Millions of years ago ! ?

[ivanc0]

And this is your evidence... the fact that you resemble a chicken?

Well I am going to get me some Kentucky to celebrate this mind boggling revelation...

You did not get the Idea, the best prove of evolution is the development of embryos as they reply evolution in the reach of its final target,
DNA have instructions to turn off unneeded parts at the right time, some times this process fail, and a human is born with tail or other rare features, not only human, any animal.

Keep laughing is good for your health.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

You did not get the Idea, the best prove of evolution is the development of embryos as they reply evolution in the reach of its final target,
DNA have instructions to turn off unneeded parts at the right time, some times this process fail, and a human is born with tail or other rare features, not only human, any animal.

Keep laughing is good for your health.

I am not joking. I am going to get me some chicken...

 

[Tintin]

You did not get the Idea, the best prove of evolution is the development of embryos as they reply evolution in the reach of its final target,
DNA have instructions to turn off unneeded parts at the right time, some times this process fail, and a human is born with tail or other rare features, not only human, any animal.

Keep laughing is good for your health.

Okay, you keep providing Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawing comparisons as proof for evolution, and we'll keep laughing at you. Haven't you heard? Laughter is good for your health.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

We must get one of the girls in here to henpeck Ivan. He will love that...

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The evolution of the chip

 

[MaranathaSoonQuick]

I don't believe all that evolutionary stuff, though the macro-adaptive perhaps, even though i don't feel it is evolutionary.

Also, just to add I should've spaced out my text in the last post because when I said age didn't matter it didn't apply to human reproduction, it was for the earth's age.

 

[Percepi]

I am not joking. I am going to get me some chicken...

Ah, you're no different from the flat earthers of the past who would have likely cracked jokes about how we would have fallen off of a round earth. You use humor to jab at the obvious flaws with evolution, failing to realize that those very flaws you mock don't actually represent evolution! For example, the image you posted mocks the idea that we evolved from modern ape. Jokes on you, evolution never claimed we evolved from modern ape.

Macro evolution assumptions:

1) Uniformitarianism... the rate of growth/change is the same now as it has always been. I think it was Charles Lyell who got in to this idea.

I love when creationists attack outdated information. Evolution does not assume species evolved at a consistent, gradual, rate. There are examples of what appears to be punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is still some debate involving punctuated equilibrium, but the fact remains that evolution doesn't make assumptions.

2) One species actually becoming a different species. Adapation-- that is real.. this is variations in species... different dogs.. different cats.. different horse etc...

But there are no COGS or DATS

Evolution does NOT assume that any species can produce offspring with any other species. So you're wrong again.

3) To begin with, when people were postulating millions of years.. they didn't have the tools to measure it! It was a GUESS. They were assuming things and then looking for what would confirm it.

Scientists have hypothesized numerous different ages. As soon as we obtained the tools to measure the earth's age, it became clear that the Earth is millions of years old. So it doesn't matter if these scientists based their hypothesis on an educated guess, it turned out that they were fairly correct about the age of the earth. This is what you would expect.

The irony is that creationists do EXACTLY as you claim. They try to fit the evidence around a young earth. Anything that doesn't work to support a young earth is rejected or manipulated. Evolution doesn't have this problem. If evolution occurred in a few thousand years, there would be NO REASON for scientists to reject this notion. But the evidence supports an old earth, unfortunate for creationists.

4) Most evolutionary theory would eliminate the possibility of supernatural intervention from the very outset.

Not necessarily. It would just change the means in which divine inspiration occurred.

So the assumption is that the supernatural can't happen before even looking at the science. Is this fair?

For science to acknowledge the supernatural, the supernatural must be proven first. Otherwise, it is left out of the equation. Since the supernatural is, by definition, something that can't be observed - there's no way to prove whether or not it exists. Science is evidence based, so the supernatural just doesn't fit and can not fit.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Ah, you're no different from the flat earthers of the past who would have likely cracked jokes about how we would have fallen off of a round earth. You use humor to jab at the obvious flaws with evolution, failing to realize that those very flaws you mock don't actually represent evolution! For example, the image you posted mocks the idea that we evolved from modern ape. Jokes on you, evolution never claimed we evolved from modern ape.

Just like your view on the Bible, I don't really care to much about evolution and the claims made by its followers. To me it is senseless to try have an intelligent conversation with somebody about something they don't care about.

 

[Percepi]

Okay, you keep providing Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawing comparisons as proof for evolution, and we'll keep laughing at you. Haven't you heard? Laughter is good for your health.

You honestly think we're referring to Haeckel's drawings as proof?! Get with the times, it's the year 2015!

Haeckel admitted a large number of his drawings were faked due to lack of visual references. The scientific community did not just role with the drawings anyway, they criticized Haeckel and put a massive black mark on his career. Regardless of what Haeckel did, we DID end up with evidence of similarities between embryos of different species.

Please watch the following video. It immediately discusses Haeckel's drawings so there's no excuse to not watch any of it.

