ng mga 'magagaling' kuno na scientists :( and because of that they become fools :):):)
simple lang naman yan... if numbers cant explain it then dont believe it...
Ngayon dagdag ka ng statement to justify your conclusion. Fair?
you really dont understand the probability of non-living matters becoming a living matter...? based on observable experiement... the probability is zero... and the probablity of the fish becoming a salamander/lizard... based on observable experiment .. is zero... :)
nevertheless, where is your data to arrive at zero.
what is your sample size?
is the coefficient of variation acceptable?
or guessing guessing lang?
-
eto batas ng science... walang living things na mangggaling sa non-living things... di na kailangan ng sample size doon... batas na iyan eh... :)
para mo na ring sinabi na mananalo ba ako sa lotto... yes or no? so ang chance is 50%... :)
-
It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
- Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution"
-
The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical "hardware" capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message "receiver." But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein "workers" produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.
- J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel, "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life"
-
see sa DNA pa lang... numbers cant explain it... probabilites/chance no room for DNA... even when we extend the time... still zero probabilities... :):):)
It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
- Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution"
or created simultaneously by common designer...
"Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.
Furthermore, it is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor;c such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design."
-
(http://creation.com/images/sml_cmi_logo.png)
Evolutionists say, ‘Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.’
...In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists’ real scientific objections.
Scientific American states this common straw-man position and their answer to it.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. [SA 82]
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. [SA 82]
Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene (see next section) results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place.1 The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs, which in ants and bees include a wondrously complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these insects to stick to surfaces.2
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQHgcx2_5o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQHgcx2_5o)
-
Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments, conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance. However, every such attempt only made the complex design of the cell clearer, and thus refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses even more. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_08.html (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_08.html)
-
Definition of belief:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Intelligence yes but not an intelligent designer.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
I can see that there is a tendency to cherry pick the definition as you see fit or when you want to skirt the question.
With Belief....That's exactly my point your belief on your god Darwin is in the same footing as my belief in God. You can't use one part of the definition and dismiss the other part, you must accept the entire definition as equal parts. Thus my belief in God is no less rational than you belief in Darwin!
On intelligence. ID is also evidence of Intelligence, "design" is just a qualifier. just like when you say; author, writer, director etc etc. in addition logic and reasoning are parts of a very common test.....IQ Test!
And what does the "I" stand for INTELLIGENCE!......baka naman ideny mo pa yan!
i'll try use analogy to illustrate your answer: intelligence not ID and logic/reasoning not intelligence!
You see a car You say: Nice red sports car! I say: Nice red Ferrari 458!
In an art gallery You say: Painting of sunflower I say: Van Gogh's Sunflower
Iin a computer shop You say: Nice computer I say: Apple Macbook pro
While surfing our marketplace You say: Nice Int. Amplifier! I say: Nice Cayin CS-55A Int tube amplifier!
more on your other points later....
-
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important
distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad
areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution
looks at changes within species over time—changes
that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis
and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations
over time.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the
idea of descent with modification, one may also speak
of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation
that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”
Sorry but evolution is defined as knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
I say this “blanket” pronouncement because each and every so-called evidence for evolution are mere assumptions and speculations to prove a predicted or pre-destined conclusion.
Calling these changes in the species level as “micro-evolution” is in fact a misleading word because this leads to the implications these observations are evidence is also used as evidence for macro-evolution. I did use the word evolution to describe small-scale changes in species....looks this is also a misnomer to perpetuate the illusion of evolution
This is a bait and switch move employed to make it appear that both mechanism occurs and that they are one and the same……Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact even the use of natural selection is not scientific in the sense that its main tenet is survival of the fittest. In reality survival is not equal to the fittest and vice-versa. As studies in Genetics and Molecular biology show a very different mechanism.....gene dynamics!
In molecular biology, the gene-mutations are mostly caused by the gene-dynamics, not by ‘nature-selection-pressure’, and the following is the list of gene-mutation mechanisms.
Spontaneous mutations (molecular decay), random mutations arise spontaneously; stochastic and typically occur randomly across genes.
Mutations due to error prone replication by-pass of naturally occurring DNA damage. But, DNA repair mechanisms are able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise-permanently mutated somatic cells.
Errors introduced during DNA repair, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.
Induced mutations caused by mutagens (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens)..
Gene recombination can also generate particular types of mutations.
Except the induced mutation which subjects to some external (environmental) factors, all the mutation-mechanisms above are well-defined genetic-dynamics, and they are definitely NOT the results of the Darwin-mechanism!
NAS definition of fact does NOT apply to Evolution simply because it has NOT been observed and NOT repeatedly confirmed and therefore cannot be accepted as truth!
Kindly enumerate these "Facts" learned through experiments and observations!
-
Don’t fall for the bait and switch
Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking
by Tas Walker
(http://creation.com/images/sml_cmi_logo.png)
... We have heard of the idea that single-celled animals changed by mutation and natural selection into reptiles, birds, mammals and people, over millions of years.
This is what creationists call evolution and they distinguish it from adaptation. Evolutionists call this evolution too, the same word they use for adaptation. That is why there is so much confusion on this issue.
Evolutionists use the same word for two entirely different things (called equivocation), and so you don’t really know what they are talking about.
If small random mutations are to produce new genetic information for these amazing changes in animals, then millions of such genetic errors would be needed over millions of generations. That is why evolutionists need billions of years for the idea to be plausible.
However, these sorts of changes have never been observed.
Variation and natural selection do not produce new genetic information; they only rearrange or remove the existing information.
Mutations do not generate new genetic information; they destroy some of the existing information.
Furthermore, the fossils are not consistent with the idea of evolution; the innumerable transitional forms expected are missing.
http://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch (http://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch)
-
... Darwinists typically "claim that macroevolution is just microevolution continued over a very long time through a mechanism called natural selection," Johnson says. The claim is highly controversial, because the "mechanism of macroevolution has to be able to design and build very complex structures like wings and eyes and brains"—and "it has to have done this reliably again and again."
The trouble is, plenty of experiments have been done that show small changes do not accumulate to make large changes. So what Darwinists need is a new mechanism—yet there is no new mechanism on the horizon.
This, Johnson says, is why Darwinists are reluctant to make a clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. They have evidence for a mechanism for minor variation, as with finches' beaks, but he adds, they have no distinct mechanism for the really creative kind of evolution—the kind that builds new body plans and new complex organisms.
As a result, macroevolution is nothing more than a mysterious process with no known mechanism. "A process like that isn't all that different from a God-guided process," Johnson notes, "and it certainly would not support those expansive philosophical statements about evolution being purposeless and undirected."
http://www.doingtherightthing.com/commentaries/5257-bait-and-switch-science (http://www.doingtherightthing.com/commentaries/5257-bait-and-switch-science)
-
A definition of Evolution… In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.
By itself the above definition is true and has been observed since before Darwin. It simply describes the obvious fact that there is variation within every species / kind of animal and plant. Natural selection, due to environmental reasons, can encourage some traits over others in subsequent generations. We can and do observe natural selection reinforcing existing traits. But such things are not mechanisms to add new information into the genes and change one kind of animal (e.g., a reptile) into a totally different kind (e.g., a bird).
... Micro-Evolution (also called Horizontal Change) – Creationists have never had a problem with Natural Selection, and variation within a kind or family group, or in some cases the phyla or species. (There is no consistent definition of species). Everyone understands change and variation in what characteristics the descendants may inherit and become dominant. This includes the length of beaks in finches and coloring of moths, and even dominant hair and skin color in humans. This variation can be controlled by humans (i.e. dog breeding) and can also happen naturally (hence: Natural Selection) such as long beaked finches having an advantage in times of drought. Their longer beak allows them to pick food deeper out of rock crevices, survive and breed, while their short beaked cousins die off.
... Macro-Evolution (also called Vertical Change): This is the ever increasing complexity of life, The natural development of simple cells, and then invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, and eventually humans. This is what most people think of when we use the basic term Evolution. The problem is that evolutionists simply extrapolate if micro-evolution is true then macro-evolution must be true. There is variation and change within a species, therefore the whole species must have evolved over time. Bait and switch.
The problem is there is NO evidence for macro-evolution at all in the fossil record. And all of our discoveries and research into micro-biology and heredity, make this idea of macro-evolution not just unlikely, but impossible. DNA works against this happening. Mutations, or errors in DNA do not add new information and do not help. Ernst Mayr, the prominent atheistic biologist released a new book in 2001: What Evolution Is and his fellow evolutionists said there is no better book on evolution.
And Yet Mayr uses virtually the same evidences as those used 150 yrs ago by Darwin in Origin. He devotes five chapters to micro-evolution and only one to macro-evolution, AND GIVES NO examples or solid evidences of any macro-evolutionary change. No science, just bait and switch.
http://qccsa.org/bait-switch-tactic-of-evos-micro-macro-evolution/ (http://qccsa.org/bait-switch-tactic-of-evos-micro-macro-evolution/)
-
"Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If
we could document the spontaneous generation of just
one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at
least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have
originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared
and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular
species), the purely evolutionary explanation
would be cast in in doubt. But no one has yet produced
such evidence."
your two examples of disproving it are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
First on spontaneous generation, isn't it that this is one of the tenets of evolution itself? That the origin of life started from inanimate materials then through natural processes evolved to become the first life on earth. Or are again tweaking the meaning to make it appear that this not part of evolution....
While the second you are looking/waiting for ET, and not a supernatural cause( because to you that would be really Irrational!).
Disproving evolution should be based on its basic tenet of natural processes acting on mutation to produce all life. Then any experiment, discovery, fossil records, laws, math even logic or reasoning that shows the opposite result or findings(dami nyan) of evolution's mechanism....makes evolution false!
More evidence on mutation:
The Bio-evolution-Inertia Equation
The BEI equation is an expression of the effectiveness of mutation on organism. Since most induced and spontaneous mutations are either neutral or deleterious thus these types of mutations will not lead to better fitness for the organism.
Bio-evolution- inertia: measured by the complexity of the organism; the more complex, the more inertia. The effectiveness of mutation (EoM) is much less for higher inertia. That is,
EoM = P/I
P, the probability of a mutation having effect on a genome.
I, the inertia. I = 1 for single cell genome. For every additional bio-mechanism above single cell (such as becoming multicellular; with differentiations; with complex organs, etc.), it increase a factor of ‘10’ for every addition complexity. So, for differentiated multicellular organism, I = 10^3. For a multicellular organism which has five internal organs, the I = 10^(3 + 5), etc.
For single cell organism, the EoM = P/1 = P
For higher level organism {with n (complexity) = 8}, EoM = P/I = P/10^8. A mutation for this organism has very little effect.
Then, for the high level organism (such as mammals) which reproduces with Meiosis process, it divides its body into two parts: the soma and the germline. In general, the mutations in the somatic cells will not directly link to the germ cells. That is, the majority of the mutations in this organism is not inheritable. So, the nature-selection-pressure of Darwin-mechanism has very little effect on this organism.
Intelligent Evolution
By Tienzen (Jeh Tween) Gong
October 11, 2014
-
The Chicken or the Egg,
DNA or Protein?
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
© January 2007
... In the very first cell (assuming that there was a "first" cell) what came first - the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist. So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell. Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.
Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?
http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html (http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html)
-
Please allow to share this article which got me thinking and pause...
The last part makes a lot of sense... You may call this a cop-out, so be it.
The Basic Question
The basic question at issue in the contemporary origins debate is whether or not the world was created.
It could be tempting to simply put participants in the discussion into two groups—creationists and evolutionists—and leave it at that.
Some on both sides of the issue would like to do exactly that.
In fact, some of the people who most readily identify themselves as creationists or evolutionists often speak as if these are the only two options.
Name Calling
Some creationists dismiss everyone who doesn’t hold their view as an “evolutionist” (using this term in a negative sense).
Some evolutionists dismiss everyone who thinks that the world was created as a “creationist” (using this term in a negative sense).
When this happens, the two camps are using prejudicial language. They’re calling each other names, and that doesn’t advance the discussion.
They’re also distorting the issue, because there are clearly middle positions on this question. In fact, there’s a spectrum of them.
How can we describe these positions?
Creationism
The people most likely to identify themselves as “creationists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
There is a God.
The world was made in a period of six, twenty-four hour days.
The world is only a few thousand years old.
God specially intervened to create the life forms on earth, without using prior, extinct life forms to do so.
The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is mistaken.
Intelligent Design
The people most likely to identify themselves as advocates of “intelligent design” seem usually to make the following claim:
The world (either the whole cosmos or just the life on earth) shows evidence of a scientific nature that suggests it was intelligently designed.
Most advocates also seem to hold the following proposition:
God exists and is the intelligent designer of the world.
This view, however, is not essential to their position.
Theistic Evolution
The people most likely to identify themselves as “theistic evolutionists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
There is a God.
The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twenty-four hour days.
The world is much more than a few thousand years old.
God used prior, extinct life forms to produce the life forms we see today.
The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.
Atheistic Evolution
The people most likely to identify themselves as “atheistic evolutionists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
There is no God or, at least, we do not have good reason to believe that there is a God.
The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twenty-four hour days.
The world is much more than a few thousand years old.
The life forms we see today arose from prior, extinct life forms.
The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.
-
Continued...
What Bugs Me
What bugs me is the way that advocates of these different positions often dump on each other:
Creationists often dump on the other three positions as lacking a sufficient appreciation of the Bible and as being either compromised by or completely sold-out to faithless, atheistic evolutionism.
Atheistic evolutionists often dump on the other three positions as lacking a sufficient appreciation of modern science and as being either compromised by or completely sold-out to anti-intellectual creationism.
Atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists sometimes dump on intelligent design as being just a shill for creationism.
Advocates of intelligent design and theistic evolution, not wanting to be identified with creationism, sometimes dump on advocates of that view.
Creationists and advocates of intelligent design sometimes dump on theistic and atheistic evolution as ignoring scientific evidence that they believe undermines the idea that the world and life forms arose without outside intervention.
Of course, each of these schools of thought is different from the others, and people who hold different views inevitably have lapses in charity when discussing each other.
But it seems that there is a huge amount of heat that is brought to this discussion, and at times the origins debate seems to degenerate into a mutual snarkfest.
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Of course, people coming from different viewpoints will not agree with each other. That’s why their viewpoints are different.
It’s also natural and healthy for advocates of the different views to make their case and to cross-examine the positions of others.
That’s how we get at the truth.
But we can treat each other with respect and charity as we do so.
What would that mean in practice?
Recognizing the Differences
A first step is recognizing that there are, in fact, more than just two views here.
Talking as if there are only two views—creationism and evolutionism—and then using the name of the position that isn’t yours as a swear-word does not help the discussion.
It also does not respect the people you’re talking about.
It fails to recognize differences in their positions and it lumps them under a single, pejorative label.
That’s true whether it’s a creationist calling everyone else evolutionists or an atheistic evolutionist calling everyone else creationists.
No Shoehorning
A related step is not shoehorning everybody into one of these four categories.
If an old-earth creationist were to say, “Please don’t lump me in with the young earth creationists,” I would say, “No problem! The categories I have proposed here are purely for purposes of convenience. We can easily add new categories, based on who is participating in the discussion. Tell me what you believe and why and let’s talk about it.”
Similarly, if someone came from an entirely different religious perspective and said, “I don’t believe in any of the four views articulated here. I think that the universe was produced in a giant conflict between Apsu and Tiamat and Marduk,” my response would be the same.
The questions of how, when, why, and by whom (if anyone) the world came to be are all separate questions and can be answered different ways.
There are, in fact, a vast number of possible views, and I want to treat everyone with respect, regardless of their position.
The four positions articulated above are just four positions that happen to be common in modern American culture. They are by no means the only possible positions.
Good Will
Another step in treating each other with respect is presupposing each other’s good will.
It’s easy for people of different perspectives to suspect each other of having bad motives.
That’s a tendency that we have to check—and check sharply.
It is inconsistent with the Golden Rule, because if we want others to presume our good will, in spite of our disagreements, then we should presume their good will as well.
We’re All Human Beings
Something that may help us treat others with respect as we discuss the question of origins is recognizing the fact that we are all human beings.
None of us are members of a master race because of our view of the origins question.
There have been both geniuses and simpletons who have held each of the positions we’ve looked at in this piece. Holding a particular position does not make us innately superior or inferior to others.
Keeping that fact in mind can help us counter the tendency to look down on others because their views are different.
We’re All Fallible
Of course, we also all make mistakes, and that’s going to happen in the origins discussion as well.
We will, at times, use bad arguments, accept bad data, and have lapses of charity toward one another.
That’s par for the course.
But if we want others to treat us with respect and charity in spite of our lapses then we should strive to do the same for them.
What do you think?
-
It's a common misconception that all creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Not true. There are Young Earth Creationists (YEC), and there are Old Earth Creationists (OEC).
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm (http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm)
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html)
-
Name Calling
Some creationists dismiss everyone who doesn’t hold their view...
HAHA.
ala lang ganyan na pala ngayon, akala ko its the other way around.
-
HAHA.
ala lang ganyan na pala ngayon, akala ko its the other way around.
Sir,
You should see the level of name calling in foreign sites on this subject! In our thread however is more among the lines of "am more rational", "faith nothing more", "theory lang", "imagination" by and large posters here are more civil towards each other. As i suggested to someone awhile back to keep the "insult" to a minimum if he could help it and stick to the topic at hand... ;D
-
From Evolution News site:
ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.
Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)
Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.
Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.
As Stephen Meyer explains:
Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source--from a mind or personal agent.2
Of course like any scientific conclusion, this conclusion is held tentatively, subject to future discoveries and future investigations -- investigations that ID encourages. But because ID is presently the best scientific explanation for structures with high CSI, it is entirely appropriate to infer design. In this way, ID uses the scientific method to make its claims.
-
^Does this have anything to do with aliens?
-
^Does this have anything to do with aliens?
Well if you think it has something to do with aliens instead of a (irrational) supernatural cause that's your call........ either way the presence of information, language and codes points to an intelligent cause or mind.
Btw sir, my posts on the mechanisms of mutations and the BEI equation answers your previous question why natural selection does not work on mutations.
-
Well if you think it has something to do with aliens instead of a (irrational) supernatural cause that's your call........ either way the presence of information, language and codes points to an intelligent cause or mind.
What is your call? God or aliens? Kung God, I have no more questions. Kung aliens, may follow up. Note that I'm not interrogating you. Just want to know where you're coming from.
Btw sir, my posts on the mechanisms of mutations and the BEI equation answers your previous question why natural selection does not work on mutations.
Will backread.
-
What is your call? God or aliens? Kung God, I have no more questions. Kung aliens, may follow up. Note that I'm not interrogating you. Just want to know where you're coming from.
Naturally for me that intelligent cause is…..GOD!
For several reasons, the discovery of laws like thermodynamics, presence of language, codes, information, finite universe…….all point to a cause outside the limits of the universe. This is also in agreement with the Law of cause and effect, which simply states that: for every effect there is a cause and Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
Alien creating life here on earth will have several “minor” hurdles to overcome before they can even start creating life here.
First of all is there a greater probability of life arising elsewhere in the universe. How? Evolution again? As previously posted the probability of life appearing by natural processes on earth is so small! Then then probability of life arising elsewhere is even smaller!
Next are having earth-like planets or planets that would sustain life. Since we know that the universe is composed of elements such as carbon, hydrogen, helium, oxygen etc…then these “aliens” should also be composed of the same matter or at least a combination of the same elements. Who created the aliens? This question is not infinite since the Universe is not infinite as well…..ultimately these aliens were created by a being outside of the confines of the universe and its laws.
Next is the limits of time which is related to the previous reason, unless the current knowledge of the age of the universe is wrong then this third reason is irrelevant. However if the current age is accurate then it puts more strain on natural selection in “evolving” another life in another planet in another galaxy.
IMHO, these limitations further lessen the probability of aliens creating life on earth……
-
Creationists lost!
Federal Judge Rejects Anti-Evolution Lawsuit Concocted By Kansas Creationists
Conservative “Christians” must be fuming in Kansas after a federal judge nixed their latest effort to ban evolution in schools.
In response to all Kansas school districts adopting a standardized science curriculum known as Next Generation Science Standrads that includes the teaching of evolution, creationists across the state threw a collective temper tantrum, with one right-wing group even going so far as to file a lawsuit to ban evolution based on the claim that it promotes atheism.
Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) actually had the nerve to argue that teaching evolution amounts to teaching atheism, and therefore should be banned as a religious point of view in the classroom. But as Americans United For Church And State explained, the argument is complete bullsh*t.
Everything about that argument is flawed. Contemplating the origin of life on this planet is not an inherently religious question that is unfit for children to ponder. And science has done a fine job of unlocking the mysteries of the universe – despite COPE’s claim to the contrary. Evolution may be a theory, but no legitimate scientists question its validity. Thus learning the facts of that theory is not “indoctrination.” It’s called education.
US District Judge Daniel Crabtree apparently agreed, because he threw out the case.
The question of whether creationism should be taught in school has been long settled for 30 years, since the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that religious doctrine does not belong in science class. The reason for the new standards in the first place is because educators are making a push to improve the math and science scores of American students so that they can compete with the rest of the developed world. Evolution is not a religion, it’s a fact that is backed by mountains of evidence. To view some of that evidence, just watch this video explaining how multiple fields of scientific study agree that evolution is real.
That ought to enrage conservatives just as much as this court decision.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/05/federal-judge-rejects-anti-evolution-lawsuit-concocted-by-kansas-creationists/
-
^ Excellent. It's great to hear news like this ;D
-
Creationists lost!
Federal Judge Rejects Anti-Evolution Lawsuit Concocted By Kansas Creationists
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/05/federal-judge-rejects-anti-evolution-lawsuit-concocted-by-kansas-creationists/ (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/05/federal-judge-rejects-anti-evolution-lawsuit-concocted-by-kansas-creationists/)
It's just the COPE (Citizens for Objective Public Education) who lost.
COPE wanted to ban the teaching of evolutionism and global warming in Kansas public school science classes.
