Page 14 of 34 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 675
  1. #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Can you show me a 6000+ year old plant?
    1. The World's Oldest Living Thing


    Up until the late 1970's, the oldest living thing was thought to be a bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva), living for nearly 5,000 years high in the White Mountains of California and the Snake Range of eastern Nevada. Then, Dr. Frank Vasek of the University of California at Riverside investigated the strange, circular growth patterns of a flowering shrub called creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in the Mojave Desert. Dr. Vasek proved that each giant ring of shrubs came from its own ancestral shrub that once grew from the center of the ring. The interesting circular growth pattern can be explained by examining sections of creosote bush stumps (stem crowns) at the base of the shrubs.


    The original stem crown splits and fragments into sections. As the segments continue to grow outwardly (away from the center) they produce new branches along their outer edge. This is like an expanding tree trunk with the center wood dying and rotting away, with only the outer (peripheral) tissue remaining alive and producing branches.

    Over thousands of years the center wood dies and rots away, leaving a barren area surrounded by a circular ring of shrubs. One of the oldest shrub rings is 50 feet (15 m) in diameter. It has been estimated that it started from a seed nearly 12,000 years ago. During its lifetime the last major period of glaciation in North America (Wisconsin Glaciation) came to an end, the great Egyptian and Mayan pyramids were built, the first human walked on the moon, routine satellites and manned spaceships orbited the earth...and the shrub is still living.


    Since the creosote bush stump (crown) splits vegetatively into genetically identical fragments, these sections could technically be referred to as clones; however, the clone scenario opens up a whole new category for the world's oldest living thing. For example, forests of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in North America cover hundreds of acres. In one dense stand covering more than 100 acres, researchers discovered that all the trees were essentially genetically identical and shared a common root system. This massive clonal colony has spread across meadows and mountain slopes for many centuries. Another massive and very ancient plant clone in North America is the huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera), a member of the heath family (Ericaceae). According to the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (1997), a rare and endangered shrub of the protea family (Proteaceae) called King's Holly (Lomatia tasmanica) may be the oldest plant clone in the world. The plants appear to be sterile triploids incapable of producing viable seeds. The clonal thickets reproduce vegetatively by root suckering and have been estimated to be at least 43,000 years old. Fossil leaves found in a late Pleistocene deposit may be genetically identical to present-day plants. Another ancient tree from southern Tasmania is the huon pine (Lagarostrobos franklinii), a member of the Podocarpaceae. Some individuals growing in deep canyons are thought to be at least 2,000 years old. These are not clonal populations, they are the actual trees that lived during the time of Christ.

    Many crustose rock lichens spend most of their lives in a desiccated state and have extremely slow annual growth rates. On massive domes and rugged peaks of the Sierra Nevada, large colonies of the lime-green map lichen (Rhizocarpon geographicum), ashy gray Aspicilia cinerea, and orange Caloplaca saxicola may be thousands of years old. In fact, the colorful chartreuse rock lichen Acarospora chlorophana may only grow a few millimeters in a century. One has only to gaze at the spectacular panoramas of glacier-carved granite throughout the Sierra Nevada to appreciate the magnitude of growth and the great age of some of these lichen colonies
    http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm#oldest

    Surur
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post

    By "right and wrong" - do you mean societal guidelines, or do you mean moral issues?

    As for how did we come up with right and wrong - again, it think the codification of "right and wrong" came about as a combination of a means to better regulate and preserve society/culture, as well as a realization about our ability to empathize with others, and an ability to understand how our action effect others.

    Now, as I said, society and culture can be powerful forces in some cases overwhelming some of these "rights and wrongs." Some society or cultures may have created traditions at various times that may go against some of the idea of an inherent morality.


    Chris
    Kudos!
    While reading this, I realized it would make a great argument for me in the partial birth abortion thread.

    Mind if I borrow/quote it over there?? ;-)
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Kudos!
    While reading this, I realized it would make a great argument for me in the partial birth abortion thread.

    Mind if I borrow/quote it over there?? ;-)

    Depends which side you are arguing.

    Actually, feel free to quote it. It is up to me to see if I feel I am being misquoted or misunderstood.