[video=youtube;myfifz3C0mI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI&index=13&list=PL126AFB53A6F002 CC[/video]

Many creationists argue that textbooks still use Haeckel's drawings - which is something I do need to investigate further. If textbooks are using the drawings, then I'll openly admit that there is an issue that needs fixed. But I do know that many textbooks use REAL IMAGES of embryos. I can verify that not all text books are relying on Haeckel's drawings. Regardless of what the textbooks show, scientists aren't relying on Haeckel's drawings, they're relying on actual photographs.

Hopefully we learned something today so this anti-evolution argument can be buried away.

 

[Tintin]

Ah, the Flat Earth shtick? How original. I hope you realise it was the pagans and some atheists, not most Christians, that believed such claptrap. Ever. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Humans evolving from the common ancestor of an ape is still pretty close to humans evolving from an ape. Both are impossiblities.

 

[weakness]

All SCRIPTURE is given by Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for instruction in Righteousness:

2 Timothy 3

---------> OT - NT ALL given by Inspiration by God.... looks like ye might have to trade in your 'stones' for SOME INSPIRATION?? EH? do those pockets of Un belief go purdy deep? mmmmmm Un belief... so much of that.. Maybe God can Inspire you someday unto the Truth.. until then, un belief will continue to deepen those pockets, and that is not a GOOD THING! indeed!

​ Even if Genesis is not a historical account , it would and is profitable for Inspiration reproof and doctrine, and not necessarily less or not inspired

 

[Percepi]

Just like your view on the Bible, I don't really care to much about evolution and the claims made by its followers. To me it is senseless to try have an intelligent conversation with somebody about something they don't care about.

Why did you dis yourself?

Regardless, if you don't care to learn about evolution - don't comment about evolution. If I make a comment about the Bible and someone tells me I'm wrong, I'm interested in learning how I'm wrong so I may correct myself in the future.

 

[wincam]

Ah, the Flat Earth shtick? How original. I hope you realise it was the pagans and some atheists, not most Christians, that believed such claptrap. Ever. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Humans evolving from the common ancestor of an ape is still pretty close to humans evolving from an ape. Both are impossiblities.

not only that but it was the so called scientists of the day that believed that the earth was flat and not a geo spheroid - what the early Christians believed was that the earth was created perfect that is flat and smooth and level with no obstacles like high mountains or deep chasms etc - since simple cannot evolve into complex but via entropy complex can devolve to simple it is more likely humans devolved to apes - wincam

 

[Percepi]

Ah, the Flat Earth shtick? How original. I hope you realise it was the pagans and some atheists, not most Christians, that believed such claptrap. Ever. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Humans evolving from the common ancestor of an ape is still pretty close to humans evolving from an ape. Both are impossiblities.

Theism and atheism merely refers to whether or not someone believes in one or more gods. I'll openly admit that not all atheists are scientifically literate. So even if what you said was true, so what?

I compared Gandalf to a flat earther as an analogy to help demonstrate how people who criticize science often don't understand the science they criticize. So your comment really doesn't matter because it doesn't address the conversation at hand - it's a total strawman.

 

[Percepi]

not only that but it was the so called scientists of the day that believed that the earth was flat and not a geo spheroid - what the early Christians believed was that the earth was created perfect that is flat and smooth and level with no obstacles like high mountains or deep chasms etc - since simple cannot evolve into complex but via entropy complex can devolve to simple it is more likely humans devolved to apes - wincam

Who were these "so called scientists"?

We discovered the Earth was round before establishing what science even is... which makes your claim completely false.

 

[wincam]

Ah, you're no different from the flat earthers of the past who would have likely cracked jokes about how we would have fallen off of a round earth. You use humor to jab at the obvious flaws with evolution, failing to realize that those very flaws you mock don't actually represent evolution! For example, the image you posted mocks the idea that we evolved from modern ape. Jokes on you, evolution never claimed we evolved from modern ape.



I love when creationists attack outdated information. Evolution does not assume species evolved at a consistent, gradual, rate. There are examples of what appears to be punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is still some debate involving punctuated equilibrium, but the fact remains that evolution doesn't make assumptions.



Evolution does NOT assume that any species can produce offspring with any other species. So you're wrong again.



Scientists have hypothesized numerous different ages. As soon as we obtained the tools to measure the earth's age, it became clear that the Earth is millions of years old. So it doesn't matter if these scientists based their hypothesis on an educated guess, it turned out that they were fairly correct about the age of the earth. This is what you would expect.

The irony is that creationists do EXACTLY as you claim. They try to fit the evidence around a young earth. Anything that doesn't work to support a young earth is rejected or manipulated. Evolution doesn't have this problem. If evolution occurred in a few thousand years, there would be NO REASON for scientists to reject this notion. But the evidence supports an old earth, unfortunate for creationists.



Not necessarily. It would just change the means in which divine inspiration occurred.



