One Example Against Evolution!

[QUOTE="LoveStaindRed"]

Actually a lot of religous people do beleive evolution occurs nowadays...it is just stubborn ones who want to beleive in some lame book written by different people in different times instead, because they think they will go to h3ll if they dont. 

LJS9502_basic

Yes, religious people belive in evolution....that does NOT preclude their belief in the Bible, however.  They are not mutually exclusive.....really they are not.

They just don't go on TV.

[QUOTE="LoveStaindRed"]

I almost said that, but then I said, "oh they will be able to infer that from what I said"...apparently I was wrong.

jim_shorts

That "they" was meant to be a collective they for everyone who would read my post...sorry you took it the wrong way buddy. 

hip said, "the others i havnt heard of dont know. a living cell dint just appear.....the earth is VERY old giving lots of time for that to happen." That proves my point again. It took lots of time. That's not science but faith. "I believe it happened over lots of time." You don't know making it faith or religion. Also, look at what def wrote. He says, "that why evloution is such a slow process." Yeah, taking billions of years. Once again my point is proven that is faith not science. You believe it took that long. That is religion. You don't know it took that long. maheo30

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Then you are in effect saying de-evolution occurs as well....

Donkey_Puncher

De-evolution does not exist.  By saying something "De-evolves" it implies that a final build or product is in sight or mind.  Evolution does not have a set goal, it's changing making evolution a forward moving process.

Yes....which is what I said.  Evolution does have a purpose...an improvement.  But if one wants to argue that there is no purpose then one is basically saying anything can happen....including de-evolution.  Which is why I said that....did you not pick up on the nuance?;)

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="LoveStaindRed"]

I almost said that, but then I said, "oh they will be able to infer that from what I said"...apparently I was wrong.

LoveStaindRed

That "they" was meant to be a collective they for everyone who would read my post...sorry you took it the wrong way buddy. 

hip said, "the others i havnt heard of dont know. a living cell dint just appear.....the earth is VERY old giving lots of time for that to happen." That proves my point again. It took lots of time. That's not science but faith. "I believe it happened over lots of time." You don't know making it faith or religion. Also, look at what def wrote. He says, "that why evloution is such a slow process." Yeah, taking billions of years. Once again my point is proven that is faith not science. You believe it took that long. That is religion. You don't know it took that long. maheo30

hip said, "the others i havnt heard of dont know. a living cell dint just appear.....the earth is VERY old giving lots of time for that to happen." That proves my point again. It took lots of time. That's not science but faith. "I believe it happened over lots of time." You don't know making it faith or religion. Also, look at what def wrote. He says, "that why evloution is such a slow process." Yeah, taking billions of years. Once again my point is proven that is faith not science. You believe it took that long. That is religion. You don't know it took that long. maheo30

Stop flaunting your ignorance on the subject and go study, dear.

There are many methods through which people have proven these processes have taken so long.

[QUOTE="LoveStaindRed"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="LoveStaindRed"]

I almost said that, but then I said, "oh they will be able to infer that from what I said"...apparently I was wrong.

jim_shorts

That "they" was meant to be a collective they for everyone who would read my post...sorry you took it the wrong way buddy.

I didnt recognize I had other posts of that nature...my bad. If thats the way I come across then Im sorry, there is just so much stuff "teh creationists" beleive and say that it makes me display a pretty critical or condescending tone or something...

hip said, "the others i havnt heard of dont know. a living cell dint just appear.....the earth is VERY old giving lots of time for that to happen." That proves my point again. It took lots of time. That's not science but faith. "I believe it happened over lots of time." You don't know making it faith or religion. Also, look at what def wrote. He says, "that why evloution is such a slow process." Yeah, taking billions of years. Once again my point is proven that is faith not science. You believe it took that long. That is religion. You don't know it took that long. maheo30

:|dude....press the quote button

well....u have failed again, how do we know the earths old? science.. why is it religion if we believe it took a long time? i thought god made the earth in a week, thats not a long time lol

are u saying its religion because we "believe it to be true".....well i dont "believe" in god, so ur wrong

Yes....which is what I said.  Evolution does have a purpose...an improvement.  But if one wants to argue that there is no purpose then one is basically saying anything can happen....including de-evolution.  Which is why I said that....did you not pick up on the nuance?;)

LJS9502_basic

Mutations are random, but adaptations are there for reasons.  Entire species have variances in mutations, but only the advantageous one's usually get passed down.  Evolution has no "reason", it's merely a cause and effect of the Phentypes and the environment. 