    Chris
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Creationism is a "world view", evolution is science.

    Surur
    I respectfully disagree.





    Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
    science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
    especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but
    wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
    there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.

    As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
    essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they
    themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
    they _believe_ it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something
    one "believes." Science is knowledge -- that which can be demonstrated
    and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested;
    it can only be believed.

    For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described
    modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most
    of us as part of our training." A prominent British biologist, a
    Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of
    Darwin's _Origin of Species_, said that "belief in the theory of
    evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation," with
    evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our
    interpretation of nature."G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical
    belief."

    Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls
    evolution "man's world view today." Sir Julian Huxley, probably the
    outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as a
    universal and all-pervading process" and, in fact, nothing less than "the
    whole of reality." A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present
    day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was
    probably the nation's leading evolutionist at the time of his death in
    1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of the
    notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin:

    The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according
    to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted
    from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general
    postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must
    henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be
    thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all
    facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.'

    The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following
    conclusion:

    In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
    almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
    'bend' their observations to fit in with it.

    The man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist," although
    himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth
    of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us."
    Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
    Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
    today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge," saying
    that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed
    truth." In another address he called evolution "story telling."

    All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's
    foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they
    use in describing evolution:

    Evolutionary dogma
    A satisfactory faith
    Man's world view
    All-pervading process
    The whole of reality
    Metaphysical belief
    A scientific religion
    The myth of evolution
    Anti-knowledge
    Revealed truth
    An illuminating light
    Story-telling



    Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life."
    Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One
    does not call the law of gravity, for example, "a satisfactory faith,"
    nor speak of the laws of thermodynamics as "dogma." Evolution is,
    indeed, a grand world view, but it is _not_ science. Its very
    comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As
    Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be
    fitted into it. --No one can think of ways in which to test it."


    In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not
    surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based
    on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to
    teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it
    supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of
    evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

    The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It
    has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and
    philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism,
    gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All
    beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe,
    presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are
    fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and
    forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of
    the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and
    goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form
    (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may
    themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern
    scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different
    varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential
    feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of
    all things.

    In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world
    religions -- Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. --
    are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems
    as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal
    varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as
    most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution.

    All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching
    from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are
    already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of
    evolutionary "science." In the modern school of course, this teaching
    mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents
    claim to be a "non-theistic religion." It should also be recalled that
    such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and
    anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based
    on what they regard as scientific evolutionism. If creation is excluded
    from the schools because it is compatible with Christian
    "fundamentalism," should not evolution also be banned since it is the
    basis of communism and nazism?




    Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground
    that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the
    evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any
    scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time
    defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity,
    gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking
    evolution was tantamount to attacking science!


    The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary
    interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of
    real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.W. Harper comments
    on this subject as follows:

    It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern
    biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly
    disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It
    would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in
    science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very
    important but have in fact been promoted to a position of
    ineffectuality.

    The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but,
    no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of _Science
    News_. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal
    was commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing
    of what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty
    years.

    Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments
    which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to
    evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

    (1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in
    fruit flies.

    (2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic
    information

    (3). 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology.

    (4). 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA.

    (5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code.

    (6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant
    DNA molecules.

    Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and
    function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these
    concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the
    remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation
    (since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of
    conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee
    reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the
    two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all
    known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to
    the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed
    an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved
    and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic
    physical laws.
  5. #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    I respectfully disagree.


    Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
    science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
    especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but
    wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
    there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
    This is not true. What is the breeding of animals except for evolution with artificial selection?

    How do you think the variety of flowers, dogs or farm animals were created? You start with a base population, a sharp-eyed cultivator sports a random mutation which caused a beneficial (to the farmer) trait, the animal gets selected and given a reproductive advantage by being bred by the farmer, the trait spreads to an increasing number of the population and eventually breeds true.

    If you agree that the above is how breeding works, how is this different from natural selection in the wild?

    Surur
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
    science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
    especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but
    wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
    there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
    Wrong, it is tested, it has been tested, both in field (natural) conditions as well as laboratory conditions. We have seen new species emerge, we have seen species change in response to evolutionary pressure, it happens.