For science to acknowledge the supernatural, the supernatural must be proven first. Otherwise, it is left out of the equation. Since the supernatural is, by definition, something that can't be observed - there's no way to prove whether or not it exists. Science is evidence based, so the supernatural just doesn't fit and can not fit.

something that definitely cannot be observed is that once upon a time there was nothing and that this nothing became something and then everything nor can origins evolution, that supposedly happened millions of years ago, be observed - wincam

 

[Percepi]

something that definitely cannot be observed is that once upon a time there was nothing and that this nothing became something and then everything nor can origins evolution, that supposedly happened millions of years ago, be observed - wincam

You go home to find your window smashed in and numerous possessions missing. You call the police and they ask you, "Did you see what happened?" You respond, "No, but the window is smashed in and a bunch of my stuff is missing. My front door was even open when I returned home." The police laugh at you, "Well, how do you know there was a robbery if you didn't observe it?" Then, they hang up on you.

If you want to argue that there's evidence of a robbery, then you must forfeit your claim that evolution can only be proven by being directly observed. This is because evidence can be used to make inferences.

 

[weakness]

You did not understand one thing I just explained to you. What I am showing you is how scripture represents the nature of God. Scripture does not represent God as a physical being. Do not confuse anthropomorphic theophanies with the unseen nature of God. Revelation is limited because of the limited capacity of the human mind to comprehend things it cannot envision and because of the inability of human language to explain things of the non-natural world. Revelation about God is very often anthropomorphic. This is because man can only understand that with which he has an experiential frame of reference. In order for God to reveal himself in scripture, he uses human language to present himself to us in terms with which we are all familiar and to which each of us can relate based on our own individual experiences. For example, in his relationship to man God speaks of himself as father, friend, shepherd, master, judge, king, and husband. He speaks of such physical traits as hair, wings, thigh, hand, arm, heart, and bosom. He speaks of character traits such as love, knowledge, wisdom, hate, will, anger, mercy, tenderness, and compassion. We are all familiar with these terms and can relate to them based on our own experiences, but only to a limited degree. We can only understand these terms to the degree that each of us experiences them at the personal level. This means that each of us will have developed different levels of understanding about each of these concepts. Regardless of one’s level of understanding of these terms, we can never fully understand them to the degree that they relate to God. I am not sure I need to go any deeper with you on this matter because yo do not seem to understand what I talking about. Ifu you are not getting this you are certainly not going to grasp what follows.

​ I think Jesus does represent God as a physical being, In all points tempted as we were.And we can see in Jesus responses to life as God would respond to physical life.

 

[VioletReigns]

First, I hope we’ve at least established that evolution is a theory. Correct? It’s not observational science because we have to rely on facts we now have to come to a conclusion about the past. And not all evolutionists agree on their fact-findings. But neither do creationists. So we must all agree that whether you are a Christian or not, what we actually have are various hypotheses.

For crying out loud, Christians can’t even agree on when is the Sabbath Day, let alone whether or not God created everything in seven literal days. And I’ve heard plenty of conflicting assumptions about Noah’s ark, dinosaurs, the garden of Eden, the tree of life, etc.

Faith in Jesus spurs me to believe in creation. But I don’t know for an absolute fact how God did it or what He actually did. I wasn’t there and neither were any of you. I just believe He created everything. Why? Because knowing a bit about God’s nature, it is very like Him to do such miraculous things and I know nothing is impossible with Him. The Lord himself has proven Himself to me personally.

And with all the technological advances mankind has made, the world’s still corrupt and foolish and we still haven’t figured out a way to treat all people with love and respect or to wipe out poverty and hunger. The world’s no closer to being perfect than it was from the beginning. It’s by the grace of God we haven’t destroyed the earth completely.

Evolution doesn’t shake my faith in God. I can look at facts and theories without feeling like I’m committing a sin. I love science and enjoy studying various theories. But as for the theory that we evolved from an ameba, a tadpole, a baboon and some hunched-over yard ape whose vocabulary consisted of, “Oooga ooga!”, I was never sold on that idea. All through school I never heard evidence that proved it to me absolutely. On the contrary, the minute evidence they offered made me believe they were grabbing at straws in a desperate attempt to prove some crackpot theory.



On the other hand, I have plenty of skepticism about some religious theories, too. Things need to add up to me, and some Christian’s interpretations about creationism doesn’t add up. Reading through various threads on this forum will give you a good idea of some of the ridiculous nonsense some Christians believe. And to try to support their whimsical claims by quoting 15 pages of Old Testament scripture proves how off the mark they are.

My point is, if you have a closed mind either way, you do not have a mind of understanding at all. You have to be opened minded enough to study facts and surmise for yourself to come to a reasonable determination.

 

[wincam]

Who were these "so called scientists"?

We discovered the Earth was round before establishing what science even is... which makes your claim completely false.

they were like the early Galileos of the day - some it seems even warned Columbus not to venture too far or he would fall off the earth - btw who exactly is the we but the we wes of the present who would have us believe what Galileo believed that the earth goes round the sun and other such pseudo non science and nonsense of the day - btw see www.Galileowaswrong.com - wincam