Gene changes don't happen for a reason, but beneficial gene changes survive because of advantageous reasons.  However the term De-evolution is a misnomer and isn't used in biology as it doesn't exist. 

hip said, "the others i havnt heard of dont know. a living cell dint just appear.....the earth is VERY old giving lots of time for that to happen." That proves my point again. It took lots of time. That's not science but faith. "I believe it happened over lots of time." You don't know making it faith or religion. Also, look at what def wrote. He says, "that why evloution is such a slow process." Yeah, taking billions of years. Once again my point is proven that is faith not science. You believe it took that long. That is religion. You don't know it took that long. maheo30

You've been listening to that criminal Kent Hovind too much. He is the only other person I have ever heard call 'deep time' a religion. Good thing the religion of 'deep time' has evidence like radiometric dating and star light to support it. Can't really say the same for creationism.

Let's remember that random genetic mistakes, called mutations, cannot make all of the special apparatus described above. This is not the result of evolution, but the fingerprint of the Master Designer. In fact, the apostle Paul said that such highly sensitive infrared sensors studied today are evidence of God's creation. This is indeed "clearly seen" (Romans 1:20).maheo30

Creatures adapt new quality's based upon their environment, so naturally if it is in a hospitable environment, it will adapt traits to help it deal with it.

hip said, "the others i havnt heard of dont know. a living cell dint just appear.....the earth is VERY old giving lots of time for that to happen." That proves my point again. It took lots of time. That's not science but faith. "I believe it happened over lots of time." You don't know making it faith or religion. Also, look at what def wrote. He says, "that why evloution is such a slow process." Yeah, taking billions of years. Once again my point is proven that is faith not science. You believe it took that long. That is religion. You don't know it took that long. maheo30

[I didnt recognize I had other posts of that nature...my bad. If thats the way I come across then Im sorry, there is just so much stuff "teh creationists" beleive and say that it makes me display a pretty critical or condescending tone or something...LoveStaindRed

They are still turtles! Not a different kind. It is still a turtle. It did not mutate into a shark. It is still a turtle. That is micro and macro.
maheo30

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Yes....which is what I said.  Evolution does have a purpose...an improvement.  But if one wants to argue that there is no purpose then one is basically saying anything can happen....including de-evolution.  Which is why I said that....did you not pick up on the nuance?;)

Donkey_Puncher

Mutations are random, but adaptations are there for reasons.  Entire species have variances in mutations, but only the advantageous one's usually get passed down.  Evolution has no "reason", it's merely a cause and effect of the Phentypes and the environment. 

Gene changes don't happen for a reason, but beneficial gene changes survive because of advantageous reasons.  However the term De-evolution is a misnomer and isn't used in biology as it doesn't exist. 

I'm not arguing against adaptations.:|  PS...adaptation IS a reason.  Evolution occurs for a reason....otherwise it would not be necessary to change.

You really should pay attention to posts more.....I'm not arguing for de-evolution either...but with the statement he made, there was the possibility for that to occur.  Nuance...remember?

I'm not arguing against adaptations.:|  PS...adaptation IS a reason.  Evolution occurs for a reason....otherwise it would not be necessary to change.

You really should pay attention to posts more.....I'm not arguing for de-evolution either...but with the statement he made, there was the possibility for that to occur.  Nuance...remember?

LJS9502_basic

Sorry, i missed that earlier reference. 

Adaptation is a reason, yes.  But the adaptations are the product of random mutations.  The "adaptation" is the enrivonmental part of the equation filtering out most the mutations causing shift or evolution. 

So in other words, the traits themselves are random, but the selective action of their survival and continued existence is not.  :D

gravity is a theory also, care to disprove that one while you're at it?mistervengeance

And plate tectonics.

Science is things we can observe, test and know. You haven't given me science you've given me belief. And Dhyce, they believe the earth is billions of years old. They haven't in any way proven things evolved over billions of years. They give the turtles arguement or the texas salamander which in the end are still the same kind of animal. That's not macro but micro and you know it. I've seen nothing but the same rehashed arguements. You are more than welcome to believe what you want. But just because they believe it to be true doesn't make it science. That is religion or faith. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That is religion. You say I evolved from a rock, monkey, or soup or whatever specific THEORY you hold to. That is religion not faith. Why is it when I say in the beginning God it is religion. But when you say in the beginning evolution it is science? They are both beliefs.
maheo30

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] Evolution is spontaneous. No reason involvedLJS9502_basic

No....evolution is another way for adaptation. There is a reason why things evolve. Otherwise, there would be no evolution needed.