    As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
    essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they
    themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
    they _believe_ it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something
    one "believes." Science is knowledge -- that which can be demonstrated
    and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested;
    it can only be believed.
    Again wrong, but I went over that previous section.

    So according to you, there is a difference between knowledge, and beleiving knowledge? That makes no sense! Do you believe the Earth is round? Or is that "knowledge"? Of course anyone can discount any so called fact or knowledge, the question is how or why they do so. Scientists BELIEVE in evolution because of evidence that support the theory. Some people don't because it goes against their religious views.


    I am not really sure what you are trying to say with the idea that evolution is a "world view" or not (or for that matter ,what some people are trying to argue against it). I will say this - evolution is a fundamental theory in biology that describes the process of change over time. It describe the process by which organisms change, and what can cause that change. In that sense, it is a fundamental paradigm for biology, and since we are...well...living organisms, I suppose you could interprate that to be a world view or something.


    Keep in mind, however, applying the phrase "evolution" to things like the physical changes observed in the universe or cosmos is ENTIRELY different from using the term evolution in the biological sense. In a grand Universal sense, "evolution" simply means change. But in a biological sense, evolution refers to a specific process. To equate the two is wrong. Biological evolution is NOT the same that as the process a star undergoas as it ages, or how universes change over time.

    All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching
    from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are
    already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of
    evolutionary "science."
    No one here has said to ban creationist teaching (at least to my knowledge). What we have said is that it is not SCIENCE, and should not be taught as such.

    Nice quotes around science, btw.

    should not evolution also be banned since it is the
    basis of communism and nazism?
    Evolution is the basis for communism and nazism?!?!?

    I...I...I...am speechless!




    Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground
    that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the
    evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any
    scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time
    defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity,
    gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking
    evolution was tantamount to attacking science!
    If you are referring to me, I was specifically talking about attacking evolution as a THEORY. IE, saying "it is only a theory" or something silly like that. I was pointing out that most scientific ideas are, at best, theories.


    The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary
    interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of
    real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.W. Harper comments
    on this subject as follows:

    It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern
    biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly
    disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It
    would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in
    science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very
    important but have in fact been promoted to a position of
    ineffectuality.
    As a biologist, I HEARTILY disagree. Evolution is one of the cornerstones of biology. Without it, many braches (including what I do - ecology and population biology) would be completely devoid of any ability to understand the process we study.

    You know...I was going to respond to the rest, but I just don't have time now.

    Chris
    Last edited by cjvitek; 04/27/2007 at 01:56 PM.
  7. #267  
    I am not attacking anyone, I would never do that. If I did in any way I am sorry.
  8. #268  
    I kind of agree with you on the statement about communism and nazism.
    Sorry
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    I kind of agree with you on the statement about communism and nazism.
    Sorry
    Exactly. We all know that atheism are their bases. Didn't anyone learn anything from Joe McCarthy or why 'under god' was added to a public school-directed loyalty oath?
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/27/2007 at 01:43 PM.
  10. #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Just because you know how something will turn out, does not mean that the person doesn't make their own choices on how things happen.
    Following your logic, if God knew before hand that Adam/Eve were going to eat from the tree, what happens to God's omniscience had they chosen not to?
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 04/27/2007 at 02:55 PM.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
    .
    .
    .
    This is ovbiously a theistic view on the controversy and is, as expected, very slanted.

    First, I agree that for some evolution has become a "quasi-religious" believe. As I said earlier, it has become the surrogate battleground between theistic and atheistic phylosophies.

    Second, the theory of evolution IS a scientific FACT, evolutionary changes are observed in the natural world constantly and the empirical evidence of this is clear and undeniable. Evolution explains how a given species has evolved and transformed over millenia through spontaneous mutations and environmental pressures to select the most favorable organisms for continued survival and reproduction. What it does not explain is where or how life began and that is the crux of the Creation debates.