It's only right that COPE should lose because it's a silly idea.
-
" Evolution is not a religion, it’s a fact that is backed by mountains of evidence."
Now this is a BOLD claim, and the attach video's "Best evidence" is.........whale evolution!!! :D
We've already discussed the fossils of pakicetus and ambulocetus which were both "liberally illustrated" to conform to the view that these are early whales by also naming them walking whales......assumptiion lang! an even older fully aquatic whale fossil was discovered predating its supposed ancestor in the whale evolution!
DNA, Population Genetics have shown that natural selection acting on random mutation would not produce new information to produce new parts. futhermore there is NOT enough time for all the changes to take effect in the organism from a fully land animal to fully aquatic whale from a mere "blink of a eye" in geological time scale.
Mountain? Baka naman molehill lang.....
-
‘Noah’s Ark’ Theme Park Loses $18 Million In Tax Rebates After It Refuses To Hire Non-Creationists
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/fdssklaj3-1024x576.png)
Ken Ham, the Christian fundamentalist behind the religious non-profit organization, Answers in Genesis, just lost a whopping $18 million in tax rebates because he refused to not discriminate against non-creationists in his new business venture.
Ham, best known for his extremely silly “Creation Museum” alternative to history museums and for getting demolished by Bill Nye the Science Guy in a debate on evolution, has apparently forfeited his huge tax breaks because he couldn’t bear to work with a person who didn’t share his creationist beliefs.
After a major fundraising push, Ham amassed millions of dollars from conservative Christian investors for a brand new theme park based around the biblical story of Noah’s ark, called Ark Encounter. Unlike his ministry, Ham planned on making this venture of the for-profit variety so he could work on further expanding his creationist empire. Unfortunately, the caveat for running a business and not, say, a religious organization, is that federal and state laws are pretty strict about discrimination in the work place.
According to The Courier-Journal, the state of Kentucky decided that Ham’s (pardon the pun) ham-fisted way of forcing his religious ministry into every facet of the theme park’s operation, has forced them to rule that he would be using state money to “fund religious indoctrination.” That would be a Constitutional no-no.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/11/noahs-ark-theme-park-loses-18-million-in-tax-rebates-after-it-refuses-hire-non-creationists/
-
Ken Ham is a Young Earth Creationist. His Noah's Ark theme park is blatant religious propaganda. And taxpayer's money should not be allowed to be used to subsidize religious propaganda.
It's only right that tax rebates should be denied.
But evolutionism is still a fairy tale... :D
-
Wow! Evolution proves Everything......even in the absence of it!!!!
Consider this conclusion from the authors of this piece:
(Alexander J. Werth and William A. Shear, "The Evolutionary Truth About Living Fossils," American Scientist, Vol. 102:434-443 (2014).)
Despite their apparent resistance to change, living fossils, like all organisms extant and extinct, serve as proof that evolution continues unabated as the driving force behind the tremendous diversity of life on Earth, in the past as well as in the present.
So apparently nothing can disprove evolution!
-
Astronomer Robert Jastrow in his book: "God and the Astronomers" had this to say...
"The Scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak, as he pulls himself
over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
-
The Creationist Cosmos
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/8u6b
-
Sorry, the video is not even remotely funny and has many inaccurate and misleading statements..
Now if you want a logical straight forward video on the current knowledge of the Cosmos watch this it would only take 6 minutes of your time...
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/ring_in_the_new092411.html (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/ring_in_the_new092411.html)
-
-from "The Wall Street Journal"
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for His existence comes from a surprising place-Science itself!
"Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life -- every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth's surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces -- gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces -- were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction -- by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 -- then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"
-
well... kung meron nga raw nananlo ng lotto... paano pa kaya ang pagkakabuo ng mundo :):):)... malamang lamang sasabihin lang naman nila... in BILLION OF YEARS... all things is possible :):):)...
-
Typical ID/creationist argument. I can't explain therefore, God.
-
Typical ID/creationist argument. I can't explain therefore, God.
Typical evolutionist statement revealing a refusal to understand, denial and just plain misunderstanding of what the data suggests...
The Constants and Quantities such as Gravitational constant, cosmological constant, plancks' constant etc etc were all products of scientists' research, studies and experiments! These scientists are not ID/creationists proponents by any measure! These numbers are not products of "inventions or imaginations" of ID/creationist proponents. These numbers have been calculated to such a degree that scientists conclude that any minute changes the universe would not exist.
Can evolutionist honestly say that all these precise numbers happen by chance or necessity?
Sabi nga ni sir dpogs....baka mas malaki pa chance mo manalo sa lotto, kesa ang chance magkaron ng universe o earth o buhay!
-
Typical evolutionist statement revealing a refusal to understand, denial and just plain misunderstanding of what the data suggests...
The Constants and Quantities such as Gravitational constant, cosmological constant, plancks' constant etc etc were all products of scientists' research, studies and experiments! These scientists are not ID/creationists proponents by any measure! These numbers are not products of "inventions or imaginations" of ID/creationist proponents. These numbers have been calculated to such a degree that scientists conclude that any minute changes the universe would not exist.
Can evolutionist honestly say that all these precise numbers happen by chance or necessity?
Sabi nga ni sir dpogs....baka mas malaki pa chance mo manalo sa lotto, kesa ang chance magkaron ng universe o earth o buhay!
What the data suggests? Those are not even data to suggest that there's a designer present. You're just interpreting it as evidence for an intelligent designer. Just because you can't move one factor a smudge to the left or to the right doesn't mean there's an intelligent designer. I'm not saying there isn't but you can't be sure that there is simply because of that. Same as how atheist say there isn't a creator simply because there's no data for it. From the billions and billions of galaxies out there, you really think that we're the only ones? That's what that video suggests.
To answer your question, yes it can. And no matter how small the chances are, as long as there is a chance for life to develop, life will develop. With or without the help of an intelligent designer.
-
definitely by fatih :):):)
-
What the data suggests? Those are not even data to suggest that there's a designer present. You're just interpreting it as evidence for an intelligent designer. Just because you can't move one factor a smudge to the left or to the right doesn't mean there's an intelligent designer. I'm not saying there isn't but you can't be sure that there is simply because of that. Same as how atheist say there isn't a creator simply because there's no data for it. From the billions and billions of galaxies out there, you really think that we're the only ones? That's what that video suggests.
To answer your question, yes it can. And no matter how small the chances are, as long as there is a chance for life to develop, life will develop. With or without the help of an intelligent designer.
So what does the data suggests to you? What does all those precise measurements that governs the movements and behavior of the universe suggests? And how did this numbers happen, by chance? Let’s consider for a moment that you are correct. How do propose all the parameters (200 of them so far as the article mentioned) came into existence? Trial and error? Because you as you mentioned “can’t move one factor a smudge” is evidence of precision and order. Based on our common experience…what does precision and order suggest? I can only think of one thing….a Mind!
What we have now in terms of “evidence” from the precise order of the universe to the emergence of life are more than enough conclude there is an immaterial transcendent cause! This cause is the best explanation for the order we see in the universe. This cause must be outside time and space!
God appearing in front of everybody is NOT a guarantee that all the people will believe Him…..because he gave us a wonderful gift….Free will! That is why we have the freedom to choose to believe or not. He gave us is a universe to explore and discover His handiwork!
Can the universe create itself or for that matter can life create life? The probability of a life supporting environment to exist is less than 1 chance in 10 282nd power!
The number is so staggering that it defies imagination……and yet here we are!!! Existing!!!
Thus if you believe in random chance of life appearing spontaneously on its own, then I must commend you because your faith in Chance is way more bigger than my faith in God.
-
So what does the data suggests to you? What does all those precise measurements that governs the movements and behavior of the universe suggests? And how did this numbers happen, by chance? Let’s consider for a moment that you are correct. How do propose all the parameters (200 of them so far as the article mentioned) came into existence? Trial and error? Because you as you mentioned “can’t move one factor a smudge” is evidence of precision and order. Based on our common experience…what does precision and order suggest? I can only think of one thing….a Mind!
What we have now in terms of “evidence” from the precise order of the universe to the emergence of life are more than enough conclude there is an immaterial transcendent cause! This cause is the best explanation for the order we see in the universe. This cause must be outside time and space!
God appearing in front of everybody is NOT a guarantee that all the people will believe Him…..because he gave us a wonderful gift….Free will! That is why we have the freedom to choose to believe or not. He gave us is a universe to explore and discover His handiwork!
Can the universe create itself or for that matter can life create life? The probability of a life supporting environment to exist is less than 1 chance in 10 282nd power!
The number is so staggering that it defies imagination……and yet here we are!!! Existing!!!
Thus if you believe in random chance of life appearing spontaneously on its own, then I must commend you because your faith in Chance is way more bigger than my faith in God.
as i've said, it may be a higher supernatural being and it may be not. But i'm not as quick as you to conclude and interpret that those numbers are parameters set by a being in the sky! it is not enough evidence to come to that conclusion.
Long before, some humans thought that there are no other lands then sea faring made them discover different islands and continents. We thought that there is only this planet then soon discovered other planets in our solar system. Then we thought that our sun is the only one in the sky then figured out that the stars are also other suns and that we're part of the Milky Way Galaxy. We then find out that there are also other galaxies our there and we are just one part of a group of galaxies and that group of galaxies are just another part of cluster of galaxies, so on and so fort.
It is not far fetched or ridiculous to think that there are other Universes apart from our own that have different sets of physics laws and theories. that alone could be a reason for having those sets of data that you interpret as parameters by an "intelligent designer".
There is even this one theory that our Universe is just a holographic simulation. That also could be a reason for having those data. But to say that it was created because of the supernatural God in the Bible is too far fetched. Right now we have a very tiny grasp on our understanding of our Universe and i'm not inclined to believe in a scripture explaining how we came about made millennia ago by persons/people who understands even less than we do now.
Unlike some overtly religious person, i don't just believe in mysticism and myths and interpret things to fit whatever belief system one holds. i believe in the evidence that a theory holds. if an evidence comes out that overturns a theory then that theory will be disregarded.
To answer your question, yes it is possible that it is simply due to chance as it is how the Quantum Theory works.
-
Typical ID/creationist argument. I can't explain therefore, God.
They are also convinced that the universe was created for humanity. They can't accept that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
-
as i've said, it may be a higher supernatural being and it may be not. But i'm not as quick as you to conclude and interpret that those numbers are parameters set by a being in the sky! it is not enough evidence to come to that conclusion.
Long before, some humans thought that there are no other lands then sea faring made them discover different islands and continents. We thought that there is only this planet then soon discovered other planets in our solar system. Then we thought that our sun is the only one in the sky then figured out that the stars are also other suns and that we're part of the Milky Way Galaxy. We then find out that there are also other galaxies our there and we are just one part of a group of galaxies and that group of galaxies are just another part of cluster of galaxies, so on and so fort.
It is not far fetched or ridiculous to think that there are other Universes apart from our own that have different sets of physics laws and theories. that alone could be a reason for having those sets of data that you interpret as parameters by an "intelligent designer".
There is even this one theory that our Universe is just a holographic simulation. That also could be a reason for having those data. But to say that it was created because of the supernatural God in the Bible is too far fetched. Right now we have a very tiny grasp on our understanding of our Universe and i'm not inclined to believe in a scripture explaining how we came about made millennia ago by persons/people who understands even less than we do now.
Unlike some overtly religious person, i don't just believe in mysticism and myths and interpret things to fit whatever belief system one holds. i believe in the evidence that a theory holds. if an evidence comes out that overturns a theory then that theory will be disregarded.
To answer your question, yes it is possible that it is simply due to chance as it is how the Quantum Theory works.
My understanding of the information i've gathered led me to think that those parameters were best explained by design and not due to necessity nor chance....I would not characterize that as "quick to conclude".
On the other hand, you say it's not far fetch to think of a Multiverse or Chance as the answer for the parameters but at same time you readily reject the third option that of design. Because the idea of design or a designer is too far fetch??? So you draw the line on this "too far fetch" idea, that makes your claim of objectively looking at evidence flawed since you've already taken out the other possibility that the universe was designed...Here is the article that lists all the parameters you that say happened by chance.
Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body
Notes: Estimate of dependency and longevity factors are accounted for at the end of the list. References to relevant science research papers and books also follow the list. The definition used here for a planet is broad enough to include a large satellite orbiting another planet. For reasons why satellites in general and starless planets are not suitable candidates for a life-support body see Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002), pp. 39-41.
Parameter Probability that feature will fall in the required range for physical life
local abundance and distribution of dark matter
0.1
relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
0.01
decay rates of different exotic mass particles
0.05
density of quasars 0.1
density of giant galaxies in the early universe 0.1
galaxy cluster size 0.1
galaxy cluster density
0.1
galaxy cluster location 0.1
galaxy size 0.1
galaxy type 0.1
galaxy mass distribution
0.2
size of galactic central bulge 0.2
galaxy location 0.1
variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate
0.1
quantity of galactic dust
0.1
giant star density in galaxy 0.1
frequency of gamma ray bursts in galaxy 0.05
star location relative to galactic center 0.2
star distance from corotation circle of galaxy 0.005
ratio of inner dark halo mass to stellar mass for galaxy 0.1
star distance from closest spiral arm 0.1
z-axis extremes of star’s orbit 0.02
iodine quantity in crust 0.1
magnesium in crust 0.4
manganese quantity in crust 0.1
nickel quantity in crust 0.1
rate of decline in volcanic activity 0.1
location of volcanic eruptions 0.1
continental relief 0.1
viscosity at Earth core boundaries 0.01
viscosity of lithosphere 0.2
thickness of mid-mantle boundary 0.1
rate of sedimentary loading at crustal subduction zones 0.1
biomass to comet infall ratio 0.01
regularity of cometary infall 0.1
number, intensity, and location of hurricanes 0.02
intensity of primordial cosmic superwinds 0.05
number of smoking quasars 0.05
formation of large terrestrial planet in the presence of two or more gas giant planets 0.1
orbital stability of large terrestrial planet in the presence of two or more gas giant planets 0.01
total mass of Oort Cloud objects 0.2
timing of star formation peak for the galaxy 0.2
.....the parameter total 322,
Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-388
dependency factors estimate ≈ 10-96
longevity requirements estimate ≈ 1014
Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-304
Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ≈ 1022
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
-
They are also convinced that the universe was created for humanity. They can't accept that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
On the contrary, I am humbled that I was created. The universe was NOT made for humanity. It was made so that humanity can explore and use mind and intelligence and discover for himself His handiwork, and also gave us freewill to think whether to accept or reject His existence in the things that are made...in the course of our continuous study of the things around us.
-
The author is certainly NOT an ID/Creationist proponent far it, read the last paragraph.
Mind and Cosmos
by Thomas Nagel
"So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. Further, since the mental arises through the development of animal organisms, the nature of those organisms cannot be fully understood through the physical sciences alone. Finally, since the long process of biological evolution is responsible for the existence of conscious organisms, and since a purely physical process cannot explain their existence, it follows that biological evolution must be more than just a physical process, and the theory of evolution, if it is to explain the existence of conscious life, must become more than just a physical theory.
This means that the scientific outlook, if it aspires to a more complete understanding of nature, must expand to include theories capable of explaining the appearance in the universe of mental phenomena and the subjective points of view in which they occur – theories of a different type from any we have seen so far.
There are two ways of resisting this conclusion, each of which has two versions. The first way is to deny that the mental is an irreducible aspect of reality, either (a) by holding that the mental can be identified with some aspect of the physical, such as patterns of behavior or patterns of neural activity, or (b) by denying that the mental is part of reality at all, being some kind of illusion (but then, illusion to whom?). The second way is to deny that the mental requires a scientific explanation through some new conception of the natural order, because either (c) we can regard it as a mere fluke or accident, an unexplained extra property of certain physical organisms – or else (d) we can believe that it has an explanation, but one that belongs not to science but to theology, in other words that mind has been added to the physical world in the course of evolution by divine intervention.
All four of these positions have their adherents. I believe the wide popularity among philosophers and scientists of (a), the outlook of psychophysical reductionism, is due not only to the great prestige of the physical sciences but to the feeling that this is the best defense against the dreaded (d), the theistic interventionist outlook. But someone who finds (a) and (b) self-evidently false and (c) completely implausible need not accept (d), because a scientific understanding of nature need not be limited to a physical theory of the objective spatio-temporal order. It makes sense to seek an expanded form of understanding that includes the mental but that is still scientific — i.e. still a theory of the immanent order of nature.
That seems to me the most likely solution. Even though the theistic outlook, in some versions, is consistent with the available scientific evidence, I don’t believe it, and am drawn instead to a naturalistic, though non-materialist, alternative. Mind, I suspect, is not an inexplicable accident or a divine and anomalous gift but a basic aspect of nature that we will not understand until we transcend the built-in limits of contemporary scientific orthodoxy. I would add that even some theists might find this acceptable; since they could maintain that God is ultimately responsible for such an expanded natural order, as they believe he is for the laws of physics."
________________________________________
-
On the other hand, you say it's not far fetch to think of a Multiverse or Chance as the answer for the parameters but at same time you readily reject the third option that of design. Because the idea of design or a designer is too far fetch??? So you draw the line on this "too far fetch" idea, that makes your claim of objectively looking at evidence flawed since you've already taken out the other possibility that the universe was designed...Here is the article that lists all the parameters you that say happened by chance.
i did not say that a designer is a far fetched idea. the thing that's far fetched to me is that if there is a designer, i don't think it's the one that they've portrayed in the Bible or whatever "holy" scriptures you subscribe to.
-
Exactly the same as Dawkins... :D
Dawkins interview from the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt) (2008):
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
YouTube: "Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8)
-
love this line doc...... :)
"the probability of life supporting environment to exist is less that 1 chance in 10 282power."
.......Your faith(evolutionist)in chance is much greater than my faith (creationist)in god!! ;D ;D
you might not convince those who have a hard line stance regarding our origin based on inteligent design, but al least you're showing us that your argument has more weight and intellect than their reasonings combined! ;D ;D
-
love this line doc...... :)
"the probability of life supporting environment to exist is less that 1 chance in 10 282power."
.......Your faith(evolutionist)in chance is much greater than my faith (creationist)in god!! ;D ;D
you might not convince those who have a hard line stance regarding our origin based on inteligent design, but al least you're showing us that your argument has more weight and intellect than their reasonings combined! ;D ;D
again, i'm not against the possibility of a designer. what i'm saying is, i don't think that designer is the one described in scriptures. the designer that's pointed out in the data, whose able to set parameters for life to exist, seems like a logical being. the one in the Bible isn't.
-
:)
-
Still the question:
Who made the Creator? Or who is the Creator of our Creator? And who is the Creator of the Creator of the our Creator...nth ;D
THAT IS THE POOOOIIIINNNTTTTT.... >:D
I bet someone would answer... THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL FAITH... ;D
-
Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-388
dependency factors estimate ≈ 10-96
longevity requirements estimate ≈ 1014
Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-304
Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ≈ 1022
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
Imagine tomorrow. Or the next hour or minute. How many possibilities can you think of? Infinite possibilities. Yet, 1 of the infinite possibilities will happen. The probability? 1/infinity. That's approaching 0, or 0, to simplify things.
Wala naman problema sa intelligent design. The problem is that the designer would defy all the laws he created (aka magic) to give way for life. Sayang naman yung design, hindi ba?
-
again, i'm not against the possibility of a designer. what i'm saying is, i don't think that designer is the one described in scriptures. the designer that's pointed out in the data, whose able to set parameters for life to exist, seems like a logical being. the one in the Bible isn't.
This has always been my two-fold stand on this issue. On one side is ID where i assert that there is evidence of design in the universe and that this is a product of a mind. From the POV of ID it does not seek to identify this designer. But it asserts that life has an intelligent cause and this inference is a scientific claim. On the other side is creationism where i assert based on faith it is indeed the God of the Bible that is the cause. I believe that this two-sided approach is the most plausible answer to origin of the universe and life.
I won't insist on my belief in creation because.....that's my belief! But I would say that ID is a much better explanation for the origin of the universe and emergence of life than mere chance...
While on the other hand you stop short by accepting the ID is possible, and that the designer is anything but the God of the bible. Because to you He is not logical compared to the possible designer of our world.
Let's suppose you're correct, what then do you suppose is nature and character of this other designer?
@ sir dodie, thanks :)
-
Let's suppose you're correct, what then do you suppose is nature and character of this other designer?
that is a hard question and one that I'd not dare answer. we are bounded by 3 spatial and 1 time coordinate. Can you imagine a plane of existence higher than that? say 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 spatial coordinates? what more a being that exist in that realm?
-
OK then, say ID it is... how then this INTELLIGENCE sprouted?
POOF! It became KOKO KRUNCH??? ;D
-
The identity of the designer is irrelevant to Intelligent Design Theory.
ID is saying that an intelligent agent exists. But the identification of who that intelligent agent might be is beyond the scope of ID Theory.
-
The identity of the designer is irrelevant to Intelligent Design Theory.
ID is saying that an intelligent agent exists. But the identification of who that intelligent agent might be is beyond the scope of ID Theory.
If that's the case, why question Evolution? Or argue with Evolutionist?
Since you're premise starts at 100 while evolution starts at zero???
-
If that's the case, why question Evolution? Or argue with Evolutionist?
My view is that the theory of evolution is founded on baseless speculation.
Do you believe that evolution is a fact?
-
@ sir dodie, thanks :)
just giving credit to people, i think, has the intelligence to explain things without sarcasm. i just cant explain the thinking of some in trying to question the validity of certain issues on the notion that it will make a case about their own personal standpoint. the burden of proof lies on both the proponents of this issue. it is not a question of, if the other side crumbles and then you win. there is also the burden of proof on you to prove that your claims is not as vague and improbable as the other one.
-
My view is that the theory of evolution is founded on baseless speculation.
Do you believe that evolution is a fact?
Do you believe that the bible is a fact?
-
Do you believe that the bible is a fact?
I believe in the bible only as a matter of faith, not as a matter of scientific fact. The bible cannot be proven as a fact.
Do you believe evolution is a fact?