Then you are in effect saying de-evolution occurs as well....

[QUOTE="LoveStaindRed"][I didnt recognize I had other posts of that nature...my bad. If thats the way I come across then Im sorry, there is just so much stuff "teh creationists" beleive and say that it makes me display a pretty critical or condescending tone or something...jim_shorts

I dont think I said that...and I know I never implied it, stop taking so much offense man....maybe you are starting to doubt yourself, making all these accusations and assumptions, are you starting to think..."omg what my parents have told me since im born might be wrong?" 

Science is things we can observe, test and know. You haven't given me science you've given me belief. And Dhyce, they believe the earth is billions of years old. They haven't in any way proven things evolved over billions of years. They give the turtles arguement or the texas salamander which in the end are still the same kind of animal. That's not macro but micro and you know it. I've seen nothing but the same rehashed arguements. You are more than welcome to believe what you want. But just because they believe it to be true doesn't make it science. That is religion or faith. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That is religion. You say I evolved from a rock, monkey, or soup or whatever specific THEORY you hold to. That is religion not faith. Why is it when I say in the beginning God it is religion. But when you say in the beginning evolution it is science? They are both beliefs.
maheo30

Science is things we can observe, test and know. You haven't given me science you've given me belief. And Dhyce, they believe the earth is billions of years old. They haven't in any way proven things evolved over billions of years. They give the turtles arguement or the texas salamander which in the end are still the same kind of animal. That's not macro but micro and you know it. I've seen nothing but the same rehashed arguements. You are more than welcome to believe what you want. But just because they believe it to be true doesn't make it science. That is religion or faith. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That is religion. You say I evolved from a rock, monkey, or soup or whatever specific THEORY you hold to. That is religion not faith. Why is it when I say in the beginning God it is religion. But when you say in the beginning evolution it is science? They are both beliefs.
maheo30

only one belief has a HUGE amount of evidence to back it up.....

scientists will say its not fact but there is so much evidence to prove it that it is taken as fact.

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Science is things we can observe, test and know. You haven't given me science you've given me belief. And Dhyce, they believe the earth is billions of years old. They haven't in any way proven things evolved over billions of years. They give the turtles arguement or the texas salamander which in the end are still the same kind of animal. That's not macro but micro and you know it. I've seen nothing but the same rehashed arguements. You are more than welcome to believe what you want. But just because they believe it to be true doesn't make it science. That is religion or faith. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That is religion. You say I evolved from a rock, monkey, or soup or whatever specific THEORY you hold to. That is religion not faith. Why is it when I say in the beginning God it is religion. But when you say in the beginning evolution it is science? They are both beliefs.
Def_Jef88

Yeah I think I am just going to leave this thread...because all I have been doing is arguing with jim_shorts over stupid stuff, and nobody on either side is listening to the other. 

 As there is no goal, I take your phrase to mean adverse effects, and so I say: And? Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.CptJSparrow

Survival and adaptation are goals....it serves no purpose to evolve without a reason to do so.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="maheo30"]Science is things we can observe, test and know. You haven't given me science you've given me belief. And Dhyce, they believe the earth is billions of years old. They haven't in any way proven things evolved over billions of years. They give the turtles arguement or the texas salamander which in the end are still the same kind of animal. That's not macro but micro and you know it. I've seen nothing but the same rehashed arguements. You are more than welcome to believe what you want. But just because they believe it to be true doesn't make it science. That is religion or faith. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That is religion. You say I evolved from a rock, monkey, or soup or whatever specific THEORY you hold to. That is religion not faith. Why is it when I say in the beginning God it is religion. But when you say in the beginning evolution it is science? They are both beliefs.
LoveStaindRed

Yeah I think I am just going to leave this thread...because all I have been doing is arguing with jim_shorts over stupid stuff, and nobody on either side is listening to the other.