    Enter the primeval soup, a collection of scientific hypothesis regarding scenarios under which life may have spontaneously come to be given the right mixture of basic chemical compounds, energy and most importantly time (lots of it!). This is an unproven theoretical framework that has as many proponents as it has critics.

    One of the major opposing views is the biogenesis construct which (if I understood correctly) rejects the idea of life arising from non-life spontaneously and establishes the need of an external "creating" force; this idea goes vis-á-vis with the Theory of Intelligent Design.

    I quite often tend to forget this distinction and refer to all of it as the Theory of Evolution (my mistake).
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  12. #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    What it does not explain is where or how life began and that is the crux of the Creation debates.
    I think you may be wrong. Thats only the debate of the defeated creationist, who has been worn down into accepting as true what scientists accept as true, and is finding God in the last unknown questions. The believe in the God of the Unanswerable Questions. Most creationists, impressed that the scientists have eventually been cornered, feel they are now completely discredited, and now nothing they say is valid or have merit (hence young earth creationists).

    I personally believe if you can explain 95% of existence by using science you dont need a tiny god for the rest.

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 04/28/2007 at 01:53 AM.
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I think you may be wrong.
    Has happened to me many times...

    I personally believe if you can explain 95% of existence by using science you dont need a tiny god for the rest.
    Agreed! I would never explain the unknown with the super-natural.
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 04/27/2007 at 08:04 PM.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  14. #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Radioisotope dating is faulty at best.

    In layman's terms it supposedly can tell when the last time a rock solidified from a molten state by measuring different isotopes found within the rock sample. Rock samples taken from the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens were dated to be between 350,000 and 2.5 million years old when in actuality the rock had formed from a molten state just 10 years before. The tests were performed by the Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA.

    http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm
    You are doing yourself and your cause a massive disservice by quoting such bogus pseudo-scientific "data". It is a well known fact that the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples which are less than a few thousand years old. It's like using a calendar to measure the time for a 100 meter sprint race. Please find more details here: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/m..._dacite_kh.htm

    Care to learn more? "Personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. (the author of the article quoted by you). This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.")...

    The work you quoted is not more than a cheap trick, you could also call it a fraud, or an elaborate way of lying (stating things you know - or should know - to be wrong). Lying is a sin, as you know.

    There is no way around it: numerous totally independent methods prove beyond any resonable doubt that earth (and the universe) is several billions of years old (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Age and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe).

    If you indeed insist, based on your belief system, that earth is only a few thousand years old, please let us know:

    1. Why did your god take so much care to make earth seem (by various independent methods, see quotes above) about 4 or 5 billion years old, and the universe about 13 to 14 billion years?

    2. Why would god be interested in fooling humanity regarding the apparent age of earth? Isn't it far more likely that your totally literal interpretation of the bible is not god's intention?

    3. Why is your interpretation the correct one and the interpretation of the great majority of Christians (who believe earth to be far older than a few thousand years) wrong?

    4. Why did god give us a brain if we are not supposed to use it and to learn about the world?
    Last edited by clulup; 04/29/2007 at 04:11 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15.    #275  
    Alright, let's see what's gone on during the weekend.

    Let's talk about evolution real quick. We have talked and talked and talked about a species changing into another species, but we have yet to talk about a genus changing into another genus. Remember, when scientifically naming living things, each thing has two names. A genus and a species. A wolf, for example is Canis Lupus. Now, Canis represents all members of the dog family. According to evolution, there should be changes from one genus to another. Can anyone provide evidence of this for me?

    Second, as far as radioisotope dating is concerned, it's amazing that rocks have to be a certain age before they can be dated. That means that any rock you could ever find will obviously be over 2 million years old, right? I find the methods of calibration for K-Ar dating to be kind of biased. How can a person know how old a rock is (in the millions of years), if there is no historical proof of it? Most rock layers are dated by the fossils found in them, and the fossils dated by the rock layer, depending upon what layer they expect to find those fossils in.

    clulup, your questions (two of which are the same, and yet numbered differently) are interesting.
    1&2. Who says that God made the universe to look billions of years old? How do we know what a 'young' or 'old' universe looks like? Have any formed during the past few thousands of years? What if what we think an old universe looks like is actually what a young universe looks like? What if many of our 'scientific facts' are wrong? As it was said before, many of the top scientists in the world knew that the earth was flat just a few hundred years ago. The prophet Isaiah wrote about a round earth in 739 B.C. (Isaiah 40:22). What scientists "know" changes very frequently (as was stated earlier in this thread). How then can we trust anything they say? What if something is 'discovered' in the next few years that changes the theory of evolution again? Will you all jump on that new bandwagon?