-
the burden of proof lies on both the proponents of this issue. it is not a question of, if the other side crumbles and then you win. there is also the burden of proof on you to prove that your claims is not as vague and improbable as the other one.
That is only true if both sides claim that their view is a fact.
If one side admits that his view is only a matter of faith, then he has no obligation to prove anything.
But if one side claims that his view is a matter fact, then he has the burden of proving it.
However, even if the evolutionist fails to prove that his view is factual, it does not necessarily mean that the creationist is automatically correct, since it's possible that they are both wrong.
-
Still the question:
Who made the Creator? Or who is the Creator of our Creator? And who is the Creator of the Creator of the our Creator...nth ;D
THAT IS THE POOOOIIIINNNTTTTT.... >:D
I bet someone would answer... THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL FAITH... ;D
first, the question is illogical. the premise or the claim of the theists is that God is eternal, therefore, He was not created.
if you want to make your question valid, you could have asked, "How God came into existence?". with this, maybe we can give you an answer in a philosophical view but in a scientific way, somehow. ;)
-
that is a hard question and one that I'd not dare answer. we are bounded by 3 spatial and 1 time coordinate. Can you imagine a plane of existence higher than that? say 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 spatial coordinates? what more a being that exist in that realm?
the scriptures tell us that God is eternal/everlasting. He created time, heavens, and earth which is a 4-dimension plane of existence, our universe. since He is the one who created it, logically He is not bounded by it (time nor space). therefore, we can say that He is at different plane of existence, maybe much much higher which is already unfathomable to us.
so, does the God of the bible still doesn't meet your criteria?
-
That is only true if both sides claim that their view is a fact.
If one side admits that his view is only a matter of faith, then he has no obligation to prove anything.
But if one side claims that his view is a matter fact, then he has the burden of proving it.
However, even if the evolutionist fails to prove that his view is factual, it does not necessarily mean that the creationist is automatically correct, since it's possible that they are both wrong.
i cuncur, atty! :)
just hope that question asked be not answered by a question also....... ;)
-
In order for us to have an idea of the character of this designer, we must first have to understand his relationship to the universe and us. In other words, we must first know the relationship of the created and the creator. In doing so, we may then also answer that perennial question ”Who created the creator”.
First the relationship between the two, there is a fundamental principle in logic that I think governs this and that is the Principle or Law of Cause and Effect. This law states, that “Everything that has a beginning has a sufficient cause”, which could mean that something has NO beginning does not need a cause. This principle is so fundamental that “if I say that the computer you are using to read my post which was obviously made, simply appeared out of thin air, then you are right to think that I’m losing my mind!”
I think we are all in agreement that our universe had a beginning and that time and space started at this point in the distant past! Unless you believe it’s a hologram or Multiverse which creates a lot more questions than solution to the current mysteries of our observed universe.
Since the universe had a beginning in time, then it must have had a cause. A cause greater than the universe, A cause outside time and space, A cause that is therefore timeless, A cause that has mind to establish the order of things, A Cause already existing “before” time and will exist “after” time.
So, the Creator does not need a cause and therefore has no creator. While a so-called creator that has a creator will be governed by the laws of universe, there won’t be an infinite creator of the creator since they are limited by time and space and is therefore finite….and that is not the definition of GOD.
-
If that's the case, why question Evolution? Or argue with Evolutionist?
Since you're premise starts at 100 while evolution starts at zero???
Because, ID is an inference to the presence of design and therefore directed emergence of life, while evolution is an unproven assumption of an undirected random emergence of life.
-
scientific daw... eh paano naman nila maeexplain scientifically na living things sprout from non-living things :):):)
-
scientific daw... eh paano naman nila maeexplain scientifically na living things sprout from non-living things :):):)
Our bodies are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other elements, right?
-
So, the Creator does not need a cause and therefore has no creator. While a so-called creator that has a creator will be governed by the laws of universe, there won’t be an infinite creator of the creator since they are limited by time and space and is therefore finite….and that is not the definition of GOD.
So is the single point that started the big bang that created this universe.
-
Our bodies are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other elements, right?
any scientific basis/experiments/observation to support that idea? or just a belief?
-
So is the single point that started the big bang that created this universe.
Ok, let's start with this "single point". What is the nature of this point? Was it ready existing before it created the universe or was it just the start? What materials did this point use to create the universe? Lastly if this point had a beginning in time then it follows that it had a cause before the point appeared. What caused the point? Which is which now? A timeless point before time or point that appeared at the beginning of time?
-
Ok, let's start with this "single point". What is the nature of this point? Was it ready existing before it created the universe or was it just the start? What materials did this point use to create the universe? Lastly if this point had a beginning in time then it follows that it had a cause before the point appeared. What caused the point? Which is which now? A timeless point before time or point that appeared at the beginning of time?
It's a very dense point. When the universe was still a point, wala pang time, wala pang space. Noong nag big bang na, nagstart na ang time. Nagkaroon na rin ng space. At dun pa lang nagkaroon ng laws of physics.
-
any scientific basis/experiments/observation to support that idea? or just a belief?
Seriously?
-
yes, seriously... lahat ng nababasa ko is puro hypothesis lang eh... still no life sprout from non living things... sabi sabi lang ba na galing tayo sa non-living things... still no proof still hypothesis... still a faith based argument.
-
It's a very dense point. When the universe was still a point, wala pang time, wala pang space. Noong nag big bang na, nagstart na ang time. Nagkaroon na rin ng space. At dun pa lang nagkaroon ng laws of physics.
Yeah, but the question is, was this point already present outside of time? Because it either the cause or just the start, it could not be both. Precisely since time has yet to begin you say the point is already there, then this point is eternal and outside of time. Thus this point is outside the laws of physics!
Or do you mean to say that the universe itself is eternal? Was the point the cause or part of the universe?
-
It's a very dense point. When the universe was still a point, wala pang time, wala pang space. Noong nag big bang na, nagstart na ang time. Nagkaroon na rin ng space. At dun pa lang nagkaroon ng laws of physics.
definitely by faith...
-
Yeah, but the question is, was this point already present outside of time? Because it either the cause or just the start, it could not be both. Precisely since time has yet to begin you say the point is already there, then this point is eternal and outside of time. Thus this point is outside the laws of physics!
Or do you mean to say that the universe itself is eternal? Was the point the cause or part of the universe?
Yes, before the big bang, there's no time, no space, no matter, no laws of physics.
I don't know if the universe will be eternal. Recent discoveries suggest that dark energy will consume the universe.
-
yes, seriously... lahat ng nababasa ko is puro hypothesis lang eh... still no life sprout from non living things... sabi sabi lang ba na galing tayo sa non-living things... still no proof still hypothesis... still a faith based argument.
Bili kang karne. Weigh mo. Ilagay mo sa microwave. Cook hanggang tumigas or masunog. Weigh mo uli. Difference in weight is the water that's evaporated.
-
Yes, before the big bang, there's no time, no space, no matter, no laws of physics.
I don't know if the universe will be eternal. Recent discoveries suggest that dark energy will consume the universe.
So the point had a beginning and as you say the universe will eventually be consumed, which means that the point and the universe are not eternal and had a beginning and therefore had to have a cause outside it, a cause outside of time and physics!
-
So the point had a beginning and as you say the universe will eventually be consumed, which means that the point and the universe had to have a cause outside it, a cause outside of time and physics!
The theory states that the point IS the beginning. There is nothing before it. If you will argue that God created the point, I won't have problems with that.
-
Bili kang karne. Weigh mo. Ilagay mo sa microwave. Cook hanggang tumigas or masunog. Weigh mo uli. Difference in weight is the water that's evaporated.
ahhh... dahil sa ganyang observation naconclude na natin na nagkaroon ng buhay from non living things... very scientific nga... :)
kala ko naman paglabas sa microwave merong bagong buhay na organism... :( nag evaporate lang pala ang tubig...
-
ahhh... dahil sa ganyang observation naconclude na natin na nagkaroon ng buhay from non living things... very scientific nga... :)
kala ko naman paglabas sa microwave merong bagong buhay na organism... :( nag evaporate lang pala ang tubig...
You asked kung pano ko na-conclude that we're made from elements di ba? E, di ayan.
-
You asked kung pano ko na-conclude that we're made from elements di ba? E, di ayan.
Ganon ba yon? O sige, bigyan kita ng elements, gumawa ka ng tao.
Kahit isang surot hindi ka makakagawa, e ... ;D
-
The theory states that the point IS the beginning. There is nothing before it. If you will argue that God created the point, I won't have problems with that.
Sir, you can't have it both ways, having a beginning at same time no cause...
There could'nt be nothing before the point. Because the point and the universe had a beginning in time and therefore had a cause. So my scientific mind tells that there should be a cause to this finite universe, while my faith tells me that cause is GOD!
-
scientific daw... eh paano naman nila maeexplain scientifically na living things sprout from non-living things :):):)
here you go dpogs:
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-channel/40939-creating-synthetic-life-manmade-dna-video.htm
and if in case you want to know more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O80feu-8yh0
-
Sir, you can't have it both ways, having a beginning at same time no cause...
There could'nt be nothing before the point. Because the point and the universe had a beginning in time and therefore had a cause. So my scientific mind tells that there should be a cause to this finite universe, while my faith tells me that cause is GOD!
Sir, wala pa nga pong time during the point. Parang God, walang beginning, di ba? Difference lang sa Big Bang, yung point yung beginning; sa inyo, God.
-
I believe in the bible only as a matter of faith, not as a matter of scientific fact. The bible cannot be proven as a fact.
Do you believe evolution is a fact?
Your answer to my question is as good as mine to yours. Why? Because nothing has been proven yet. But I'd rather follow something that studies have been going on using logical thinking than the way of faith...
-
Just sharing this article:
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
Francis goes against Benedict XVI’s apparent support for 'intelligent design' - but does hail his predecessor’s 'great contribution to theology'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html)
-
Your answer to my question is as good as mine to yours. Why? Because nothing has been proven yet. But I'd rather follow something that studies have been going on using logical thinking than the way of faith...
OK lang yon sir. As long as you don't say evolutionism is a fact, I have no problem with that.
I believe evolutionism is based on speculation. You believe the logical basis for evolutionism is sound, but not yet fully proven.
Let's leave it at that.
-
OK lang yon sir. As long as you don't say evolutionism is a fact, I have no problem with that.
I believe evolutionism is based on speculation. You believe the logical basis for evolutionism is sound, but not yet fully proven.
Let's leave it at that.
Agreed.
-
For the creationists on this thread: Do you think that creationism should be taught in school?
If yes, do you think it should be taught along the same lines as evolution - as part of the sciences - or as a part of religious studies?
-
scientific daw... eh paano naman nila maeexplain scientifically na living things sprout from non-living things :) :) :)
here you go dpogs:
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-channel/40939-creating-synthetic-life-manmade-dna-video.htm (http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-channel/40939-creating-synthetic-life-manmade-dna-video.htm)
That is not life from non-life, it's just pre-existing life that continued living.
They started with the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides, synthesized its genome in a yeast cell, then transplanted the genome into a Mycoplasma capricolum cell (M. mycoides and M. capriolum are closely related species).
Result: after the modified M. capricolum cell divided, the cells of the bacterial colony that it formed contained only proteins characteristic of M. mycoides.
The new genome is not a great variation from the original genome. It's actually a near-exact replica of the original, with just a few nonessential genes removed and a small number of sequence errors that don't affect the organism's function.
It's a new technique that can give scientists the ability to make more numerous changes to a genome at once. Maybe one day it can be useful for medical applications.
But it is definitely not a demonstration of "living things from non-living things."
-
For the creationists on this thread: Do you think that creationism should be taught in school?
You mean public schools (not private and religious schools), on the ground that it violates the principle of separation of church and state?
For me, no. Creationism should be excluded from public schools because creationism is a religious view, and public funds should not be spent to promote a religious view.
What should be taught in all schools is the fact that evolutionism has many flaws, instead of merely teaching it as unassailable scientific fact.
-
Sir, wala pa nga pong time during the point. Parang God, walang beginning, di ba? Difference lang sa Big Bang, yung point yung beginning; sa inyo, God.
Sorry i am still not so clear about your point(no pun intended) you say that there was no time during the point. Then is this point eternal walang beginning? If thats the case then to you this is the "creator". While in the next sentence you say the point is the beginning of the big bang. These two separate nature of what ascribe to as the "point" and are not the same. However if you mean that the point is your cause then let's leave it at that.
Its indeed difficult to wrap our mind to describe somthing not bounded by time and space, thus we have difficulty grasping the concept of this period much more the concept of a being outside of our realm.
-
Its indeed difficult to wrap our mind to describe somthing not bounded by time and space, thus we have difficulty grasping the concept of this period much more the concept of a being outside of our realm.
this is exactly my point. that's why i'm not into the whole religion thing but i am not particularly into the whole "there is no god" thing because we never really know with the tools and knowledge we have now.
-
so, does the God of the bible still doesn't meet your criteria?
if your premise is the basic principle that he's from a different and higher plane of existence, then yeah. But wholly, the intervening God in the Bible still does not. do i believe that Jesus existed? he might have but i doubt his holiness.
-
That is not life from non-life, it's just pre-existing life that continued living.
They started with the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides, synthesized its genome in a yeast cell, then transplanted the genome into a Mycoplasma capricolum cell (M. mycoides and M. capriolum are closely related species).
Result: after the modified M. capricolum cell divided, the cells of the bacterial colony that it formed contained only proteins characteristic of M. mycoides.
The new genome is not a great variation from the original genome. It's actually a near-exact replica of the original, with just a few nonessential genes removed and a small number of sequence errors that don't affect the organism's function.
It's a new technique that can give scientists the ability to make more numerous changes to a genome at once. Maybe one day it can be useful for medical applications.
But it is definitely not a demonstration of "living things from non-living things."
and beside... assisted process yan (seems a work of an ID)... controlled environment... not natural process as evolutionist claimed...
-
Sorry i am still not so clear about your point(no pun intended) you say that there was no time during the point. Then is this point eternal walang beginning? If thats the case then to you this is the "creator". While in the next sentence you say the point is the beginning of the big bang. These two separate nature of what ascribe to as the "point" and are not the same. However if you mean that the point is your cause then let's leave it at that.
Its indeed difficult to wrap our mind to describe somthing not bounded by time and space, thus we have difficulty grasping the concept of this period much more the concept of a being outside of our realm.
Sir, point lang talaga. Walang time, space, laws of physics (including causality), as in point lang talaga.
-
OT:
"Ang tuldok ay may sanaysay at may kahulugan,
Na dapat malaman at maintindihan,
Na dito sa mundo ikaw ay tuldok lang."
Sir, point lang talaga. Walang time, space, laws of physics (including causality), as in point lang talaga.
hmm... and if someone here says that that 'point' was created by supreme being... will you believe that?
-
OT:
"Ang tuldok ay may sanaysay at may kahulugan,
Na dapat malaman at maintindihan,
Na dito sa mundo ikaw ay tuldok lang."
hmm... and if someone here says that that 'point' was created by supreme being... will you believe that?
No need for someone else to say that. That is what I believe.
-
hmm... believer of guided evolution?
-
hmm... believer of guided evolution?
Let's just say that point that banged contains all the necessary ingredients for life to happen. God didn't have to guide or intervene during different phases.
-
and beside... assisted process yan (seems a work of an ID)... controlled environment... not natural process as evolutionist claimed...
Exactly, this is what is infered by theory of ID although as sir barrister has keenly pointed out with pre-existing material. While on the other hand the universe was created Ex Nihilo by the designer or by the point as mentioned by sir bumblebee.
-
Let's just say that point that banged contains all the necessary ingredients for life to happen. God didn't have to guide or intervene during different phases.
Let me see now if i get right, take the dish Kare-kare for example which i am sure everyone loves to eat.
By your description above, You mean to say that the kare-kare had all the ingriedients already and just cooked itself without the benefit of a cook?
-
Let me see now if i get right, take the dish Kare-kare for example which i am sure everyone loves to eat.
By your description above, You mean to say that the kare-kare had all the ingriedients already and just cooked itself without the benefit of a cook?
Stars formed on their "own", right? What I'm saying is that when the universe came into being, lots of conditions, parameters happened. These conditions helped make the kare-kare.
You argued there wasn't enough time, right? Let's go to the kare-kare example. How long will it take to cook? Say 5 hours to soften the meat. Can it be cooked faster? Yes, by increasing the pressure. This is what we've been saying, that we don't know the environment then, that's why the population genetics numbers don't add up to the evidences.
-
Stars formed on their "own", right? What I'm saying is that when the universe came into being, lots of conditions, parameters happened. These conditions helped make the kare-kare.
You argued there wasn't enough time, right? Let's go to the kare-kare example. How long will it take to cook? Say 5 hours to soften the meat. Can it be cooked faster? Yes, by increasing the pressure. This is what we've been saying, that we don't know the environment then, that's why the population genetics numbers don't add up to the evidences.
How did all the parameters came about for the stars to form? Or for that matter how do you increase the pressure to cook the kare kare faster? In both cases you need something else outside of the star and the kare kare to make things happen. In both cases the enviroment don't just happen.
-
that's why the population genetics numbers don't add up to the evidences.
Population genetics shows that evidence of evolution is the one that does not work.
-
Yes, the specific environment to cook kare-kare is one of infinite possibilities, yet it happened. Just like what will happen tomorrow, one of infinite possibilities, yet, it will happen.
Take the lotto example. Very small chance that you will win. But, your chances of winning is the same as the winning ticket's.
-
Yes, the specific environment to cook kare-kare is one of infinite possibilities, yet it happened. Just like what will happen tomorrow, one of infinite possibilities, yet, it will happen.
Take the lotto example. Very small chance that you will win. But, your chances of winning is the same as the winning ticket's.
You still need a cook to make kare kare, and the more you need a cause to make the infinitely more complex universe!
-
That is if you intend to cook kare kare. For you, we are purposely created. My view is that humanity is just one of infinite possibilities, that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
-
That is if you intend to cook kare kare. For you, we are purposely created. My view is that humanity is just one of infinite possibilities, that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Signifance or insignifance of humanity is irrelevant to our discussion. What we are discussing are prossesses, laws, physics that govern us. We cannot escape the reality of cause an effect as such everything bounded by time and space follows this fundamental principle and so with all the other parameters.
-
@docelmo
It seems to me that you are so sure of everything that you say...
-
@docelmo
It seems to me that you are so sure of everything that you say...
it all comes down to faith with them.
-
It's very relevant. Our perspective differs because of that. I won't ask yours anymore because babalik lang tayo kay God.
-
if your premise is the basic principle that he's from a different and higher plane of existence, then yeah. But wholly, the intervening God in the Bible still does not. do i believe that Jesus existed? he might have but i doubt his holiness.
i see. it seems that you are an agnostic who is inclined to believe in Spinoza God just like a deist or pantheist. well, that's cool :)
i tend to be one few years ago but when i thought of spending some time to read the bible, just a few chapters of Genesis which is the creation account, i was really amazed when i found out that it is scientific. from then on, i reaffirmed my faith in God. a God revealed in the bible, a personal God, our Father, and His son Jesus, our savior.
-
Take the lotto example. Very small chance that you will win. But, your chances of winning is the same as the winning ticket's.
Someone always wins the Lotto. Why? Because the game was designed so that someone will always win.
Why was it designed that way? Because if winnings are too infrequent, customers will decrease. Someone has to win, so that customers will be inspired to bet.
What is the probability for a single 6 - 49 bet? Computed as 49! / [6! × (49 - 6)!], the probability is 13,983,816.
If there are 99,000,000 Filipinos, just 1/4 of that is 25,000,000. That's sufficient to get a winning number including rollovers, and that's before considering that many customers bet several combinations per draw.
If the probability for a single bet is 1.4 x 107, what is the probability that someone will win the Lotto? 100%, because the draw is rolled over until someone wins.
Now, let's compare with abiogenesis.
Compared with the 1 chance in 1.4x107 for Lotto, what is the chance for abiogenesis?
Based on the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance, it's estimated to be 1 in 2.4x10390. Based on the probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional simple cell, it's worse than 1 in 1057800.
To appreciate how large a 10390 and a 1057800 denominator are, compare that with the number of all the atoms in the observable universe, which is 1080.
These numbers are too astounding to comprehend. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, using analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem, said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time --- and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex).
That's hardly comparable to Lotto, which is designed so that someone should always win.
-
@docelmo
It seems to me that you are so sure of everything that you say...
it all comes down to faith with them.
Sir, being a physician we were trained to have a "clinical eye" which means that you have to extract as much information as possible from the patient, the history, physical exam and diagnostics. After that you make the diffential diagnosis from the mostly likely to the least likely diagnosis. That same principle i apply here, i gather as much information as possible and then made my decision based on what i've read regarding ID, evolution etc. Based on my clinical eye the mostly likely diagnosis on the emergence of life is Design rather than chance........so i beg to disagree that my position just "comes down" to faith.
In fact i am a science geek but i also have my faith it's a healthy combo.
-
Someone always wins the Lotto. Why? Because the game was designed so that someone will always win.
Why was it designed that way? Because if winnings are too infrequent, customers will decrease. Someone has to win, so that customers will be inspired to bet.
What is the probability for a single 6 - 49 bet? Computed as 49! / [6! × (49 - 6)!], the probability is 13,983,816.
If there are 99,000,000 Filipinos, just 1/4 of that is 25,000,000. That's sufficient to get a winning number including rollovers, and that's before considering that many customers bet several combinations per draw.
If the probability for a single bet is 1.4 x 107, what is the probability that someone will win the Lotto? 100%, because the draw is rolled over until someone wins.
Now, let's compare with abiogenesis.
Compared with the 1 chance in 1.4x107 for Lotto, what is the chance for abiogenesis?
Based on the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance, it's estimated to be 1 in 2.4x10390. Based on the probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional simple cell, it's worse than 1 in 1057800.
To appreciate how large a 10390 and a 1057800 denominator are, compare that with the number of all the atoms in the observable universe, which is 1080.
These numbers are too astounding to comprehend. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, using analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem, said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time --- and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex).