Its people like maheo that I cant stand because they think they know everything, but can't even put a coherent argument together 

Science is things we can observe, test and know. You haven't given me science you've given me belief. And Dhyce, they believe the earth is billions of years old. They haven't in any way proven things evolved over billions of years. They give the turtles arguement or the texas salamander which in the end are still the same kind of animal. That's not macro but micro and you know it. I've seen nothing but the same rehashed arguements. You are more than welcome to believe what you want. But just because they believe it to be true doesn't make it science. That is religion or faith. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That is religion. You say I evolved from a rock, monkey, or soup or whatever specific THEORY you hold to. That is religion not faith. Why is it when I say in the beginning God it is religion. But when you say in the beginning evolution it is science? They are both beliefs.
maheo30

Here's a simple example of large scale evolution http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIAPaceevolution.shtml

Faith implys a blind belief without evidence, evolution has plenty.

Science is things we can observe, test and know. You haven't given me science you've given me belief. And Dhyce, they believe the earth is billions of years old. They haven't in any way proven things evolved over billions of years. They give the turtles arguement or the texas salamander which in the end are still the same kind of animal. That's not macro but micro and you know it. I've seen nothing but the same rehashed arguements. You are more than welcome to believe what you want. But just because they believe it to be true doesn't make it science. That is religion or faith. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That is religion. You say I evolved from a rock, monkey, or soup or whatever specific THEORY you hold to. That is religion not faith. Why is it when I say in the beginning God it is religion. But when you say in the beginning evolution it is science? They are both beliefs. maheo30

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] As there is no goal, I take your phrase to mean adverse effects, and so I say: And? Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.LJS9502_basic

Survival and adaptation are goals....it serves no purpose to evolve without a reason to do so.

I don't understand why he says the turtles and salamanders mentioned are "still the same animal." How can someone have such a clueless understanding of evolution. The fact that it takes so slow, that fossils and many other things have proven these slow transitions that lead into the creatures on earth today. That people did not evolve from "monkeys" but rather less intelligent primates than ourselves, as modern chimps evolved from more primative versions of other primates.

Especially that he finds theory as a faith. I just have no idea what to say, the education system fails. :/

Yes, I believe in a "religion" for believing gravity and evolution. Wow... just wow.

Edit; rather, believe is the wrong word, to deny such things would make me delusional.

Finally someone sensible. Thank you mumbles. Def knows it is micro so resorts to stuff like that. Mine isn't taught in public schools at taxpayer expense. It won't prove my beliefs true. My beliefs will be proven true one day I know that, but by then it will be too late for the unsaved. The truth is this, evolutionsts and creationists look at the exact same evidence and come to 2 completely different conclusions. Why is one denigrated while the other is held up as science? That is what irks me. Nevermind that most of the sciences we have today were founded by literal 6-day creationists. Never mind the fact that evolution is not a new theory, but was believed by many epicureans. They act like it is fact when it is just a theory. And they better be right. I'm wrong I turn to dirt. They're wrong they stand before someone they've done nothing but mock. Glad I'm not them.
maheo30

Macroevolution - Large-scale evolution occuring over geologic are and resulting of new taxonomic groups

species - animals that breed distinctly from other variations.

That beings said, when the turtles where no longer able to inter-breed a new species had been created.  That constitutes as macroevolution because it created a new taxonomic group. Your logic fails, your argument fails, you fail.  Good day... 

Finally someone sensible. Thank you mumbles. Def knows it is micro so resorts to stuff like that. Mine isn't taught in public schools at taxpayer expense. It won't prove my beliefs true. My beliefs will be proven true one day I know that, but by then it will be too late for the unsaved. The truth is this, evolutionsts and creationists look at the exact same evidence and come to 2 completely different conclusions. Why is one denigrated while the other is held up as science? That is what irks me. Nevermind that most of the sciences we have today were founded by literal 6-day creationists. Never mind the fact that evolution is not a new theory, but was believed by many epicureans. They act like it is fact when it is just a theory. And they better be right. I'm wrong I turn to dirt. They're wrong they stand before someone they've done nothing but mock. Glad I'm not them.
maheo30

Evolution, while being the most fundamental theory of biology, has enourmous amounts of evidence, that's why it's held up as science, your continuing to ignore the evidence and claim it as faith acts as an excellent case and point for my previous statement.