    3. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and thus I believe when it says He created the earth in 6 days, He did it in 6 days. I do not know for sure if I am right or wrong. I am basing my belief on the evidence at hand.

    4. God wants us to learn about the world! He wants us to use our brain! But, unfortunately, sometimes when man uses his brain, he comes up with the wrong answers. Examples:

    -for many centuries illnesses were treated by blood-letting (opening a vein so that the "bad blood" could be released). If these doctors had read the Bible, they would know that "the life is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).

    -decades ago doctors regarded the tonsils as "throw away" organs. A bi-product of evolution. Recently we have discovered that they do play an important part in our immune system. If they would have looked in the Bible they would know that God created man, and therefore there is a purpose for eveything in him.

    These scientists used their brains to learn about the world and came to the wrong conclusions. What's to say that the wrong conclusions are not being come up with today?
  16. #276  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Let's talk about evolution real quick. We have talked and talked and talked about a species changing into another species, but we have yet to talk about a genus changing into another genus. Remember, when scientifically naming living things, each thing has two names. A genus and a species. A wolf, for example is Canis Lupus. Now, Canis represents all members of the dog family. According to evolution, there should be changes from one genus to another. Can anyone provide evidence of this for me?
    I'll just tackle this one. Animals dont change into other contemporaneous animals. Thats would be like you changing into George Bush. What happens is that animals are descendant from common ancestors, in the same way that you can be related to George Bush 5 generations ago, and still currently by quite distant/different from him. The more different the animal is, the further you will go back. If we look at your relation to Mao we will have to go back much further than 5 generations, and probably 500.



    In that way modern wolves and dogs are closely related, by only a few 100 generations, and modern dogs and cats are also related, by many 1000 generations.



    Evolution is a tree, and we are all twigs on the branches, connected by bigger branches all the way to a common trunk, and at the bottom is the very first life on this earth.

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 04/30/2007 at 12:25 PM.
  17.    #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I'll just tackle this one. Animals dont change into other contemporaneous animals. Thats would be like you changing into George Bush. What happens is that animals are descendant from common ancestors, in the same way that you can be related to George Bush 5 generations ago, and still currently by quite distant/different from him. The more different the animal is, the further you will go back. If we look at your relation to Mao we will have to go back much further than 5 generations, and probably 500.

    In that way modern wolves and dogs are closely related, by only a few 100 generations, and modern dogs and cats are also related, by many 1000 generations.



    Surur
    In your example, though, neither Mao nor George are a different Genus, nor are they even a different species than I.

    Also, by your own admission, you state that "Animals dont change into other contemporaneous animals". If that were the case, only one type of animal in the world would exist. As soon as a cat and a dog (or even their ancestors) were born at the same time, they would negate your statement.
  18. #278  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    In your example, though, neither Mao nor George are a different Genus, nor are they even a different species than I.

    Also, by your own admission, you state that "Animals dont change into other contemporaneous animals". If that were the case, only one type of animal in the world would exist. As soon as a cat and a dog (or even their ancestors) were born at the same time, they would negate your statement.
    The Mao example was an analogy. It does illustrate the point that, when living things are very different, we have to go further back in time to their common ancestor. I assume you can accept that for people, and I hope you understand that this is the way it works for all life, just on much longer time scales.

    The last part I dont quite understand. There is no accounting going on in life. Animals at different stages of evolutionary development can co-exist at the same time quite fine, just like you wont suddenly disappear when your children are born.

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 04/30/2007 at 12:52 PM.
  19. #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Animals dont change into other contemporaneous animals. ...
    Surur
    What is an "animal"?
  20. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    What is an "animal"?
    Thats not a relevant question, unless you are building to a point.

    Surur

Posting Permissions