That's hardly comparable to Lotto, which is designed so that someone should always win.
+ 1057800
-
and to believe in something that is mathematically impossible requires tremendous faith... a +1057800 more faith... ;D
and it all boils down to - just add another billion of years and it will be possible... ;D
-
i see. it seems that you are an agnostic who is inclined to believe in Spinoza God just like a deist or pantheist. well, that's cool :)
i tend to be one a few years ago but when i thought of spending some time to read the bible, just a few chapters of Genesis which is the creation account, i was really amazed when i found out that it is scientific. from then on, i reaffirmed my faith in God. a God revealed in the bible, a personal God, our Father, and His son Jesus, our savior.
i'm not really sure who or what a Spinoza God is. It's not really my belief but more of a view of what a possible higher being is. I don't really subscribe to any theist/atheist/agnostic literature as i'm just basing my view my on reading and watching things about Quantum Theory, String Theory, Physics Journals, etc.
what part exactly of Genesis do you say is scientific?
-
and to believe in something that is mathematically impossible requires tremendous faith... a +1057800 more faith... ;D
and it all boils down to - just add another billion of years and it will be possible... ;D
That is because you're looking at the probability of something specific happening. You're mixing probabilities with actual occurrences. Hindi mo matanggap kasi maliit probability.
-
That is because you're looking at the probability of something specific happening. You're mixing probabilities with actual occurrences. Hindi mo matanggap kasi maliit probability.
we're talking about series of events ... not just the forming of melocules necessary to create life... others parameters external weather... etc... also the perfect position of each stars, planets, moons, comets, etc ...
these were series of all mathematical impossiblities happened at the same time... isn't it logical to think that someone placed them there perfectly and meticolously... rather than leaving it to chance that it will happen eventually taking into consideration billion of years..
as a student of numbers/probabilities... i am not convinced that it actually happened by mere chance... because of these events huge improbabilities i am more convinced that someone rigged them to happen at perfect time and place... :)
even we add eons of time... there is no chance that life will sprout from non-life... not even great evolutionist can show proof that life came out from non-life unassisted...
-
^Yun nga, series of events di ba? So tanggalin mo na sa equations mo yung mga nangyari na. Nangyari na e. It's no use saying zero probability kasi nga nangyari na.
For example, what is the probability of your parents having grandchildren from a son born on your birthdate and joined a forum named PinoyDVD using the name dpogs before they met? Zero di ba? Ask the same question now, lumaki probability di ba?
-
^Yun nga, series of events di ba? So tanggalin mo na sa equations mo yung mga nangyari na. Nangyari na e. It's no use saying zero probability kasi nga nangyari na.
For example, what is the probability of your parents having grandchildren from a son born on your birthdate and joined a forum named PinoyDVD using the name dpogs before they met? Zero di ba? Ask the same question now, lumaki probability di ba?
hmm... magkaiba talaga tayo ng pananaw tungkol sa probabilities... :)
tinitingnan ko ang isang bagay na mathematically impossible pero nangyari as a work of someone much powerful to alter the outcome...
so ang complete piyesa ng kotse kapag iniwan natin sa space ... given enough time... will assemble themselves para maging kotse...
to answer your question...probabilities of an outcome from known population never change... probability is kung tama computation ko = 1/3.629+20
-
hmm... magkaiba talaga tayo ng pananaw tungkol sa probabilities... :)
tinitingnan ko ang isang bagay na mathematically impossible pero nangyari as a work of someone much powerful to alter the outcome...
so ang complete piyesa ng kotse kapag iniwan natin sa space ... given enough time... will assemble themselves para maging kotse...
E, hindi naman nagrereproduce piyesa ng kotse e. You really can't use that argument.
to answer your question...probabilities of an outcome from known population never change... probability is kung tama computation ko = 1/3.629+20
It does change. If it doesn't, hindi ako maniniwalang apo ng magulang mo ang anak mo kasi zero probability e, using your reasoning.
-
That is because you're looking at the probability of something specific happening. You're mixing probabilities with actual occurrences. Hindi mo matanggap kasi maliit probability.
You actually have to test the probability with the actual occurrence, because there is an assertion that life occurred by chance this is the one being tested...
Thus there are 3 things we know....
-Theory of evolution which says that life occurred by random chance
-Result of the calculations of the probability of life occurring by chance which gave us a mind-blowing number!
-Last is that LIFE is here! In so "short" a time!
What should be examined objectively and be put in doubt is the legitimacy of "random chance" producing life....which runs counter to the probability result and the presence of life!
The other option that bests fit this is that Life was designed.
-
what part exactly of Genesis do you say is scientific?
The Bible is NOT a science book, but it doesn't mean that things mentioned there are unscientific.
i suggest leaving our "religious biases" out of the door so to speak and just examine and understand text as it is...
Up until the time of hubble and einstein sceintist taught that the universe static, unchanging, eternal. But when hubble saw that that the universe was expanding and was later on confirmed by einstein himself, this lead to the new understanding that the universe was not static and in fact had a beginning in time.
Genesis 1: Say In the beginning God created the heavens and earth...which to me simply means that Time, Space and the Universe had a beginning in the distant past.....removing the reference to God, does this statement have no basis in science?
And I believe The Reproductive system was mentioned repeatedly in the creation account when the Bible mentioned the phrase "according to their kind".
These two are not in genesis but in another chapter but are now part of medical protocol in Infection Control:
The "washing using running water" and the isolation of someone during the duration of a sick person....both of which were mentioned in the bible but were not practiced until the discovery of microorganism.
-
Sir, being a physician we were trained to have a "clinical eye" which means that you have to extract as much information as possible from the patient, the history, physical exam and diagnostics. After that you make the diffential diagnosis from the mostly likely to the least likely diagnosis. That same principle i apply here, i gather as much information as possible and then made my decision based on what i've read regarding ID, evolution etc. Based on my clinical eye the mostly likely diagnosis on the emergence of life is Design rather than chance........so i beg to disagree that my position just "comes down" to faith.
In fact i am a science geek but i also have my faith it's a healthy combo.
So these made you SO SURE about everything you say???
-
The Bible is NOT a science book, but it doesn't mean that things mentioned there are unscientific.
i suggest leaving our "religious biases" out of the door so to speak and just examine and understand text as it is...
Up until the time of hubble and einstein sceintist taught that the universe static, unchanging, eternal. But when hubble saw that that the universe was expanding and was later on confirmed by einstein himself, this lead to the new understanding that the universe was not static and in fact had a beginning in time.
Genesis 1: Say In the beginning God created the heavens and earth...which to me simply means that Time, Space and the Universe had a beginning in the distant past.....removing the reference to God, does this statement have no basis in science?
yes, when you said "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". that alone is unscientific because earth was not created until about 4.5 billion years ago. the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. when the solar system, and in effect the earth, was created it was not exactly "in the beginning". actually far from it. you just interpreted it to fit the Bible creation.
And I believe The Reproductive system was mentioned repeatedly in the creation account when the Bible mentioned the phrase "according to their kind".
but of course they did. men and women have their own specific body parts and so they have to address it to have their own explanation. doesn't mean it's scientific.
These two are not in genesis but in another chapter but are now part of medical protocol in Infection Control:
The "washing using running water" and the isolation of someone during the duration of a sick person....both of which were mentioned in the bible but were not practiced until the discovery of microorganism.
oh please. so they mentioned it. what they did was based on assumption and is a matter of simple common sense. someone gets sick, people stay away from the person. did they give an explanation as to why? no need. they're just afraid. it's instinct to stay away from someone or something that could harm you. did they mentioned microorganisms or at least a hint in the scriptures? i doubt it. is that what you call scientific?
-
yes, when you said "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". that alone is unscientific because earth was not created until about 4.5 billion years ago. the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. when the solar system, and in effect the earth, was created it was not exactly "in the beginning". actually far from it. you just interpreted it to fit the Bible creation.
but of course they did. men and women have their own specific body parts and so they have to address it to have their own explanation. doesn't mean it's scientific.
oh please. so they mentioned it. what they did was based on assumption and is a matter of simple common sense. someone gets sick, people stay away from the person. did they give an explanation as to why? no need. they're just afraid. it's instinct to stay away from someone or something that could harm you. did they mentioned microorganisms or at least a hint in the scriptures? i doubt it. is that what you call scientific?
Oh, I guess you need some more explaining....."Heaven and Earth" simply means the cosmos or universe! of course the earth was NOT made in the first day.Is that how you understand that passage? If you bother to read genesis further the passage then says "the earth was without form" what do you understand by this? does this to you na gawa na kagad yung earth in the beginning? Earth was mentioned because the bible was written for people on earth. Kung nasa mars tayo ang naka lagay dyan "Heaven and Mars". Earth was WITHOUT FORM, does this mean to you na gawa na earth? without form nga eh...paki basa nalang yung Genesis ulit....the creation was a process and was not instaneous! The only thing instantaneous was I think the "light" on day one. He said let there light, and there was....like turning a switch.....just like the "point" of light-energy.
The point there was the universe had a beginning.....is the bible wrong in its claim of a beginning to the universe?
Next point: Huh? This is what i was referring to, that from the the grass to man...they reproduce AFTER HIS KIND:
Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
Bible is saying plants and animals reproduce among thier kind, while you believe that bacteria became fish then became mammal, then ampbibians, then reptiles of wait some mammal became fully aquatic mammals, then man...
We have yet to see these in action, but what do we actually see now. we see frog giving birth to frogs, horse giving birth to what else...horse. bacteria reproducing more bacteria, whales giving birth to whales....etc etc etc.
Common sense seriously? If these instructions were a product of "common sense" as you claim then there would have far fewer incidence of plagues. yeah, they were scared of the sick sure. but the washing using running waterr or isolation has been recognized in the medical field fairly recently. Why the need to mention microorganism? would the people in ancient time understand it, I don't think so.
Did I say the bible is scientific? I said things mentioned in the bible could verified by science since not only does it talk about the spiritual but also talk about the physical world.
-
So these made you SO SURE about everything you say???
As far as the sum of the information and knowledge i've gathered and to the best of my ability i am sure...of course i could wrong. After all Nobody's perfect.
-
Oh, I guess you need some more explaining....."Heaven and Earth" simply means the cosmos or universe! of course the earth was NOT made in the first day.Is that how you understand that passage? If you bother to read genesis further the passage then says "the earth was without form" what do you understand by this? does this to you na gawa na kagad yung earth in the beginning? Earth was mentioned because the bible was written for people on earth. Kung nasa mars tayo ang naka lagay dyan "Heaven and Mars". Earth was WITHOUT FORM, does this mean to you na gawa na earth? without form nga eh...paki basa nalang yung Genesis ulit....the creation was a process and was not instaneous! The only thing instantaneous was I think the "light" on day one. He said let there light, and there was....like turning a switch.....just like the "point" of light-energy.
see? another interpretation of the Bible.
Next point: Huh? This is what i was referring to, that from the the grass to man...they reproduce AFTER HIS KIND:
Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
Bible is saying plants and animals reproduce among thier kind, while you believe that bacteria became fish then became mammal, then ampbibians, then reptiles of wait some mammal became fully aquatic mammals, then man...
We have yet to see these in action, but what do we actually see now. we see frog giving birth to frogs, horse giving birth to what else...horse. bacteria reproducing more bacteria, whales giving birth to whales....etc etc etc.
you said and i quote, "And I believe The Reproductive system was mentioned repeatedly in the creation account when the Bible mentioned the phrase "according to their kind". What else would i think it is?
I actually do not understand what your real belief is. you say you believe in ID but you defend like a Creationist using terms like "kind".
Common sense seriously? If these instructions were a product of "common sense" as you claim then there would have far fewer incidence of plagues. yeah, they were scared of the sick sure. but the washing using running waterr or isolation has been recognized in the medical field fairly recently. Why the need to mention microorganism? would the people in ancient time understand it, I don't think so.
for someone who keeps on insisting that the Bible is not scientific, you sure love connecting the passages with science and now i don't get the point of your argument.
Did I say the bible is scientific? I said things mentioned in the bible could verified by science since not only does it talk about the spiritual but also talk about the physical world.
I was replying to majoe with this when he said that the Bible is scientific:
i'm not really sure who or what a Spinoza God is. It's not really my belief but more of a view of what a possible higher being is. I don't really subscribe to any theist/atheist/agnostic literature as i'm just basing my view my on reading and watching things about Quantum Theory, String Theory, Physics Journals, etc.
what part exactly of Genesis do you say is scientific?
maybe you shouldn't have directed your reply to me and instead to majoe since he's the one who says the bible is scientific.
so what is it that are you actually trying to say? because you keep on insisting that the bible isn't scientific yet you keep connecting it with science. ???
-
As far as the sum of the information and knowledge i've gathered and to the best of my ability i am sure...of course i could wrong. After all Nobody's perfect.
so you exactly know how the entire Universe works to conclude that there is a God? why insist on this truth of yours when you're actually saying that you could be wrong?
-
see? another interpretation of the Bible.
you said and i quote, "And I believe The Reproductive system was mentioned repeatedly in the creation account when the Bible mentioned the phrase "according to their kind". What else would i think it is?
I actually do not understand what your real belief is. you say you believe in ID but you defend like a Creationist using terms like "kind".
for someone who keeps on insisting that the Bible is not scientific, you sure love connecting the passages with science and now i don't get the point of your argument.
I was replying to majoe with this when he said that the Bible is scientific:
maybe you shouldn't have directed your reply to me and instead to majoe since he's the one who says the bible is scientific.
so what is it that are you actually trying to say? because you keep on insisting that the bible isn't scientific yet you keep connecting it with science. ???
Huh? How else will you interpret or understand the meaning of the passage; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void;"
Except that the universe had a beginning in time, and the earth was not yet formed at the beginning, its formation described as it gradually formed much later....this to me seems consistent with w/ regards to the differences in the calculated ages of the universe and earth..
It is not just the mention of the reproductive system but the Passage means or connotes that the reproductive system for each specie is stable and integral. no cross specie reproduction. A horse will give birth to a horse, a frog to a frog, a whale to a whale....
I am an ID/Creationist if want to label me. mentioning terms like "kind" doesn't make the point less valid...
My point was rather clear the bible is not a book on science, but since it describes the physical world as well, then these claims can be either verified, confirmed or refuted by science....
-
so you exactly know how the entire Universe works to conclude that there is a God? why insist on this truth of yours when you're actually saying that you could be wrong?
Where did i say i exactly know how the entire universe works? My conclusion is based on the findings that the universe was finely tuned that the probability of that occuring by chance is smaller than infinitesimal,also had beginning therefore an outside cause, this cause is outside time and space( i know this difficult to accept). I insist on this truth in the same manner you insist chance or evolution is fact. I admit i could be wrong, Could you admit you could be wrong as well?
-
Where did i say i exactly know how the entire universe works? My conclusion is based on the findings that the universe was finely tuned that the probability of that occuring by chance is smaller than infinitesimal,also had beginning therefore an outside cause, this cause is outside time and space( i know this difficult to accept). I insist on this truth in the same manner you insist chance or evolution is fact. I admit i could be wrong, Could you admit you could be wrong as well?
so where is your evidence that a designer finely tuned the universe to meet these "parameters"? there is none. so how could you conclude that there is a designer? because you interpret numbers as a set of parameters? there isn't even any scientific principle behind ID. there isn't even a scientific hypothesis to support ID. and what do you mean when you say "I insist on this truth in the same manner you insist chance or evolution is fact"? isn't that what you call "faith"? so as I've said earlier, it comes down to faith because it is the backbone of your belief.
Now let me ask you this, how do you suppose different species came about? did they just pop out of existence made possible by this designer? did lions, bears, turtles, monkeys, fish, frogs just pop out of thin air?
-
I was replying to majoe with this when he said that the Bible is scientific:
......
maybe you shouldn't have directed your reply to me and instead to majoe since he's the one who says the bible is scientific.
...
sorry for the misunderstanding but i didn't exactly say that the bible is scientific. if you read again my post, i was merely pointing out that the the creation account in the book of Genesis is scientific i.e the 6 days of creation.
-
E, hindi naman nagrereproduce piyesa ng kotse e. You really can't use that argument.
It does change. If it doesn't, hindi ako maniniwalang apo ng magulang mo ang anak mo kasi zero probability e, using your reasoning.
the earth formed without reproducing... based on your reasoning... as long as there is a chance it will happen... well there is a chance that car parts when jumbled will turn to a fully functional car... the position of every planet in solar system perfectly place ... they're not reproducing... they were there by chance if we follow your thinking...
ang proetien molecules ba sa "bowl of soup" nagrereproduce?
ngayon ko lang nlalaman na dapat nagrereproduce ang protein to produce life out from non-life (essentially the same thing as saying - to produce life out from nothing :) )...
-
so where is your evidence that a designer finely tuned the universe to meet these "parameters"? there is none. so how could you conclude that there is a designer? because you interpret numbers as a set of parameters? there isn't even any scientific principle behind ID. there isn't even a scientific hypothesis to support ID. and what do you mean when you say "I insist on this truth in the same manner you insist chance or evolution is fact"? isn't that what you call "faith"? so as I've said earlier, it comes down to faith because it is the backbone of your belief.
Now let me ask you this, how do you suppose different species came about? did they just pop out of existence made possible by this designer? did lions, bears, turtles, monkeys, fish, frogs just pop out of thin air?
consider theory of creation is false...
is theory of evolution true? or just speculatioin... or just hypothesis backed by another hypothesis...
you demand a proof of our believe... then shows us how life came from non-living matter... show us scientifically? can member of science (daw )repeat the process of life sprouting from 'bowl of soup'?
-
consider theory of creation is false...
is theory of evolution true? or just speculatioin... or just hypothesis backed by another hypothesis...
you demand a proof of our believe... then shows us how life came from non-living matter... show us scientifically? can member of science (daw )repeat the process of life sprouting from 'bowl of soup'?
I demanded first for docelmo's evidence. Don't redirect my question back to me. I am asking of course for the evidence for Intellectual Design from docelmo since I believe you have a different belief system from him. You are strictly for creationism. His is for ID with basis from the Bible. As sir barrister have said, your basis is strictly from the Bible and based on faith alone so if I ask you it would go nowhere. I won't engage on a discussion with you for yours is a matter of faith but since sir docelmo's claim for his conclusion is scientific I'll ask him.
-
I demanded first for docelmo's evidence. Don't redirect my question back to me. I am asking of course for the evidence for Intellectual Design from docelmo since I believe you have a different belief system from him. You are strictly for creationism. His is for ID with basis from the Bible. As sir barrister have said, your basis is strictly from the Bible and based on faith alone so if I ask you it would go nowhere. I won't engage on a discussion with you for yours is a matter of faith but since sir docelmo's claim for his conclusion is scientific I'll ask him.
both ID and creationism ... they can't prove it... we can't prove it... (as well as you cant prove that there is really a point in the beginning) both are by faith... the idea of ID is not scientific... but its more logical than thinking that all these happened by chance...
now you are saying that evolution is a fact... prove that life exist from non-living matter... prove that it is not merely an hypothesis but a law... today age of technology... na kung saan alam na natin ang mga elements necessary to create life... why we can't duplicate the process of life sprout from non-living matter?
you're claiming that evolution is not by faith... prove that it is not by faith... if we use scientific method on finding/research that there is GOd... can we call it scientific?
-
I'd rather wait for sir docelmo's answer to my question.
-
while waiting you can show me the proof/articles/experiements on life sprouting from non-living things...
-
Nope. :D
-
the earth formed without reproducing... based on your reasoning... as long as there is a chance it will happen... well there is a chance that car parts when jumbled will turn to a fully functional car... the position of every planet in solar system perfectly place ... they're not reproducing... they were there by chance if we follow your thinking...
ang proetien molecules ba sa "bowl of soup" nagrereproduce?
ngayon ko lang nlalaman na dapat nagrereproduce ang protein to produce life out from non-life (essentially the same thing as saying - to produce life out from nothing :) )...
Hindi ko na maintindihan kung saan mo nakukuha conclusions mo :) And don't compare car parts to stars and planets. I won't explain anymore why, baka kung anu-ano na naman ma-conclude mo.
-
init ng discussion.
juice and sounds muna. ;)
-
I'd rather wait for sir docelmo's answer to my question.
Hahaha. took me awhile(tinulugan ko muna) to digest and form my reply to your challenging questions
Let’s talk of evidence of design first on a smaller readily understandable context before going to the question of “evidence of design in the universe”.
There is in fact evidence of design…Let me cite some examples, when we see mathematical equations written on a blackboard, when a see a Ferrari 459, when see an Iphone6, when you dissect a frog, shark, cat and man….
The first 3 examples are types of man-made designs. The equations written in the board automatically is attributed to its author unless you believe that equations wrote themselves or they happen by chance. When It comes to the Ferrari and Iphone6 we immediately appreciate the design, function and aesthetic qualities of these two. All those things, contain information, order, precision….these qualities necessitates the presence of intelligence. They are self-evident and please don’t say that I cannot use this to illustrate my point.
Now the last four examples; Btw I have dissected all of those….all these showed organization and order in their body parts. We see the systems; respiratory, circulatory, musculo-skeletal……these systems all working together to make the animal alive and kicking(well not anymore). If natural selection and random chance are the “only” processes that will govern the development of these systems….then these animals would not even exist! If you don’t have the lungs and heart and arteries and veins to carry blood(just two systems) working in synch you will not have oxygen and in 4 minutes you die! How long do you think mammals evolved from fish? If you believe this event happen by random chance, then How long will the Gills (which gets the dissolved oxygen from water) have to evolve to the lungs which gets oxygen from air? Imagine a transitional animal w/ neither of these two parts…will this animal survive?
If the frog needed to evolve millions of years its reproductive system to suit its environment there would be no frog. If the shark needed to evolve…oh wait sharks hardly “evolve” for 450 million years…
Let’s go to the big picture….just like the writing on the school blackboard…..the numbers themselves is the “writing” on the universal blackboard!