Oh, and if islam is the right religion, you'll end up in hell with all Christians :)

Finally someone sensible. Thank you mumbles. Def knows it is micro so resorts to stuff like that. Mine isn't taught in public schools at taxpayer expense. It won't prove my beliefs true. My beliefs will be proven true one day I know that, but by then it will be too late for the unsaved. The truth is this, evolutionsts and creationists look at the exact same evidence and come to 2 completely different conclusions. Why is one denigrated while the other is held up as science? That is what irks me. Nevermind that most of the sciences we have today were founded by literal 6-day creationists. Never mind the fact that evolution is not a new theory, but was believed by many epicureans. They act like it is fact when it is just a theory. And they better be right. I'm wrong I turn to dirt. They're wrong they stand before someone they've done nothing but mock. Glad I'm not them.
maheo30

and one of those conclusions dosnt make sense! ....and science dosnt work exactly that way. they make a theory that makes sense then find evidence to support it. you know what irks me....religion, mainly because its forced on us in school.

Nevermind that most of the sciences we have today were founded by literal 6-day creationists.
maheo30

Whale evolution Cap? Come on, you are a smart person. Far smarter than I I can tell. The only thing you can tell about a fossil is that it died. You don't know it had any kids unless you find a fossil in the act of giving birth which there are some of those and they gave birth to the same kind. And why would you believe it did something no other animal today can do? That is give birth to another kind. You going to give me Hakel's gill slits arguemnt too? the fossil record does not prove evolution. Creations can line up the same fossils and come to a completely different conclusion. They are interpreting the data their way. That is belief. They just have a different belief than creationists like Baugh.
maheo30

They can tell if another fossil is a genetic decendant with comparison of physical features, this shows a nice transition of species called evolution.

Finally someone sensible. Thank you mumbles. Def knows it is micro so resorts to stuff like that. Mine isn't taught in public schools at taxpayer expense. It won't prove my beliefs true. My beliefs will be proven true one day I know that, but by then it will be too late for the unsaved. The truth is this, evolutionsts and creationists look at the exact same evidence and come to 2 completely different conclusions. Why is one denigrated while the other is held up as science? That is what irks me. Nevermind that most of the sciences we have today were founded by literal 6-day creationists. Never mind the fact that evolution is not a new theory, but was believed by many epicureans. They act like it is fact when it is just a theory. And they better be right. I'm wrong I turn to dirt. They're wrong they stand before someone they've done nothing but mock. Glad I'm not them.
maheo30

 Ah, Pascal's wager...had to come up sometime.

  Go live your life dictated by fear.  Anything that I am expected to hold onto desperately because of the prospect of eternal suffering if I don't is not something I will ever choose to believe in. 

How can you?

I hate to tell you this, but animals have offspring, that's how they reproduce :o

Thanatos1337

Creations can line up the same fossils and come to a completely different conclusion.
maheo30

Actually, that one can make a bit of sense. It must've bred in recently dead animals so that the young had fresh, healthy meat to feed upon. There's a species of finch that drinks the blood of pelicans in the Galapagos, what evolutionary purpose could that serve? And here's proof of evolution:

The dog. This is one of the only times that mankind has controlled the evolution of a species. They took dogs that had certain traits and let them breed (IE the beagle was bred to smell, and the dogs with the shortest legs were allowed to breed because if their legs were close to the ground, they could pick up the scent better). How could a chihuahua survive in the wild? It can't. It was made for human entertainment (in the form of cuteness to the point of babying, so it's not a bad deal). There's my proof, and it's not as ridiculous as "if God exists, I command him to make my milk float in the air" or "if I stick this electrical wire in this peanut butter, I should get life according to Darwinists".

Whale evolution Cap? Come on, you are a smart person. Far smarter than I I can tell. The only thing you can tell about a fossil is that it died. You don't know it had any kids unless you find a fossil in the act of giving birth which there are some of those and they gave birth to the same kind. And why would you believe it did something no other animal today can do? That is give birth to another kind. You going to give me Hakel's gill slits arguemnt too? the fossil record does not prove evolution. Creations can line up the same fossils and come to a completely different conclusion. They are interpreting the data their way. That is belief. They just have a different belief than creationists like Baugh.
maheo30

Like I said, you apparently don't know what "species" means.  There are many species of turtles.  One that cant breed with another is considered a different species. Therefore, the story of the galapagos turtles WAS macroevolution.

Im not gonna debate this anymore, simply because im stating pure fact and you refuse to accept it. 

Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence? It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL!
maheo30