The quantities and constants were “discovered” by scientists studying astronomy and other associated disciplines they are real and not a product of some wild imagination by some ID/creationist to “fit” his belief. The fact these numbers and degree of precision even exist is a strong indication of design rather than chance. So the “evidence” is the presence of these numbers themselves that these couldn’t have come by chance.
When man launches rockets, satellites to rendezvous w/ the moon, comets….this requires thousands of hours of mathematical calculations to design and build the satellite and have it land on the moon or comet! The calculations are based on the calculated movement of the moon and comets! And you want us to believe a satellite definitely requires precise numbers, while the universe happens to have these numbers by chance…….in both cases the best explanation is design….and design needs a designer!
I am not arguing here based on faith (presence of God) because we have no observable tools for that, what I am invoking is the presence of Intelligence. Precision and order are products of a mind/intelligence….not some random chance. Unless you believe otherwise
ID is essentially a theory of design detection and propose that Intelligence as a mechanism causing biological change. The theory of intelligent design holds 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.
From Steve Renner: ID is based upon the Scientific Method and not blind faith
The four-step approach to the scientific method can be applied to ID
Observation: Intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
Hypothesis: If a natural object is designed, then it will contain high levels of CSI
Experiments: Testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity by reverse engineering structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all their parts to function,
Conclusion: if CSI is found then it’s designed.
In a broadest sense ID is the science of Design Detection.
Next point…
The emergence of life by Darwinian process of naturalistic chemical or biological evolution fails to adequately explain the origin of genetic information found in the DNA necessary to build living cell and animal plans. ID in my opinion best explains the presence of information encoded in the DNA, evolution simply cannot account for the presence of this information.
The Cambrian explosion where many of the animal phyla emerged like “blink of an eye” in geological time is also explosion of new information. This time period on earth’s history runs counter the “gradual slight modifications of animals” predicted by the Darwinian processes of random chance and natural selection producing millions upon millions of transitional animals in between the well-established animal phyla.
ID does not dispute for lack of a better word “evolution” defined as “change through time” or even common ancestry what is disputed is the Darwinian naturalistic, undirected random chance to produce all the complexities of life.
Therefore no animal will pop out thin as you so keenly observed…..no transitional animals(as seen in fossils), animals comes out fully-formed(as seen in fossils again), only the infusion of enormous amount of information in the DNA can account for this and is most plausible explanation of emergence of new body plans!
-
that is very insightful and indeed a very long explanation doc hehe. i see now where you're coming from, unfortunately, those are not evidence of an intelligent designer. you're basically assuming that someone put the parameters there. where is the actual evidence to conclude that those numbers and data came from a designer? but most importantly, do you consider it as a Scientific Theory?
-
evolution is easy to document.....
but creation? how can you comment on something
that was supposed to have happened when you were
not even there when it did if at all.....?
but the human mind is so creative, that we are able to create a lot of things...
-
that is very insightful and indeed a very long explanation doc hehe. i see now where you're coming from, unfortunately, those are not evidence of an intelligent designer. you're basically assuming that someone put the parameters there. where is the actual evidence to conclude that those numbers and data came from a designer? but most importantly, do you consider it as a Scientific Theory?
So, what to you constitute evidence of intelligent design or designer? And Just because to you there is no evidence of designer are we then to conclude the designer does not exist? First of all do you agree that these numbers exist? How do you then account for the presence of these contants?
Lets apply the scientific method
Observation: the contants and quantities exist in the universe
Hypothesis: the numbers are finely tuned for life
Experiments: using a model make changes to these contants and simulate
Conclusion: if changing the numbers does not produce life then the universe is finely tuned!
-
you could be right with that but since your premise is that those number exist because of a designer, your scientific method should be:
Observation: the constants and quantities exist in the universe
Hypothesis: these numbers and data exist because of a designer
Experiments: none
Conclusion: cannot conclude because no experiments can be done
now how do you conduct an experiment with that? and in turn, how do you make a conclusion that there is a designer?
as long as there are no evidences to support your claim that the numbers equate to a designer you cannot conclude that they are caused by a designer.
Criteria for a Scientific Theory from wikipedia:
Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.
A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:
- It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
- It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
- It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
- It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
- It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc.
now take note of the last paragraph. ID cannot meet most, if not all, of the criteria for a Scientific Theory, therefore ID is just an assumption.
For now I'm not inclined to say that there is a higher being that designed the Universe but as long as there is no proper evidence for it, there is none. My view can be changed though if there ever comes a time that there is proof and a proper Theory behind ID.
-
evolution is easy to document.....
but creation? how can you comment on something
that was supposed to have happened when you were
not even there when it did if at all.....?
but the human mind is so creative, that we are able to create a lot of things...
Both ID and evolution are describing an event in the distant past and therefore not observable. But everybody is commenting about it. We do this all the time talk of things in past and i don't any reason why we can't....
If evolution is easy to document kindly share just one well document evidence for evolution.
Can man's creativity create something as grand as the earth, universe? Man's greatest creation pale in comparison to the world we living in and immensity of the universe. Where do you suppose man's creative power came from.....ever heard of this "Lets make man into our own image and likeness".....that's where!
-
living matter sprouts from non-living matter... its magic time... :):):)
-
If evolution is true, my 1 question is san galing ang tao? If so your answer...dapat wala ng ganun species ngayon dahil nag evolve ng lahat...
-
ni hindi na nga makita ang fossils... :)
-
Both ID and evolution are describing an event in the distant past and therefore not observable. But everybody is commenting about it. We do this all the time talk of things in past and i don't any reason why we can't....
If evolution is easy to document kindly share just one well document evidence for evolution.
Can man's creativity create something as grand as the earth, universe? Man's greatest creation pale in comparison to the world we living in and immensity of the universe. Where do you suppose man's creative power came from.....ever heard of this "Lets make man into our own image and likeness".....that's where!
what i meant by man's creativity is that we "create stories" about a lot of things.....
-
So, what to you constitute evidence of intelligent design or designer? And Just because to you there is no evidence of designer are we then to conclude the designer does not exist? First of all do you agree that these numbers exist? How do you then account for the presence of these contants?
Here's my problem with using highly improbably events as proof. Highly improbable events happen all the time.
What are the odds 50 years ago that you would have come into existence? How many chance decisions by your parents needed to have happened for them to meet? If they met in school, who chose that school? Who chose their sections? Were there other possible suitors? Was there an event that made them fall in love? Perhaps a dance or a concert? What if the organizer decided not to push through with the event? What if a sudden accident on the road prevented them from making it? And on and on. Highly improbable right? Now extend that to 2 more pairs of couples--your grand parents. How improbable would your existence have been 80 years ago? How about 10 generations back? How about 100? How about 1000 generations ago? All those ancestors who by some quirk of chance would just as easily not have existed and therefore you wouldn't either. We would be approaching astronomically improbable numbers already, I would think.
Now are we to surmise that the very fact of your existence proves that someone guided all those people so that eventually, after 30,000 years you would come to exist? Or do you exist purely by chance?
-
you could be right with that but since your premise is that those number exist because of a designer, your scientific method should be:
Observation: the constants and quantities exist in the universe
Hypothesis: these numbers and data exist because of a designer
Experiments: none
Conclusion: cannot conclude because no experiments can be done
now how do you conduct an experiment with that? and in turn, how do you make a conclusion that there is a designer?
as long as there are no evidences to support your claim that the numbers equate to a designer you cannot conclude that they are caused by a designer.
Criteria for a Scientific Theory from wikipedia:
now take note of the last paragraph. ID cannot meet most, if not all, of the criteria for a Scientific Theory, therefore ID is just an assumption.
For now I'm not inclined to say that there is a higher being that designed the Universe but as long as there is no proper evidence for it, there is none. My view can be changed though if there ever comes a time that there is proof and a proper Theory behind ID.
Since the Designer or God as we have been describing is outside time and space, spiritual and eternal, then no scientific tool is adequate to detect His presence....you need something more. something beyond the confines of the material world. We can only infer that the physical world is governed by something beyond it.
Based on our common experience of man-made works, we see and discern that our "creations" are based on our intelligence or mind and those creations couldn't just happen, in the same manner we have discovered DNA which information or code to make Life, and the universe contain constants and quantities so precise that it defies imagination. Then the only conclusion we make is that Life and the Universe has a Cause outside and beyond the confines of the physical world.
Thus it is Fine-Tuning that we could test using the scientific method.
Since you've mentioned criteria for scientific theory, let apply this to evolution
-What falsifiable predictions has evolution made?
- What well-supported independent strands of evidence has evolution produce?
- Name one that evolution has that is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
- Name some of these "minor adaptations" to account for new data.
While at it, kindly reply to my question on how you can account for the gradual chances of body plans from say Gills to Lungs for an animal to survive in the Darwinian model of gradual, undirected random change...
-
what i meant by man's creativity is that we "create stories" about a lot of things.....
Sir, you said "create a lot of things" which means physical material creation...well ok if "stories" is what you really meant.
What I am waiting for though is your well-documented evidence of evolution....or is this another product of man's ability to "create stories"?
-
oh yes, men create stories....that is why "Faith" is created, so that one can just believe and not need to understand, just believe...
and i never mentioned anything about "evidence of evolution" i said that it can be documented as far as man witnessed it and from other scientific findings, i am not making claims about evolution, i merely stated it is possible to document it, and that is my belief...
-
oh yes, men create stories....that is why "Faith" is created, so that one can just believe and not need to understand, just believe...
and i never mentioned anything about "evidence of evolution" i said that it can be documented as far as man witnessed it and from other scientific findings, i am not making claims about evolution, i merely stated it is possible to document it, and that is my belief...
Yes! Much the same way when Darwin created the story of evolution on galapagos!
Why do i get the sense that your answer keeps evolving....you said "evolution is easy to document" then by all means document it and share it with us, maybe you have something new that will make the case for evolution. Is there proof that man has witness evolution and what are these scientific findings?
Then you ended with "belief" so i believe you just admitted that your adherance to evolution is also by FAITH.
-
yes, for lack of better things to do, man's fertile imagination is the breeding ground of all sorts of ideas...
-
So, what to you constitute evidence of intelligent design or designer? And Just because to you there is no evidence of designer are we then to conclude the designer does not exist?
Same with the "missing link" right? Just because no evidences are found doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
First of all do you agree that these numbers exist? How do you then account for the presence of these contants?
My understanding is that those constants apply only where there is gravity. How about the farthest reaches of the universe where there's no gravity? Kaya nga the discovery of dark energy rattled the scientific community.
Also, based on your explanation, everything is purposely created, for a reason. This was the difference in perspective I was talking about. For you, everything is as was planned or designed. For me, everything is one of infinite possibilities.
-
threads like these are not to be taken seriously, these are after all for the entertainment of members as i see it...
isn't PDVD great?, for allowing religion, politics, and artista chismis to be discussed here....
-
Here's my problem with using highly improbably events as proof. Highly improbable events happen all the time.
What are the odds 50 years ago that you would have come into existence? How many chance decisions by your parents needed to have happened for them to meet? If they met in school, who chose that school? Who chose their sections? Were there other possible suitors? Was there an event that made them fall in love? Perhaps a dance or a concert? What if the organizer decided not to push through with the event? What if a sudden accident on the road prevented them from making it? And on and on. Highly improbable right? Now extend that to 2 more pairs of couples--your grand parents. How improbable would your existence have been 80 years ago? How about 10 generations back? How about 100? How about 1000 generations ago? All those ancestors who by some quirk of chance would just as easily not have existed and therefore you wouldn't either. We would be approaching astronomically improbable numbers already, I would think.
Now are we to surmise that the very fact of your existence proves that someone guided all those people so that eventually, after 30,000 years you would come to exist? Or do you exist purely by chance?
Short answer....yes sure my being born and named elmo could be by chance! But, there's a but. Consider first how a baby is conceived. When millions of sperms meet just one egg and only one sperm will "win the lotto"! There's definitely an infinite possibility of combination, but once fertilization occurs only one will be born. There's is a big difference between giving birth to man with the birth of the universe.However in both cases it follows the principle of cause and effect.
In humans there is already pre-existing materials and the reproduction is sexual. While the universe had no pre-existing material and its "reproduction" is (well I actually don't know what to call it), suffice it to say that it is governed by precise constants and quantities for the universe to exist as we see it!
If this is your notion that the birth of the universe is similar to a baby w/ infinitely possibilities, then you have now the problem of the "parents" of universe or a so-called universe maker. How did that came about? And isn't there a need to set parameters to the universe to be born? And once the "right" universe is born like ours, will the others exist as well or wont exist at all, much like when I born all other combinations could no longer exist!
-
Same with the "missing link" right? Just because no evidences are found doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
My understanding is that those constants apply only where there is gravity. How about the farthest reaches of the universe where there's no gravity? Kaya nga the discovery of dark energy rattled the scientific community.
Also, based on your explanation, everything is purposely created, for a reason. This was the difference in perspective I was talking about. For you, everything is as was planned or designed. For me, everything is one of infinite possibilities.
So, my notion of a Designer and your Evolution is in the same boat.....No Evidence!
NASA's cosmic journeys is actually studying the limits of gravity. We know what gravity does, but science has yet to fully understand how it does it. The missions aims to know about the nature of gravity in the far reaches of space. Scientist has discovered that the universe was expanding more slowly in the past that it is now. This is totally unexpected because the common prediction is that the universe is decelerating! The force that causes this acceleration has been given a name dark energy...more is unknown than know about this energy.
There is a lot more to know about our earth and the universe...it is a big space after all. But I believe that the more we explore our surroundings the more will discover the order and precision the governs the universe.
So, you believe in the Multiverse theory of how the universe came about? How do you prove the presence of this other universe? How did the multiverse came about?
-
Since the Designer or God as we have been describing is outside time and space, spiritual and eternal, then no scientific tool is adequate to detect His presence....you need something more. something beyond the confines of the material world. We can only infer that the physical world is governed by something beyond it.
Based on our common experience of man-made works, we see and discern that our "creations" are based on our intelligence or mind and those creations couldn't just happen, in the same manner we have discovered DNA which information or code to make Life, and the universe contain constants and quantities so precise that it defies imagination. Then the only conclusion we make is that Life and the Universe has a Cause outside and beyond the confines of the physical world.
Thus it is Fine-Tuning that we could test using the scientific method.
Since you've mentioned criteria for scientific theory, let apply this to evolution
-What falsifiable predictions has evolution made?
- What well-supported independent strands of evidence has evolution produce?
- Name one that evolution has that is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
- Name some of these "minor adaptations" to account for new data.
While at it, kindly reply to my question on how you can account for the gradual chances of body plans from say Gills to Lungs for an animal to survive in the Darwinian model of gradual, undirected random change...
you said it yourself, you cannot prove that a designer was responsible for the "fine tuning" within the confines of scientific method therefore it is not based on science. it is an assumption. since you're saying that these numbers are evidence of ID, why would you test the evidence? you do an experiment to produce evidence. what you need to test is your hypothesis that a designer made those numbers. but since you can't have an experiment to prove it you're basically saying: "Ah, why do these numbers exist? there must be a cause. it's because of GOD!" you jumped to a conclusion that these numbers are caused by God yet you can't prove it or falsify it with the use of Scientific Method. This is why the scientific community consider this idea of ID as merely a religious or theistic explanation. hence, as i've said earlier, it all comes down to faith with ID.
Now let's apply the criteria for Scientific Theories to Evolution:
1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
Creationists and ID proponents try to falsify it all the time. You yourself are a perfect example.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Falsifiability_of_evolution
2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
- ancient organism remains or fossil records, DNA testing, similarities between two related living organisms, similarities of embryos, aritficial selection or breeding.
http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01
3. It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
- Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
- Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
- There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
- Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
- Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
- Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
- Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
need more?
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html
4. It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
Yes it can and it has since it's introduction in 1859. it is not yet complete but there is enough data to know that it is a fact.
5. It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
yes it is.
Biologists make predictions, then they go out into the field or the lab to see if their predictions hold up. When hundreds of predictions of this sort are fulfilled, a theory reaches the point where it becomes certain, at least on a broad level. And that is where we are with evolution.
i'm not sure how to answer your last question because i'm not sure if you typed in chances or change but to answer it, from the available evidence lungs did not evolve from gills. early species of fish developed a lung-like bladder to supplement oxygen from its gills.
-
kaya mo yan DOC.....dito lang kme tagapalakpak!!! moral support, ika nga! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Short answer....yes sure my being born and named elmo could be by chance!
While the universe had no pre-existing material and its "reproduction" is (well I actually don't know what to call it), suffice it to say that it is governed by precise constants and quantities for the universe to exist as we see it!
If this is your notion that the birth of the universe is similar to a baby w/ infinitely possibilities, then you have now the problem of the "parents" of universe or a so-called universe maker.
No, it's not a problem. The universe doesn't need a maker!
And isn't there a need to set parameters to the universe to be born? And once the "right" universe is born like ours, will the others exist as well or wont exist at all, much like when I born all other combinations could no longer exist!
The parameters were set when the universe was born. Nobody needed to set it! If the strength of the force binding nucleons to the nuclei wasn't just right, or the cosmological constant wasn't just right, then we wouldn't be here to argue about the nature of the universe.
Other universes certainly could exist (as theorized in M Theory) though we have no way of proving that yet. But if true, then all possible universes can exist and only a very tiny fraction of which would support life!
I like how Douglas Adams puts it:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
-
just give us concrete evidence or complete documents na nagpapakita on how living matters sprout from non-living matters... not just speculations...
-
you said it yourself, you cannot prove that a designer was responsible for the "fine tuning" within the confines of scientific method therefore it is not based on science. it is an assumption. since you're saying that these numbers are evidence of ID, why would you test the evidence? you do an experiment to produce evidence. what you need to test is your hypothesis that a designer made those numbers. but since you can't have an experiment to prove it you're basically saying: "Ah, why do these numbers exist? there must be a cause. it's because of GOD!" you jumped to a conclusion that these numbers are caused by God yet you can't prove it or falsify it with the use of Scientific Method. This is why the scientific community consider this idea of ID as merely a religious or theistic explanation. hence, as i've said earlier, it all comes down to faith with ID.
Though I said the “Designer” is not Testable at our present level of knowledge the detection of Intelligence is…..And so Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory is Testable and Falsifiable. And Intelligent Design is…..falsified by evolution!
To put it simply Darwin's theory says all natural biological complexity arose by random undirected mutation or variation and natural selection. While Intelligent Design theory says that some aspects of natural biological complexity show evidence of design or intelligent agency. Therefore it is on the question of evidence for intelligent design in biology that the debate goes on and on…
ID and Darwinism are two sides of the same coin or two opposing conclusions drawn from the same question: is there design in biology? If there is, ID is true. If there isn't, Darwinism is true. The falsification of intelligent design is Evolutionism. The falsification of Darwinism is intelligent design. Either biology shows evidence of intelligent agency, or it doesn't. Either intelligent design and Evolutionism are both science, or neither is science. If you can't test the hypothesis of intelligent agency in biology, then you can't test Evolution, and Evolution is immune from evidence and must simply be accepted on faith.
Darwinism is intelligent design's Twin. So why would claim that ID isn't falsifiable, when evolution is the falsification of ID? Furthermore, if ID isn't falsifiable, then the question of design in biology can't be tested by science, and this in effect makes Evolution is immune from evidence. Then Evolution must then be accepted on faith.
Evolutionists aren't concerned that intelligent design isn't falsifiable. The concern is that it isn't false.
You said it yourself we falsify evolution everyday using ID......thus it stands to reason that the opposite is also true!
-
A simple comparison of predictions:
Evolution as a Scientific Theory predicts;
-Gradual Modifications of animals
-Fossils would show transitional species
-Animals would have ancestor-descendant relation and follow a hierarchical arrangement from the primitive to the modern. eg.” Tree of Life”
Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory predicts;
-Abrupt appearance of animals according to species
-Fossils would show fully formed animals w/ no transitional species
-Animal does not show ancestor-descendant relation but are governed by genetic modification/similarities and there is no primitive to modern arrangement. eg. “Orchard of Life”
end of part 2..
-
threads like these are not to be taken seriously, these are after all for the entertainment of members as i see it...
isn't PDVD great?, for allowing religion, politics, and artista chismis to be discussed here....
+100
I just don't understand some people declaring themselves as "EXPERT" in some field and validates it by explaining their field which seems relevant but in reality no relevance whatsoever... ;D
-
Now let's apply the criteria for Scientific Theories to Evolution:
1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
Creationists and ID proponents try to falsify it all the time. You yourself are a perfect example.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Falsifiability_of_evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Falsifiability_of_evolution)
That is not what “falsifiability” means.
For a theory to be falsifiable, it is not sufficient that someone argues against it. Falsifiability means the possibility of showing to be false.
For example, if I say the earth is round, all you have to do is show me a picture of a flat earth taken from space, and the statement is falsified.
Therefore, the statement is falsifiable because it is possible to take a picture of the earth from space, and the inability to produce the falsifying data makes the statement true.
But if I say all Filipinos will rule the earth after 1 million years, the statement is unfalsifiable because it is impossible to show it to be false without waiting for a million years.
Evolutionism is unfalsifiable because there is no way to test the claim that all living things have a common origin.
Q: Why are there no transitional forms, when millions of fossils have already been found? A: Because the fossil record is still incomplete.
Q: If evolution is a gradual process, why do fossils show systematic gaps, with new kinds of life suddenly appearing? A: If new species suddenly appears, then this is proof of punctuated equilibrium (no change for long periods, then sudden appearance of new species).
Evolution is a gradual process = This proves Darwinism is correct. New forms of life suddenly appear = This proves that punctuated equilibrium is correct, and evolution is still correct.
Simply stated, evolutionism is unfalsifiable because it has the ability to explain anything. It’s a no-lose situation for the evolutionists. Just invent a bunch of contradictory, speculative explanations and the theory can never be falsified.
-
2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
- ancient organism remains or fossil records, DNA testing, similarities between two related living organisms, similarities of embryos, aritficial selection or breeding.
http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html (http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01)
None of those can be considered proof of evolution, because all that shows is circular reasoning.
Fossil records, DNA, embryos, etc. of different species show similarities. Conclusion? One evolved from the other. Why do you conclude evolution on the mere basis of similarities? Because they are similar.
That is circular reasoning because you only returned to where you started from.
The conclusion is based on speculation. Similarity does not show evolution, it merely shows similarity and nothing more.
A frog is similar to a man --- both have legs, eyes, noses, ears, etc. Therefore, frogs evolved into men because they have similarities?
To conclude ancestry from mere similarity is speculative. Like saying that a carriage is similar to a car; therefore carriages evolved into cars by random chance without a designer.
-
3. It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
- Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
- Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
- There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
- Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
- Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
- Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
- Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
"Predictability" refers to something in the future, not in the past.
Evolutionism says its theory is predictable, yet it always refers to something in the past and not in the future. Yes, the fossil was discoved after the prediction, but the evolutionary event it relates to is a past event that happened before the prediction.
To demonstrate predictability, they must predict an evolutionary event in the future, instead of merely "predicting" the discovery of a fossil.
Thus:
1. Precursors to the trilobite were not found. Something was found, but it was not a precursor to the trilobite, nor was it a precursor to anything else.
2. Darwin’s dilemma was the absence of intermediate fossils showing that the Cambrian phyla diverged from a common ancestor.
Since Darwin’s time, they have found so many Precambrian fossils, including exceptionally well-preserved microbes. If preservation was so excellent, they should have found ancestors of the Cambrian phyla, but they have not.
This actually worsens Darwin’s dilemma because instead of finding transitional forms, all they found were microbes and other forms so primitive that they could not have been precursors of the Cambrian phyla.
3. Some whales with teeth, some whales with baleen, some whales with teeth and baleen.
That does not prove evolution. All of them are still whales, aren’t they? Adaptation is not the same as macroevolution.
4. Even if trilobites and dinosaurs were alive today, they still wouldn’t be found together, because they live in different ecological zones. Dinosaurs are land animals, but trilobites are bottom-dwelling sea creatures.
There are variations between ammonite kinds, but the variations do not show macroevolution, since all of them are still ammonites. The sutures in the shells were found to be more elaborate in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic, but there is no significant change. There are no intermediate or part-way ammonite forms in the fossil beds—no unambiguous line of evolutionary descent.
5. If biogeography proves evolution, then there should be no case of disjunct distributions in both the fossil record and the living world.
But similar plants and animals are found not only across adjacent regions of land or neighboring islands, but also on different continents, separated by large stretches of land or ocean.
Evolutionists sometimes explain these by arguing that continental drift separated similar groups that once lived in close proximity and therefore shared common ancestors. This is the explanation given, for example, as to why chironomid midges are found in Antarctica, Southern Australia, South America, New Zealand and South Africa.
However, according to evolutionists’ own theories, many species that are disjunct across previously joined continents evolved after their separation. For example, South America and Africa allegedly separated around 100 million years ago, but species of cactus, which supposedly evolved in South America around thirty million years ago, are also found in Africa. Similarly, the evolutionary accounts of the emergence of rodents found in South America and Africa do not fit the generally accepted timing of continent drift.
Many other puzzling disjunctions across these continents are known. Moreover, disjunct species are frequently found on continents that never bordered one another. For example, many plants and insects are known to be disjunct across the Pacific Ocean. Interestingly, the opossum Dromiciops, found in Chile, is much closer to Australian marsupials than to other South American marsupials.
There is an abundance of other biogeographic anomalies that do not fit the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, the fauna of central and southern Africa is closer to that of southern Asia than that of northern Africa, and flora found in Madagascar is remarkably similar to that of Indonesia. Crowberries (Empetrum) are found only in the more northern regions of the northern hemisphere and in the most southern regions of the southern hemisphere. Many closely related plants are found only in eastern North America and eastern Asia.
6. Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically.
Cars are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process. But any given list of cars can be classified hierarchically, for example, by dividing them according to body material: fiberglass or metal; fuel: by gas, diesel or battery; by drive: real-wheel, front-wheel, 4-wheel; by body design: sedan or SUV; etc. Yet all of them have tires and a steering wheel.
Living things can also be classified hierarchically. But to jump to the conclusion that this is already evidence for natural evolution from common ancestry is speculative.
The distinguishing feature of flies vs. a non-fly contradicts rather than supports evolution. The fossil record shows fully developed flying insects, but no transitional forms.
In the same manner, fish have gills, reptiles don’t. You will never find a reptile with gills not because reptiles evolved from fish, but because reptiles are creatures that appeared on earth separately and distinctly from fish.
7. Similar eyes = they evolved. Different eyes = they still evolved.
Yet another example of unfalsifiability. No matter where you go, even if it's in contradictory directions, it's still evolution.
-
To add further indeed how do you falsify evolution when even the discovery of “Living-fossils” is adapted as evidence for continuing evolution!
Ancient organism remains in the fossils…..yes sure! I agree, but what does evolution actually predict about it.
Evolution is natural selection through random mutation then this would result in the gradual changes in animals as it transitions from one to another….then the fossil record will show thousands if not millions of transitional animals…..we have yet to see one.
The Cambrian Explosion is in fact a problem for evolution since it shows a very different picture than what was predicted. This time period in earth’s history has produced 2 minor “hurdles” for evolution. One is the apparent lack of ancestors for the 60 or so animal phyla which was discovered in this layer, and the next is from an anatomical point of view. The animal phyla which “suddenly” appeared exhibited novel body plans that the only way that this could happen is for the explosion of new information as well…..and this information was later found in the DNA. Natural selection has failed to account for the presence of this information in the DNA
.
DNA testing….are you saying DNA testing reveals that animals are related to each other in a clear hierarchical way as predicted by the Darwinian evolution…..recent studies on genetics does not coincide with the Darwinian “Tree of Life”……what can be seen instead is a Web of Life or an Orchard of Trees!
Consider this;
In an article entitled: Rearranging the branches of the tree of life.
“As part of an outpouring of research that is revolutionizing notions about the genetic, biochemical, structural and evolutionary relationships among living things, fungi like mushrooms have now been revealed as being closer to animals like humans than to plants like lettuce.” Scientists are consequently having to rethink some long-held ideas about evolution
Similarities of animals and embryos are not proof of evolution. Sir, Barrister already pointed this out..
Artificial selection and breeding…….well isn’t that very similar having a creator. Without the breeder will there be selective breeding?
While the list other “predictions” of evolution are merely adaptions of animals and so-called “change over time”. Not one of these examples demonstrates the transition from say dinosaur to birds or fish to mammals….
Whale Evolution has so many holes in its presentation that it won’t hold water. The trilobite once thought of as primitive has in fact complex biochemical systems and the integrated organ systems! The pre-cambrian fossils is no help at all in establishing ancestry. And the trilobite together w/ the other 60 animal phyla were all present in the Cambrian period. Can evolution account for this?
So Darwin’s word rings true: “If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families. Have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”- Origin of the species
-
+100
I just don't understand some people declaring themselves as "EXPERT" in some field and validates it by explaining their field which seems relevant but in reality no relevance whatsoever... ;D
Mmmm.....sounds a lot like Dawkins grudging admission of "appearance of apparent design in nature". :D
-
The difference between the Evolutionist and the ID/Creationist group....take the Case of the Magic Rabbit Trick....
To the ID/Creationist....we have a Magician, a magician's hat and then comes the rabbit!
To the evolutionist....we only have the rabbit, No hat and No Magician!
Which is more magical?
-
The difference between the Evolutionist and the ID/Creationist group....take the Case of the Magic Rabbit Trick....
To the ID/Creationist....we have a Magician, a magician's hat and then comes the rabbit!
To the evolutionist....we only have the rabbit, No hat and No Magician!
Which is more magical?
The creationist, why?
Where did the magician and the hat came from?
At least sa evolutionist isa lang yung magical, yung sa creationist 2 items... ;D
-
The creationist, why?
Where did the magician and the hat came from?
At least sa evolutionist isa lang yung magical, yung sa creationist 2 items... ;D
Funny, you should demand for the cause of the magician and the hat, while readily and blindly accept that the rabbit can appear out of thin air!
The context was on the rabbit trick. At least we have a magician a potential miracle worker! While your magician is The great Chance and Time!
You demand the application of the principle of Cause and Effect on the Magician and not demand the same principle on the sudden appearance of the rabit!
-
Funny, you should demand for the cause of the magician and the hat, while readily and blindly accept that the rabbit can appear out of thin air!
The context was on the rabbit trick. At least we have a magician a potential miracle worker! While your magician is The great Chance and Time!
You demand the application of the principle of Cause and Effect on the Magician and not demand the same principle on the sudden appearance of the rabit!
I actually demand on both in this case, kaya lang ang tanong mo kung sino ang mas magical so yan ang sagot ko kasi mas marami ang dapat mag sudden appearance. And that is the Evolutionist point. San mangagaling yung Intelligence sa Intelligent Design?
-
I actually demand on both in this case, kaya lang ang tanong mo kung sino ang mas magical so yan ang sagot ko kasi mas marami ang dapat mag sudden appearance. And that is the Evolutionist point. San mangagaling yung Intelligence sa Intelligent Design?
Well your post didn't seem to imply that...
Sa tingin ko para sayo mas madali at ka panipaniwala na may rabbit na biglang lilitaw kesa kung may magikero na gagawa nito.
What we should establish first and agree upon is if the rabbit really exist or appeared in the case of intelligence if it exist in nature. Once you've acknowledge that the rabbit or intelligence or for that matter the universe exist, then the next step is to establish the cause of its existense. Unless you believe that things can just "create themselves" and intelligence just popped out of thin air.
-
Well your post didn't seem to imply that...
Sa tingin ko para sayo mas madali at ka panipaniwala na may rabbit na biglang lilitaw kesa kung may magikero na gagawa nito.
What we should establish first and agree upon is if the rabbit really exist or appeared in the case of intelligence if it exist in nature. Once you've acknowledge that the rabbit or intelligence or for that matter the universe exist, then the next step is to establish the cause of its existense. Unless you believe that things can just "create themselves" and intelligence just popped out of thin air.
Hindi ba iyan ang ina-advocate ng ID? Intelligence without a cause??? Because you have faith?
At hindi ba kayo ang nag-iimply na everything just popped out of thin air? Dahil everything is created by higher intelligent being/s?
And sorry, your assumptions about me are wrong...
-
Hindi ba iyan ang ina-advocate ng ID? Intelligence without a cause??? Because you have faith?
At hindi ba kayo ang nag-iimply na everything just popped out of thin air? Dahil everything is created by higher intelligent being/s?
And sorry, your assumptions about me are wrong...
Huh? Seriously? If ID is intelligence w/o cause, then evolution is No intelligence and no cause.....undirected random!
What ID is infering is that "nformation" in the DNA made it possible to produce new life forms and not through undirected random mutation. Is that popping out of thin air?
Intelligence is always due to intelligent agency.
Just as your posts here is due to an intelligent agency(you) and did not popped out of thin air or am I wrong?
-
Huh? Seriously? If ID is intelligence w/o cause, then evolution is No intelligence and no cause.....undirected random!
What ID is infering is that "nformation" in the DNA made it possible to produce new life forms and not through undirected random mutation. Is that popping out of thin air?
Intelligence is always due to intelligent agency.
Just as your posts here is due to an intelligent agency(you) and did not popped out of thin air or am I wrong?
Just like I said before, ID starts at 100 while evolution starts at zero. You are already arguing about the design of DNA, why don't start with the intelligence that designed the DNA? Did it just popped out of thin air?
For the record, I advocate both Evo and ID working together to get us here... natatawa lang ako kasi nag-aargue ang magkabilang side starting on different time premise.
-
isn't PDVD great?, for allowing religion, politics, and artista chismis to be discussed here....
true sir tony. at may bonus pang pampa init na "HOT Thread". ^-^ ;D
ang stand ko lang sa topic na ito, if ever na may mai present na undeniable/hard evidence sa theory of evolution, ang masasabi ko lang, God pa rin ang author nun na nadiscover ni Charles Darwin. Pero hanggang hominids lang at di naging modern human.
Sa akin lang kasi, Bible does not contradict scientific discoveries. Science is a tool to reveal God and His creation.
-
May I ask, if you believe that God created all species of life on earth individually (meaning not through evolution), why do you think over 99% of all life He ever created is now extinct? Was He somehow just doing it through trial and error?
-
May I ask, if you believe that God created all species of life on earth individually (meaning not through evolution), why do you think over 99% of all life He ever created is now extinct? Was He somehow just doing it through trial and error?
I can give you a longer answer on "The Religion Thread," but for purposes of this thread, here's my short answer:
No, God was not creating by trial and error. God's creation was finished after the 6th day, and was not an ongoing trial and error procedure.
Creation was "very good" (me'od tov) originally, but after the fall of Adam, things changed.
-
That is not what “falsifiability” means.
For a theory to be falsifiable, it is not sufficient that someone argues against it. Falsifiability means the possibility of showing to be false.
For example, if I say the earth is round, all you have to do is show me a picture of a flat earth taken from space, and the statement is falsified.
Therefore, the statement is falsifiable because it is possible to take a picture of the earth from space, and the inability to produce the falsifying data makes the statement true.
But if I say all Filipinos will rule the earth after 1 million years, the statement is unfalsifiable because it is impossible to show it to be false without waiting for a million years.
Evolutionism is unfalsifiable because there is no way to test the claim that all living things have a common origin.
Q: Why are there no transitional forms, when millions of fossils have already been found? A: Because the fossil record is still incomplete.
Q: If evolution is a gradual process, why do fossils show systematic gaps, with new kinds of life suddenly appearing? A: If new species suddenly appears, then this is proof of punctuated equilibrium (no change for long periods, then sudden appearance of new species).
Evolution is a gradual process = This proves Darwinism is correct. New forms of life suddenly appear = This proves that punctuated equilibrium is correct, and evolution is still correct.
Simply stated, evolutionism is unfalsifiable because it has the ability to explain anything. It’s a no-lose situation for the evolutionists. Just invent a bunch of contradictory, speculative explanations and the theory can never be falsified.
so what sir docelmo was trying to before about falsifying evolution with the "whale" argument doesn't count?
-
None of those can be considered proof of evolution, because all that shows is circular reasoning.
Fossil records, DNA, embryos, etc. of different species show similarities. Conclusion? One evolved from the other. Why do you conclude evolution on the mere basis of similarities? Because they are similar.
That is circular reasoning because you only returned to where you started from.
The conclusion is based on speculation. Similarity does not show evolution, it merely shows similarity and nothing more.
A frog is similar to a man --- both have legs, eyes, noses, ears, etc. Therefore, frogs evolved into men because they have similarities?
To conclude ancestry from mere similarity is speculative. Like saying that a carriage is similar to a car; therefore carriages evolved into cars by random chance without a designer.
creationists like you don't count it as evidence. actual scientists do.
also, you're a lawyer. do you not encounter circumstantial evidences in your field of work?
from a definition of circumstantial evidence:
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out."
these evidences that you so happily disregard are so many ways like that. each fossil record discovered corroborates claims made my evolution. they may be incomplete but they are overwhelmingly enough to support the theory.
-
Just like I said before, ID starts at 100 while evolution starts at zero. You are already arguing about the design of DNA, why don't start with the intelligence that designed the DNA? Did it just popped out of thin air?
For the record, I advocate both Evo and ID working together to get us here... natatawa lang ako kasi nag-aargue ang magkabilang side starting on different time premise.
Both ID and Evolution are called Historical Science because both are inferring the causes of an event in the distant past. What is being debated or contested is the question of causation, ID is saying intelligent agency while Evolution is saying natural undirected random mutation.
As to the nature of the Intelligence, In the book “Signature in the Cell” Meyer said: “I didn’t even like the term “supernatural”. The better philosophical distinction is between transcendent and immanent. Are we talking of an intelligence within the cosmos or an intelligence that is in some way beyond it? It doesn’t really matter, all the theory of Intelligent Design is doing is establishing that intelligence was responsible for certain features of life.”
So either way the “Intelligence that designed the DNA” did not just popped out of thin air furthermore the information in the DNA did not appear spontaneously.
As to the information in the DNA, to put it bluntly nobody can explain the origin of the information by any of the naturalistic, material processes. However Crick came up with The Sequence Hypotheses his idea was that the along DNA molecule there were four chemicals that functioned just like alphabetic characters in a written language….information. And information can only come from Intelligence.
If by evolution you are referring to “change over time” or even microevolution both are acceptable and not in conflict with ID because both of these are in fact happening. What separates ID from Evolution is the mechanism by which evolution stands that the emergence and complexity of life arose by undirected random variation/mutation with natural selection.
-
"Predictability" refers to something in the future, not in the past.
Evolutionism says its theory is predictable, yet it always refers to something in the past and not in the future. Yes, the fossil was discoved after the prediction, but the evolutionary event it relates to is a past event that happened before the prediction.
To demonstrate predictability, they must predict an evolutionary event in the future, instead of merely "predicting" the discovery of a fossil.
a scientific prediction does not necessarily mean "to predict a future event". If you dreamed a meteoroid will crash into the White House on New Year's day, that's a prophecy, not a scientific prediction.
you're misunderstanding what a scientific prediction is like most people are misunderstanding what a Theory is in Science.
it's like when Peter Higgs predicted the Higgs Boson and which physicists at CERN's LHC confirmed, paleontologists discovered fossils that evolution predicted.
-
so what sir docelmo was trying to before about falsifying evolution with the "whale" argument doesn't count?
I get sir barrister's point.
Evolution becomes unfalsifiable on two points. First the very nature of what it seeks to explain is a past event and is no longer happening. Second the transition of animals from say "dinosaur to bird" by random mutation/natural selection cannot be verified and the smorgasboard of other materialistic procceses as still part of the evolutionary processes even those that contradict its main hypothesis. The mechanisms are so varied that even the discovery of living fossils is claimed as evolution!
So how to falsify it......the devil is in the details!
In the case of the whale evolution, it was showned that the animals purported to be part of the whale evolution were of questionable nature add to that the limitations posted by population genetics studies on needed mutations to chance one animal to the next in the backdrop of the time period for which evolution has to do its magic.....that's where the whale evolution sinks!
-
a scientific prediction does not necessarily mean "to predict a future event". If you dreamed a meteoroid will crash into the White House on New Year's day, that's a prophecy, not a scientific prediction.
you're misunderstanding what a scientific prediction is like most people are misunderstanding what a Theory is in Science.
it's like when Peter Higgs predicted the Higgs Boson and which physicists at CERN's LHC confirmed, paleontologists discovered fossils that evolution predicted.
A prediction relates to the future, that's why it's called a "prediction." From "pre" (prae, before) and "dict" (dicere, to say), meaning, "to say before it happens."
In the same manner, predictability in science also relates to the future, because it relates to reproducibility; in other words, testability.
For an experiment to be accepted as scientific evidence, the experiment must be reproducible and repeatable by others working independently. If the experiment produces a result different from the prediction, the theory is false; if it consistently produces the same result, the theory is confirmed.
When will confirmation arise? After the prediction, not before. Thus, the prediction relates to the future confirmatory event.
For example, I say hot air is heavier than cold air, and I predict that hot air rises, while cold air falls. The prediction will be confirmed by the results of my experiment, and by the similar results of similar experiments performed by other independent persons.
When did confirmation arise? After the prediction, not before. In other words, the confirmation is a future event in relation to the time the prediction was made.
The Higgs boson started as a prediction, which was later believed to have been confirmed by the LHC results. When did confirmation arise? After the prediction, not before. In other words, a future event.
Predictability is related to reproducibility, which means that it is testable by others. Other independent scientists can repeat the experiment and produce evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions.
Now compare that to evolutionism.
You said, "Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found." That is not a prediction that supports evolutionism.
Finding pre-Cambrian fossils proves only that pre-Cambrian life forms existed on earth; it does not prove that they evolved into Cambrian life forms. Therefore, the "prediction" only showed past existence, but it did not show a confirmation of the evolutionary theory of common ancestry.
Here's an example of a scientific prediction concerning evolution --- If they predict that random mutation can increase the information in the genome, and perform a reproducible fruit fly experiment that demonstrates it, then that will be reasonable confirmation of a scientific prediction. When will the confirmation come? In the future, when the experimental result confirms the prediction.
creationists like you don't count it as evidence. actual scientists do.
also, you're a lawyer. do you not encounter circumstantial evidences in your field of work?
from a definition of circumstantial evidence:
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out."
these evidences that you so happily disregard are so many ways like that. each fossil record discovered corroborates claims made my evolution. they may be incomplete but they are overwhelmingly enough to support the theory.
The basis of circumstantial evidence is the inference that can be reasonably connected to a conclusion of fact. If there is no reasonable inference that can be connected to the conclusion of fact, then that is not circumstantial evidence; in fact, that is not evidence at all.
To prove that Mr. X was at the scene of the crime, a witness who saw him there is presented ---- that is direct evidence. His palm print on the wall at the scene is presented --- that is circumstantial evidence. A book that happened to be written by his favorite author is found therein --- that is not evidence at all.
To prove common ancestry, a witness who personally observed evolution is presented --- that is direct evidence. Proof that random mutations can increase information in the genome is presented --- that is circumstantial evidence. Fossils with similarities are presented ---- that is not evidence at all.
No conclusion of ancestry can be inferred from mere morphological similarity. Since no inference can be made, then the same cannot be considered circumstantial evidence.
so what sir docelmo was trying to before about falsifying evolution with the "whale" argument doesn't count?
No, of course not.
Debunk all existing transitional whale fossil candidates, and evolutionism is still not falsified.
Why not? Because evolutionists say that the fossil evidence is not yet complete. Just wait and a true transitional fossil will be eventually discovered.
So, until 100% of all fossils are discovered by excavating every inch of the earth, the theory is unfalsifiable.
-
"Debunk"
-expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
So, its clear what we're doing is debunking the theory by pointing out the errors in the so-called evidence presented.
The only way that it could be falsified is when evolutionists accept that the "missing links" are not only missing but in fact does not exist.(but i doubt this will ever happen).
-
Just curious, doc.
Are you a Young-Earth Creationist, or an Old-Earth Creationist?
YEC yata si sir dpogs.
-
Just curious, doc.
Are you a Young-Earth Creationist, or an Old-Earth Creationist?
YEC yata si sir dpogs.
Old-earth, Atty.
Re watched a bbc docu The Code hosted by mathematician Marcus du Sautoy. He said some really interesting stuff....
The fact that the most fundamental units(prime numbers, pi, i) of mathematics could be found woven into the natural world, is not only compelling evidence that the code exists but also that numbers under pin everything. From the patterns and numbers all around us we've deciphered a hidden code. This code describes our world with astonishing accuracy, The fact that the code gives a succesful discription of our world is for many one of the greatest mysteries of science. The only thing that makes sense is that weve discovered some deep truth about the world.
Codes, patterns can only come from......intelligence!
-
Old Earth din pala. Thanks for the quick reply.
Marcus du Sautoy? Interesting. I'll have to google that.
Tignan natin kung nonsense din ... ;)
-
I watched some YouTube trailers of BBC's The Code featuring mathematician Marcus du Sautoy.
It seems very good and looks very interesting.
Du Sautoy is an atheist-evolutionist, but he's not one of those annoying atheist-evolutionists who think all creationists are ignorant hillbilly hicks.
Du Sautoy is the chair of Oxford University's Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science. The aim of the Simonyi Professorship is "to communicate science to the public without, in doing so, losing those elements of scholarship which constitute the essence of true understanding."
The Professorship was established for Richard Dawkins in 1995. Du Sautoy, who succeded to Richard Dawkins, is only the second person to occupy the chair.
Thank goodness Dawkins is out, since his weirdo rants have recently become quite the embarrassment for the atheist community. And I'm talking about the atheists who are true intellectuals, not the atheists who are only pretending to be smart.
Peter Higgs is one of those who have publicly called Dawkins' abrasive style "embarrassing:"
Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins
over anti-religious 'fundamentalism'
Higgs boson theorist says he agrees with those who find
Dawkins' approach to dealing with believers 'embarrassing'
Alok Jha (http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alokjha), science correspondent
Wednesday 26 December 2012
(http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/12/26/1356547898336/Peter-Higgs-008.jpg)
As public disagreements go, few can have boasted such heavy-hitting antagonists.
On one side is Richard Dawkins (http://www.theguardian.com/science/dawkins), the celebrated biologist who has made a second career demonstrating his epic disdain for religion. On the other is the theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, who this year became a shoo-in for a future Nobel prize after scientists at Cern in Geneva showed that his theory about how fundamental particles get their mass was correct.
Their argument is over nothing less than the coexistence of religion and science.
Higgs has chosen to cap his remarkable 2012 with another bang by criticising the "fundamentalist" approach taken by Dawkins in dealing with religious believers.
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/12/27/ciencia/1356611441.html). "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."
He agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist's approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing".
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism)
-
Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists do tend to be harsh when it comes to being anti-religion but no atheist has ever fire bombed a church nor strapped bombs to themselves to take out religious people. The worst, most hardcore atheist is just an obnoxious a-hole, not a suicide bomber.
-
I watched some YouTube trailers of BBC's The Code featuring mathematician Marcus du Sautoy.
It seems very good and looks very interesting.
Du Sautoy is an athest-evolutionist, but he's not one of those annoying atheist-evolutionists who think all creationists are ignorant hillbilly hicks.
Du Sautoy is the chair of Oxford University's Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science. The aim of the Simonyi Professorship is "to communicate science to the public without, in doing so, losing those elements of scholarship which constitute the essence of true understanding."
The Professorship was established for Richard Dawkins in 1995. Du Sautoy, who succeded to Richard Dawkins, is only the second person to occupy the chair.
Thank goodness Dawkins is out, since his weirdo rants have recently become quite the embarrassment for the atheist community. And I'm talking about the atheists who are true intellectuals, not the atheists who are only pretending to be smart.
Peter Higgs is one of those who have publicly called Dawkins' abrasive style "embarrassing:"
Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins
over anti-religious 'fundamentalism'
Higgs boson theorist says he agrees with those who find
Dawkins' approach to dealing with believers 'embarrassing'
Alok Jha (http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alokjha), science correspondent
Wednesday 26 December 2012
(http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/12/26/1356547898336/Peter-Higgs-008.jpg)
As public disagreements go, few can have boasted such heavy-hitting antagonists.
On one side is Richard Dawkins (http://www.theguardian.com/science/dawkins), the celebrated biologist who has made a second career demonstrating his epic disdain for religion. On the other is the theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, who this year became a shoo-in for a future Nobel prize after scientists at Cern in Geneva showed that his theory about how fundamental particles get their mass was correct.
Their argument is over nothing less than the coexistence of religion and science.
Higgs has chosen to cap his remarkable 2012 with another bang by criticising the "fundamentalist" approach taken by Dawkins in dealing with religious believers.
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/12/27/ciencia/1356611441.html). "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."
He agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist's approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing".
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism)
"The Code" is a 3-part series dealing with three topics Numbers, Shapes and Predictions.
Right, the prof is an evolutionist although he did say that evolution had little to do with the bees making hexagonal shapes and the prime number cycle of the cicadas he said it was as if it "ingrained in the dna". He also mentioned st augustine's heavenly numbers and acknowledged that augustine and the builder of medieval cathedral has discovered and tapped these laws of the universe.
-
Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists do tend to be harsh when it comes to being anti-religion but no atheist has ever fire bombed a church nor strapped bombs to themselves to take out religious people. The worst, most hardcore atheist is just an obnoxious a-hole, not a suicide bomber.
There are good theists and bad theists, just as there are good atheists and bad atheists.
Being an atheist does not automatically mean immorality. But atheist murderers exist. There is such a thing as an atheist who persecuted religions, closed churches and committed genocide in the tens of millions.
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm)
-
In 2007, atheist Pekka-Eric Auvinen writes on his website:
I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!
Auvinen enters the Jokela High School in Finland armed with a semi-automatic pistol, kills 8 and wounds 12, then shoots himself in the head.
-
Eric Harris, atheist, writes:
“Sometime in april me and V (Klebold) will get revenge and will kick natural selection up a few notches. We will be in all black. Dusters, black army pants ...we will have knifes and blades and backup weaponry all over our bodies.”
April 1999:
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold enter Columbine High School, kill 15, injure 24, then shoot themselves in the head.
On the day of the massacre, Harris wore a white T-shirt with the words "Natural selection" printed in black.
-
Where do neanderthals and other homos fit in the context of God's creation?
-
Where do neanderthals and other homos fit in the context of God's creation?
they dont exist... only in the mind and imagination of the evolutionist...
the first human in God's creation was "perfect"... they have a perfect means of commnication (that can be pass on to next generation), a perfect body free from sickness and diseases, a perfect brain that can think and a free will...
-
they dont exist... only in the mind and imagination of the evolutionist...
the first human in God's creation was "perfect"... they have a perfect means of commnication (that can be pass on to next generation), a perfect body free from sickness and diseases, a perfect brain that can think and a free will...
Correct! ;D
There are no evidence that Neanderthals et. al. exist, since they are not mentioned in the Bible. :D
-
i am thinking of an apelike behaviour neanderthal... na kadalasang pinoportay sa mga movie na kulang sa karunungan...
i believce iyong mga buto na nakuha at tinagurinang neandearthal... they have a fully functional brain, not idiot na kadalsang pinapakita sa mga movies... they have perfect means of communication... but a body prone to sickness, deform, disease and others...
and besides... sa buong duration ng God's creation... dalawang tao lang ang nagexist... no neandearthal...
-
Simple lang naman ang sinasabi ni sir dpogs, if you're aware of the Neanderthal controversy. Neanderthals do exist as a classification in biology, but sir dpogs means Neanderthals are human, not a separate species.
Where do neanderthals and other homos fit in the context of God's creation?
It depends on how you classify Neanderthals.
If Neanderthals are not human, then they are included in the creation of "the creatures that move along the ground" on the 6th day.
If Neanderthals are human, then they are included in the creation of man, also on the 6th day.
Here's the best reconstruction of a Neanderthal (left) and a Homo sapien (right) from London's Natural History Museum:
(http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/38-3428-65024/450-417/models-together-2.jpg)
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/natural-history-museum-exhibition-shows-changing-face-of-britain-over-1million-years-8946583.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/natural-history-museum-exhibition-shows-changing-face-of-britain-over-1million-years-8946583.html)
If the specimen is alive, it's easy to determine if it's human or not. But based on fossils, it's harder to know for sure if the specimen is human.
You can see from the latest reconstruction that it's very hard to tell if the Neanderthal is human or not. That's why there is a minority of biologists who prefer to call the Neanderthal as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, to show that Neanderthals are Homo sapiens rather than a separate species.
Compare the Neanderthal model with this Australian Aboriginal:
(http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/genealogy/120222d1383162852-australian-aborigine-relation-neanderthal-man-australian_aborigines_09.jpeg)
It's easy to know that the aboriginal is human because he's alive. Kung naging fossil siya, scientists might mistake him for a non-human species more primitive than a Neanderthal.
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/images/prod_davis_large.jpg)
Neanderthal child (model)
(http://mariecachet.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/507806-pn-news-aboriginal-health.jpg)
Australian Aboriginal child
You can see that it's not that easy to tell if the Neanderthal is human or not.
Personally, I think the Neanderthal is human. What you see is a racial difference, not a difference in "kind."
-
Agree! By all accounts Neanderthals were human.
They have the exact number of bones as modern man, differences in the cranial anatomy, bulkier spine, longer arms were all attributed to variations or adaptions based on lifestyle and environmental effects.
They were known to have similar culture of burying the dead, making tools and musical instruments.
On the mitochondrial DNA studies they found that differences in the sequence are at worst Neanderthal dna could be placed on the fringes of the ranges as seen in modern man....still human.
On sir dpogs point that they "don't exist", this is similar to calling a land animal "Walking Whale" in both cases the nomenclature is given to give an impression of different species(neanderthals and humans) and similar ancestry(pakicetus and whales).....so in that sense sir dpogs is correct....they don't exist!
-
Science is slowly showing that neo- darwinian evolution cannot account for changes in enzyme levels to produce functional proteins!
This is a peer reviewed study...
"Enzyme Families--Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family"
Mariclair A. Reeves, Ann K. Gauger, Douglas D. Axe
Abstract
"The functional diversity of enzyme families is thought to have been caused by repeated recruitment events--gene duplications followed by conversions to new functions. However, mathematical models show this can only work if beneficial new functions are achievable by just one or two base changes in the duplicate genes. Having found no convincing demonstration that this is feasible, we previously chose a highly similar pair of E. coli enzymes from the GABA-aminotransferase-like (GAT) family, 2-amino-3-ketobutyrate CoA ligase (Kbl2) and 8-amino-7-oxononanoate synthase (BioF2), and attempted to convert the first to perform the function of the second by site-directed mutagenesis. In the end we were unable to achieve functional conversion by that rational approach. Here we take a complementary approach based on random mutagenesis. Focusing first on single mutations, we prepared mutated libraries of nine genes from the GAT family and tested for BioF2 function in vivo. None of the singly mutated genes had this function. Focusing next on double mutations, we prepared and tested 70% of the 6.5 million possible mutation pairs for Kbl2 and for BIKB, an enzyme described as having both Kbl2 and BioF2 activities in vitro. Again, no BioF2 activity was detected in vivo. Based on these results, we conclude that conversion to BioF2 function would require at least two changes in the starting gene and probably more, since most double mutations do not work for two promising starting genes. The most favorable recruitment scenario would therefore require three genetic changes after the duplication event: two to achieve low-level BioF2 activity and one to boost that activity by overexpression. But even this best case would require about 10^15 years in a natural population, making it unrealistic. Considering this along with the whole body of evidence on enzyme conversions, we think structural similarities among enzymes with distinct functions are better interpreted as supporting shared design principles than shared evolutionary histories."
Wow! This means it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000 years to produce Just TWO base changes in the enzyme chain by darwinian mechanism! That's longer than earth's age!
-
The mere fact that not one person can explain why there is life and order in the universe means every being was born out of creation. Evolution is just the series of events that was triggered by creation.
-
The mere fact that not one person can explain why there is life and order in the universe means every being was born out of creation. Evolution is just the series of events that was triggered by creation.
And your basis? ;D
-
Gumagawa ka ba ng walang pag-iisip?
-
Like painting where the artist conceptualizes the outcome of the painting and executes it with the application of his brush using the the various paint colors available to him, the conceptualization is the creation while the execution is the evolution. Science is merely explaining the process of execution but cannot explain why the artist drew the painting. You can have theories but unless you can communicate directly with the artist, you can never know.
-
The evolutionist does not believe there is a "painter or artist". To put it in your context the evolutionist believe that given enough time the painting will paint or "create" itself.
-
Gumagawa ka ba ng walang pag-iisip?
Please explain kung pano nabuo at nagkaroon ng pag-iisip...
-
Yung nga iyung tanong eh. Ang tanong kung saan nagmula lahat. Kung saan man nagsimula kanya kanya tayo ng pananaw. Kung tama ka man o hindi, hindi na mahalaga iyun. Tutal tao lang naman tayo at ano ba iyung maibabahagi natin dito. Paulit ulit lang mga iba't ibang pananaw. Pa-ikot ikot.
-
Yung nga iyung tanong eh. Ang tanong kung saan nagmula lahat. Kung saan man nagsimula kanya kanya tayo ng pananaw. Kung tama ka man o hindi, hindi na mahalaga iyun. Tutal tao lang naman tayo at ano ba iyung maibabahagi natin dito. Paulit ulit lang mga iba't ibang pananaw. Pa-ikot ikot.
So why post?
-
Gaya mo. Why post din? Alam mo naman pa-ikot ikot lang lahat. Dapat nga mga ganitong topic may limit kasi, ang mga nag po post napapansin either naglalabas lang ng sama ng loob o di kaya naman nag papakita ng grammatical skills o iyung iba naman naglalabas ng kagalingan nila sa debate.
-
Suggestion lang naman ito. Dapat siguro itigil na natin ang topic na ito. Gasgas na talaga itong topic na ito.
-
Gaya mo. Why post din? Alam mo naman pa-ikot ikot lang lahat. Dapat nga mga ganitong topic may limit kasi, ang mga nag po post napapansin either naglalabas lang ng sama ng loob o di kaya naman nag papakita ng grammatical skills o iyung iba naman naglalabas ng kagalingan nila sa debate.
Post ko ay tanong sa conclusion mo. Kaya ako nagpopost to question yung mga taong kung magsalita ay siguradong-sigurado. ;)
At hindi ako nagpopost para ipakita ang mga kagalingan ko. In fact, nagtatanong ako para mapakita ng mga nagpapakita ng kagalingan nila na sila ay karapat-dapat paniwalaan... dahil hindi nila ako ma-sway para maging panig sa mga paniniwala nila. By questioning, baka sakali, but so far all non-sense.
-
Suggestion lang naman ito. Dapat siguro itigil na natin ang topic na ito. Gasgas na talaga itong topic na ito.
Agree ako dyan, pansin mo ba lately puro pro-Creationist ang posts dito?
-
Ano ang conclusion ko? Naniniwala ako sa mas mataas na kapangyarihan. Naniniwala ako na ako ay isang alipin ngunit kahit ako'y alipin kailangan ko ipakita sa nakakataas na kaya kong mabuhay ng maayos at ginagamit ang mga binigay sa akin na kaalaman para makapag lingkod ayon sa kanyang kautusan.
Iisa lang buhay at bawat oras mahalaga kaya bawat sandali gagamitin ko para makapag lingkod sa nakakataas ng maayos.
Sa madaling salita agree ako sa nasasaad sa bibliya.
Pero sana itigil na natin ito kasi parang fad cycle mga kasagutan.
-
Ang katotohanan ay nagiging kasinungalingan kung walang nagsasabi kung ano talaga ang katotohanan... kung alam mo ang katotohanan bakit ka mananahimik...
-
Ilang pahina na itong topic na ito. Dapat ng tumahimik lahat. Iba naman pag usapan natin. Change topic naman, please lang.
-
Ilang pahina na itong topic na ito. Dapat ng tumahimik lahat. Iba naman pag usapan natin. Change topic naman, please lang.
Bawal pong mag change topic kundi, O.T. na. Hehe! :D
-
Bawal pong mag change topic kundi, O.T. na. Hehe! :D
LOL! ;D
-
Oo nga pala ... hihihi
-
With due respect…Sirs Tempter and Rascal
This thread is specific to discussions on evolution and creation and therefore would have at least two sides to the discussions. Each side would naturally have advocates and believers and would express his opinion on the topic to his heart’s content. Besides, a 5 year old thread and 42 pages of discussions is not too long for a topic that spans 4 billion years or so… ;D
*edited*
Lately, most of the post are pro-creation…..maybe because the other side is still looking for topics, scientific research if any, news items etc……to support their views.
Gentlemen, wrongly characterizing other people’s motives and manner of posting is uncalled for and characterizing one’s self as very intelligent but posting “ not to show that intelligence” is false modesty and has no place in this discussion…
If you think “all are non-sense” by all means you have every right NOT to post or open or read this thread. But if you want a friendly, open, non-prejudicial, non-judgmental discussion then you are most welcome.
So, kindly tell me sir temper is my analogy of the “painting, painting itself if given time” with regards to evolution incorrect or non-sense? If it is, then how would you characterize or describe evolution using the painting as an analogy?
You said you advocate evolution and ID, how do you define evolution? If you define evolution as “change through time” then I would agree with that concept… ;)
-
So, kindly tell me sir temper is my analogy of the “painting, painting itself if given time” with regards to evolution incorrect or non-sense? If it is, then how would you characterize or describe evolution using the painting as an analogy?
A painting is created by a being (synthetic), so you can't use that analogy. Use rock formations instead. Were they designed to look that way?
-
A painting is created by a being (synthetic), so you can't use that analogy. Use rock formations instead. Were they designed to look that way?
paano nagkaroon ng hugis ang 3D model... nagawa ito ng 3D printer not by being... paano nagkaroon ng 3D printer... created o naimbento ng isang tao... same sa mga rock formation/shapes... the environment/weather itself ay 3D printer... paano nagkaroon ng environment... is it random ba bakit ganito environment/weather/sorroundings natin or was designed to behave like that... like a code...
kahit tanggalin na natin ang formation ng rock... rock itself how it comes to existence? evolves from a single point? or was designed to be rock and behave like a rock?
but for sure... rock (or rock formation) doesnt evolve and the painting was created/made... :):):)
-
rock formation when left unattended through time
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYFQFP91Qku8KMvA2o5OIxOieCvQUDz4JjtJFvE0MjTXTjj9_A-hmP3-M)
rock formation in the hand of the sculptur (designer)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEvAh7OZ2WvQyXMr7x6Q52iSwqonZhzsZYZaNmWkTZiukpRNT-F1ZFxRzw)
-
A painting is created by a being (synthetic), so you can't use that analogy. Use rock formations instead. Were they designed to look that way?
I beg to disagree, we can certainly use this analogy of a painting just like we can use a car, house, plane and yes rocks to illustrate a point. That of the law of causation, which simply means that things with a begining are influenced or caused by forces outside of itself. In the case of rock formation, sedimentation, gravity, pressure, temperature, elements etc are the factors that caused the formation of rocks....take out all those factors can a rock form itself?
what if we attach a paint brush on the tail of a dog and let it run for millions of years in front of a canvass....and wait for it to paint say a Monalisa........now is this a more accurate analogy of evolution?
-
I beg to disagree, we can certainly use this analogy of a painting just like we can use a car, house, plane and yes rocks to illustrate a point. That of the law of causation, which simply means that things with a begining are influenced or caused by forces outside of itself.
A painting's creator isn't questioned.
In the case of rock formation, sedimentation, gravity, pressure, temperature, elements etc are the factors that caused the formation of rocks....take out all those factors can a rock form itself?
Exactly. But you wouldn't know how it would look like, yes? Unlike the painting or car or whatever else you can think of that is man-made. Or still no?
what if we attach a paint brush on the tail of a dog and let it run for millions of years in front of a canvass....and wait for it to paint say a Monalisa........now is this a more accurate analogy of evolution?
Well, if you can find a dog as smart as Da Vinci you won't need a million years.
-
rock formation when left unattended through time possibly million/billion of years
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYFQFP91Qku8KMvA2o5OIxOieCvQUDz4JjtJFvE0MjTXTjj9_A-hmP3-M)
still... no form or whatsoever
rock formation in the hand of the sculptur (designer)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEvAh7OZ2WvQyXMr7x6Q52iSwqonZhzsZYZaNmWkTZiukpRNT-F1ZFxRzw)
in 15 years... a face emerge from the rock... :):):)
-
A painting's creator isn't questioned.
Exactly. But you wouldn't know how it would look like, yes? Unlike the painting or car or whatever else you can think of that is man-made. Or still no?
Well, if you can find a dog as smart as Da Vinci you won't need a million years.
In the same manner that you won't know how planets, dogs, cats, birds would look like? Where did the concept for these things came from? Cars were made by man, while dogs were made by chance?
Ah, it's evolution that is still looking for that smart dog! Keep looking sir!
-
^
Ah, it's evolution that is still looking for that smart dog! Keep looking sir!
Same way you are looking for God?
But, no, I'm not looking for a smart dog :)
-
^
Same way you are looking for God?
But, no, I'm not looking for a smart dog :)
Sure! Because common sense, experience and more and more scientific research, studies on molecular biology all points to the presence of design in nature.....intelligent design as the cause.
Ah so you're not looking for a smart dog, i take it you mean that even without the smart dog the monalisa will paint itself!
So, you really have more faith in chance.
-
^
Same way you are looking for God?
But, no, I'm not looking for a smart dog :)
We don't have the capacity or an initiative to look/search for God. God reveals Himself through His creation...
-
Sure! Because common sense, experience and more and more scientific research, studies on molecular biology all points to the presence of design in nature.....intelligent design as the cause.
Yeah, if everything was created purposely. But like I said for before, I believe we are one of many possibilities.
Ah so you're not looking for a smart dog, i take it you mean that even without the smart dog the monalisa will paint itself!
So, you really have more faith in chance.
No, I meant I'm not looking for a smart dog. Period.
-
We don't have the capacity or an initiative to look/search for God. God reveals Himself through His creation...
Tama sir, nasa Romans 1:20 yan...
Roman 1:20
New Living Translation
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
King James Bible
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For the secrets of God from the foundation of the world are appearing to his creatures through intelligence, even his power and his eternal Godhead, that they will be without a defense,
-
Nalintekan na! All over again... ;D
-
Nalintekan na! All over again... ;D
;D
-
Yeah, if everything was created purposely. But like I said for before, I believe we are one of many possibilities.
No, I meant I'm not looking for a smart dog. Period.
Because you embrace Evolution which teaches purposeless, random, undirected emergence of life it follows that you doubt there is purpose to life. Evolution must be without plan or purpose because it’s main mechanism is natural selection and random mutation and admitting any sort of purpose is not acceptable. However, purpose or presence of purpose is intricately associated with order. With order come laws, systems and rules. And we see that order in life and the universe, science has discovered laws and rules governing all of life. All the constants and quantities discovered in the universe points to order and purpose.
And most of all based on our experience and achievements purpose and order exists. Every carpenter that builds a house, every engineer that makes a car, every doctor that heals a patient……there is order and purpose.
The mere act of posting on this thread has order and purpose (though some are already complaining about it).
We clearly see the world we are in and there is no reason to doubt that this is our reality, sure there could other possibilities. The mere possibility of other existence does not negate the reality that we are all in now. In this reality we see order and purpose; we see it in the movements of the earth, solar system and the universe.
Thus both the existence of the universe and man’s existence and action…..Purpose and order are clearly manifested!
In the context of “painter-painting” metaphor of creation and “smart dog painter-painter” metaphor for evolution you merely evaded the question and just declared you are “not looking for the dog period”….that is a non-answer answer. I was waiting for you to say that it is wrong and come up w/ your own metaphor to describe evolution in those terms or context….but what I got was as I said a non-answer.
Nalintekan na! All over again... ;D
No problem sir, just get off this crazy never ending merry-go-round! ;D ;D ;D
-
if you're an evolutionist especially an atheist... one attributes you must embrace is believing that ...
everything just exists... no purpose or objectives whtasover...
-
lately ive been reading a lot of postings/replys na laging nababangit yung salitang IDIOT/S! parang okay lang lang pakinggan sa salitang ingles eh, pero pag tinagalog mo( TANGA, GUNGONG, ) eh medyo parang may halong panlalait o pangmamata sa iyong mga kasamahan na hindi ayon sa paniniwala mo! ang nakakapagtataka they are coming from people who share the same standpoint and have parallel views......
-
Because you embrace Evolution which teaches purposeless, random, undirected emergence of life it follows that you doubt there is purpose to life. Evolution must be without plan or purpose because it’s main mechanism is natural selection and random mutation and admitting any sort of purpose is not acceptable. However, purpose or presence of purpose is intricately associated with order. With order come laws, systems and rules. And we see that order in life and the universe, science has discovered laws and rules governing all of life. All the constants and quantities discovered in the universe points to order and purpose.
Ok, I'll bite :) What is the purpose? And please don't quote the Bible because the existence of God is in question in these discussions. Accepting your quotes means the existence of God is accepted as well.
In the context of “painter-painting” metaphor of creation and “smart dog painter-painter” metaphor for evolution you merely evaded the question and just declared you are “not looking for the dog period”….that is a non-answer answer. I was waiting for you to say that it is wrong and come up w/ your own metaphor to describe evolution in those terms or context….but what I got was as I said a non-answer.
No problem sir, just get off this crazy never ending merry-go-round! ;D ;D ;D
I don't recall evading any question. You said keep looking for the smart dog. I said I wasn't looking. And then you said,
" i take it you mean that even without the smart dog the Mona Lisa will paint itself! So, you really have more faith in chance."
And I said, I wasn't looking for a smart dog, period. And I already gave a metaphor right? The rock formations, remember?
-
lately ive been reading a lot of postings/replys na laging nababangit yung salitang IDIOT/S! parang okay lang lang pakinggan sa salitang ingles eh, pero pag tinagalog mo( TANGA, GUNGONG, ) eh medyo parang may halong panlalait o pangmamata sa iyong mga kasamahan na hindi ayon sa paniniwala mo! ang nakakapagtataka they are coming from people who share the same standpoint and have parallel views......
You're also forgetting yun favorite ni Dpogs, BIGOTe. :( Free will? Freedom of speech? Empathy ;D? Evolving marol values? Sabi ng matatanda, there was a time na kapag gumamit ka ng masasamang salita, you will get punished for it.
-
kaya nga... kelan ba natuto ang human species na killing is wrong? sa age ba ng survival of the fittest mahalaga ba ang emphaty o mercy? sa age ba ng natural selection eh hinahayaan na lang ba ng mga superior human species ang mga weak to die?
if we apply atheist worldview... there is no constant right or wrong... depende sa lugar, sa dami ng may gusto, etc... they dont have basis of morality... in evolutionist view all things exist witout purpose and objective...
idiot ang tawag sa mga taong hindi naniniwala sa evolution o hindi pabor sa homosexuality
sa forum na ito, idiot ang tawag sa mga taong naniniwala na there is God :):):)
-
idiot ang tawag sa mga taong naniniwala na there is God :):):)
mischaracterization.
I don't think it's idiotic to believe in a God.
I do think it's idiotic to believe that the world was literally created in seven days as narrated in the Genesis story.
-
To be perfectly honest, if some people say that they believe that evolution and creationism co-exist... that evolution as studied and theorized through science is real, but is directed/was designed by a higher power instead of being purely random... I can get behind that.
Yung tipong extreme view lang that literally believes everything narrated in the Bible is what I find hilarious.
-
To be perfectly honest, if some people say that they believe that evolution and creationism co-exist... that evolution as studied and theorized through science is real, but is directed/was designed by a higher power instead of being purely random... I can get behind that.
It can get random as well, a Divine Being making that possible.
Purpose is something sentient beings should make for themselves, not something that's fated to them.
-
It can get random as well, a Divine Being making that possible. Purpose is something sentient beings should make for themselves, not something that's fated to them.
I agree. I don't get this atheists/evolutionists don't believe in "purpose" crap. So, like, if you have a wife and child... does that mean that living with the purpose to love, care and provide for them are somehow contradictory with not believing in a higher power and evolution? Does this mean that there are no atheist-evolutionist philantrophists that care for the less fortunate members of society with the purpose of making the world a better place to live in? That's some seriously twisted logic thinking right there... :P
-
7 days naman daw, pero hindi man days, God days daw. That is how believers explain, because for them, nothing in the bible is a lie, they are all true, with explanation. For example when God said to Adam and Eve that when they will eat the fruit of knowledge, they will die, they ate, they realized they were naked, they were banished. They did die later though. But the snake told exactly what will happen to them immediately when they eat the fruit. The snake was more direct to the point. But It was true also that they will die.
I also believe evolution and creation co existed also.
-
7 days naman daw, pero hindi man days, God days daw. That is how believers explain, because for them, nothing in the bible is a lie, they are all true, with explanation. For example when God said to Adam and Eve that when they will eat the fruit of knowledge, they will die, they ate, they realized they were naked, they were banished. They did die later though. But the snake told exactly what will happen to them immediately when they eat the fruit. The snake was more direct to the point. But It was true also that they will die.
I also believe evolution and creation co existed also.
i believe in 6 days (24 hours) of creation... idiotic for some pero para sa akin mas idiotic ang maniwala sa idea na everything in universe nabuo because of chance :)
mas maniniwala ako sa 7-year old kong anak na makapag assemble ng sasakyan in 50 years... kesa sa isang matalinong atheist na hahayaan lang sa isang lalagyan lahat ng piyesa at pasasabugin (like bigbang) uulitin ng million of years para makapag assemble ng sasakyan...
-
mas maniniwala ako sa 7-year old kong anak na makapag assemble ng sasakyan in 50 years... kesa sa isang matalinong atheist na hahayaan lang sa isang lalagyan lahat ng piyesa at pasasabugin (like bigbang) uulitin ng million of years para makapag assemble ng sasakyan...
Kahit sino, maniniwala talaga sa sinabi mo ;) Maliban lang dun sa part na yung "matalinong atheist" ang nagsabi na hayaan lang sa isang lalagyan lahat ng piyesa at pasasabugin (like bigbang) uulitin ng million of years para makapag assemble ng sasakyan. Sa 'yo kasi nanggaling yun, at malamang ganun ang pagkakaintindi mo sa lahat ng sinabi ng "matalinong atheist".
-
(https://rymimg.com/lk/l/w/8bea8e7c4409cf5a36ee871b25da2cc2/3986369.jpg)
-
"matalinong atheist".
actually may pagka sarcastic ang pagkakasulat ko niyan :)
-
actually may pagka sarcastic ang pagkakasulat ko niyan :)
Alam namin yun.
-
hahahaha bumblebee tama na di ko na kaya ;D ;D ;D
-
hahahaha bumblebee tama na di ko na kaya ;D ;D ;D
:):):)
-
hahahaha bumblebee tama na di ko na kaya ;D ;D ;D
Okay, okay :)
-
rock formation when left unattended through time possibly million/billion of years
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYFQFP91Qku8KMvA2o5OIxOieCvQUDz4JjtJFvE0MjTXTjj9_A-hmP3-M)
still... no form or whatsoever
rock formation in the hand of the sculptur (designer)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEvAh7OZ2WvQyXMr7x6Q52iSwqonZhzsZYZaNmWkTZiukpRNT-F1ZFxRzw)
in 15 years... a face emerge from the rock... :):):)
-
Ok, I'll bite :) What is the purpose? And please don't quote the Bible because the existence of God is in question in these discussions. Accepting your quotes means the existence of God is accepted as well.
I don't recall evading any question. You said keep looking for the smart dog. I said I wasn't looking. And then you said,
" i take it you mean that even without the smart dog the Mona Lisa will paint itself! So, you really have more faith in chance."
And I said, I wasn't looking for a smart dog, period. And I already gave a metaphor right? The rock formations, remember?
Hahaha sure no bible quotes! It seems that lines between 3 threads are beginning to blur…..creation, atheism and religion. Medyo OT na yata…
Last night, I was helping my daughter to look for quotes on science on google and I found one from a little known scientist and physicist named Albert Einstein, so allow me to quote him instead; “Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind!”
This discussion on purpose stemmed from sir bumblebee’s statement “yeah, if everything were created purposely”. First is the question of “creation”, was it spontaneous or directed?, If your view is spontaneous then the assumption is it was without purpose it just exist. If it was directed then the assumption was there was purpose….that is where the assumption that atheist/evolutionist belief of no purpose in the universe whatsoever. If some says that is “crap” well that is your point of view. The contradiction to me is the claim or belief that Man happened by chance and random event and yet Man’s every action is always motivated by objective and purpose. Accepting purpose in the acts of man while denying purpose in the creation of man, that is not in the realm of scientific research or experiment that is a product of a person’s belief system…..his religion(for a lack of a better word). It’s the religion of atheism.
Just what do we mean when we say purpose or there is purpose. It means there is a goal or objective in mind for every action or creation. Was the existence of purpose in man based on his own decision or is it somehow ingrained in our intellect/spirit and we as sentient beings discovers it? The answer to that question is greatly influenced by the person’s worldview…
Is it logical to think that when a carpenter is building a house in which all the rooms, windows, doors, decors have been built with a particular purpose in mind, while the house itself as a whole has been built without any objective or purpose?
Or is it logical to think that when man was made consisting of various parts like eyes, feet, heart, digestive system, nervous system, circulatory systems all with apparent purpose, but collectively man himself has none?
Furthermore we as people continuously aim and plan every detail of our lives…education, job, work, sports, and yes, we plan our home theater system in great detail…..all these connotes goal, objective….purpose!
Man is both matter and intellect and therefore our purpose in life encompasses both of these aspects of our being. What I’ve mention earlier are mostly in terms of matter.
Now in terms of intellect or spirit(although some may not believe we have one)….I think our main purpose in this life is Stewardship of the earth. We are here to take care of our home/earth, family and neighbor pure and simple…..actions like loving your wife and children, taking care of the environment, feeding the hungry, and looking for peace….are somehow a fulfilment of our purpose even though some will not acknowledge this because of their worldview…
On the metaphor of the painting: First we recognize and accept that a painting exists….like the Monalisa. There are only 3 ways for the painting to exist and be observed; one a painter exists, two Monalisa painted herself, three a smart dog painter exists…since the first is a metaphor for creation, that leaves Evolution with only two options.
Just like not allowing me to use bible quotes, using rock formation is not a valid metaphor since that is part and parcel of the very thing we are thing we are discussing….creation of man and the universe.
-
^Rock formations exist, can be observed and naturally occurring, so it's a valid analogy.
Hindi naman nasagot yung tanong. Ano nga ang purpose ng life in general? Paano mo nasabi na may purpose nga? Ano kinalaman nito sa environment nya? Ginawa ba ang environment nya para sa kanya? Or the corollary? What is the end?
-
On the metaphor of the painting: First we recognize and accept that a painting exists….like the Monalisa. There are only 3 ways for the painting to exist and be observed; one a painter exists, two Monalisa painted herself, three a smart dog painter exists…since the first is a metaphor for creation, that leaves Evolution with only two options.
A Mona Lisa painting does not spontaneously appear, yet painting a Mona Lisa is much simpler than creating life.
The concept is so simple that it does not need any thorough explanation. Why waste your time?
Just like not allowing me to use bible quotes, using rock formation is not a valid metaphor since that is part and parcel of the very thing we are thing we are discussing….creation of man and the universe.
You really need to explain that a rock formation by erosion is not analogous to abiogenesis?
How can simple erosion be analogous to the spontaneous formation of a eukaryotic cell containing hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins, which must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, with a complexity higher than a Cray supercomputer?
Mabuti hindi ka naiiyak... :-X
-
^Rock formations exist, can be observed and naturally occurring, so it's a valid analogy.
Hindi naman nasagot yung tanong. Ano nga ang purpose ng life in general? Paano mo nasabi na may purpose nga? Ano kinalaman nito sa environment nya? Ginawa ba ang environment nya para sa kanya? Or the corollary? What is the end?
Sir, metaphor and not analogy, not the same!
Using Rock formation to compare life.......they both exist correct. But are they really comparable? Hardly!
So using it as an analogy is not also valid!
You are using rock formation to compare to emergence of life both of which you assert "naturally occurs".....well that is hardly a metaphor since you are saying that both are using the same mechanism.....
A metaphor is comparing two unlikely and unrelated objects to highlight their similarities......thus a Mona Lisa compared to Life!
So rock and life......neither a metaphor nor an analogy!
Man's main purpose is Stewardship.....is this not an answer?
If you don't believe there is purpose and you say than man should choose his purpose.........why ask if there is purpose in the first place? If you don't believe or accept that there is purpose then all your other questions are irrelevant!
@sir Barrister..........hahaha nakaka iyak na nga eh!
-
Sir, metaphor and not analogy, not the same!
Talagang meron pang English lesson ano? ;D
Using Rock formation to compare life.......they both exist correct. But are they really comparable? Hardly!
So using it as an analogy is not also valid!
You are using rock formation to compare to emergence of life both of which you assert "naturally occurs".....well that is hardly a metaphor since you are saying that both are using the same mechanism.....
A metaphor is comparing two unlikely and unrelated objects to highlight their similarities......thus a Mona Lisa compared to Life!
So rock and life......neither a metaphor nor an analogy!
The point I was hoping you'd see, is that random events can produce something.
Man's main purpose is Stewardship.....is this not an answer?
If you don't believe there is purpose and you say than man should choose his purpose.........why ask if there is purpose in the first place? If you don't believe or accept that there is purpose then all your other questions are irrelevant!
Kaya ko tinatanong kasi gusto kong maintindihan where you're coming from. Para sa kin, ok naman ID theory mo e. Mahirap lang patunayan kasi my God factor. Ang hindi ko maintindihan ay kung bakit pilit mong ginagamit yung parameters ng ID sa evolution theory, na walang konsepto ng God or purpose.
-
Talagang meron pang English lesson ano? ;D
The point I was hoping you'd see, is that random events can produce something.
Kaya ko tinatanong kasi gusto kong maintindihan where you're coming from. Para sa kin, ok naman ID theory mo e. Mahirap lang patunayan kasi my God factor. Ang hindi ko maintindihan ay kung bakit pilit mong ginagamit yung parameters ng ID sa evolution theory, na walang konsepto ng God or purpose.
Sir, google lang naman yan alam mo na definition and usage ng analogy and metaphor.
Aside from erosion other "random events that produce something" i could come up with are typhoon, earthquake, tornado, tsunami.......all produce chaos and destruction. No random event could produce a dna, bacteria, animal or man.
I think the difficulty in considering ID as a possible cause for life stems from a person's worldview or belief system. ID does not try to identify the cause. It's inference is the presence of a mind or intelligence behind the things we see. Granted that there are religious implications in the theory, what should be clear is that one's belief is separate from the discovery of intelligence. When everyday we intuitively conclude that there is a mind behind everything created by man. Isn't it logical to think also that man was created by a mind?
-
Sir, google lang naman yan alam mo na definition and usage ng analogy and metaphor.
Funny :)
Aside from erosion other "random events that produce something" i could come up with are typhoon, earthquake, tornado, tsunami.......all produce chaos and destruction. No random event could produce a dna, bacteria, animal or man.
According to ID, of course. Let me ask, regarding the design, what's the purpose of
1. viruses?
2. galaxies? Why so many?
3. planets? Palamuti lang?
I think the difficulty in considering ID as a possible cause for life stems from a person's worldview or belief system. ID does not try to identify the cause. It's inference is the presence of a mind or intelligence behind the things we see. Granted that there are religious implications in the theory, what should be clear is that one's belief is separate from the discovery of intelligence. When everyday we intuitively conclude that there is a mind behind everything created by man. Isn't it logical to think also that man was created by a mind?
Like I said, I don't have problems with ID. Why keep lobbying for it?
-
Funny :)
According to ID, of course. Let me ask, regarding the design, what's the purpose of
1. viruses?
2. galaxies? Why so many?
3. planets? Palamuti lang?
Like I said, I don't have problems with ID. Why keep lobbying for it?
On Viruses…designed to cause diseases……not necessarily!
Ok a short lecture muna…hahaha!
Viruses are considered “non-living particles” for several reasons, they don’t grow, can’t reproduce by themselves and have no cells. The “capsid” just contains either rna or dna. Instead the virus will inject the dna or rna into a living cell, and the cell will make copies of the virus which result in the spread of the virus. Sure, diseases like Hepa B, Chicken Pox, AIDS are due to viruses, however the pathogenesis of these diseases is evidence of something gone wrong. It is more a mutation of genes and not evidence of a deliberately designed entity to cause diseases.
In fact majority of viruses cause no harm and now found to serve a major role in ecology and are thought to be essential for life. Without viruses, the genetic revolution according to studies would be impossible. The role or purpose of viruses is closely related to the importance of bacteria, they are in fact part of the so-called life support system. From the cleansing of water supply to fertility of the soil and atmosphere…..these tiny particles make or ensure that our world is stable and conducive to life.
Therefore viruses and bacteria’s main purpose is in fact beneficial to life in general. Only through mutations in host will they then cause diseases in man!
On planets and galactic purpose!
Jupiter has been thought to offer sort of protection for earth against asteroids, they are either sucked by the planet’s gravity or deflected outwards…in general I would think that the planets and galaxies purpose is for man to discover the rules and laws of the universe….Imagine it there is nothing in the sky…only perpetual darkness! Can we as man speculate on how our planet was formed without using as reference other celestial bodies?
Our sun and the milky way are average size compared to other stars and galaxies and the current size of our universe is billions of light years and still growing and I guess people would reasonably think it’s overkill! But that is from our own limited perception…
To say that it is too large or contains so many galaxies is to assume knowing the purpose of the mind that created the universe. Although scriptures did indicate that it was created as a place to live in. the ultimate purpose is beyond our puny mind to comprehend. But my guess on the purpose would be that it is venue to demonstrate the power and authority of the intelligence that created the universe!
The size of the universe could not be much smaller in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred in the big bang. The formation of rocky planets would not have occurred if not for the presence of helium at the beginning of the universe in the big bang. The universe is 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium. This combination occurred in what is called Big bang nucleosynthesis which apparently occurred a few minutes after the big bang! This lead to the production of heavy elements in stars which in turn produce rocky planets. Without this brief period it would all be hydrogen and no planets could be formed. The opposite is also true that the universe could not be much more massive than it is because the universe would collapse on itself before any planets were ever formed! It was calculated that if the universe was added with a particle equivalent to a SINGLE GRAIN OF SAND…LIFE WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE!
Thus for this reason the universe is massive and contains just the right amount materials to form planets and the emergence of life as we know it.
Therefore for both spiritual (though this is not part of the question) and physical reasons fulfillment of the laws of physics and other laws governing the universe is the reason why we have a massive universe w/ many galaxies in it. Also think of the universe as a massive Laboratory Room for man to use his intelligence to discover its mysteries.
Not continuously lobbying I was merely giving an opinion based on your previous statement…
-
Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion ???
hmmmmmmm
NOBODY KNOWS!!!!!!
-
Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion ???
hmmmmmmm
NOBODY KNOWS!!!!!!
Nobody knows?
Sir, kung ikaw hindi mo alam, ok lang yon. Pero wag mo na kaming idamay... :D
-
Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion ???
hmmmmmmm
NOBODY KNOWS!!!!!!
Sir bosyo, kindly speak for yourself.
The following are just 10 of the things we know of considered as problems of Darwinian Evolution(evolution.org)
Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life"
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA"
These problems are by no means minor or could be dismissed as mere speculations or a product of a creationist active imagination because these problems strikes at the core of the theory of evolution.