Contradictions in the Bible?

[prometheus]

Also, when you talk about canyons. They can only be created by a little stream over a very long time.

Imagine a mass of water being smashed over a chain of mountains. It wouldn't create a canyon. It would just 'hack away' at everything in its path equally. It would 'knock over' the peaks because they offer the most resistance and are the 'weakest'.

And then the peaks would fall into the valley and actually fill up canyons and valleys.


Alistair, it's quite intersting that we were responding to the same thing but doing it both very differently.

[pianistimo]

thank you, pianowelsh, for responding to timothy42b.  i just came back on a minute ago after a trip to the optometrists with hubby.  anyways, i also do not think that the world is exactly the same as it was 6,000 or that certain animals have not gone extinct.  of course animals have gone extinct.  i do not profess to know everything about dna - but what i've been reading lately seems to imply that what we see around us is not evolution - but minor changes to the gene pool over time.  it is going the other direction.  becoming de-volved - if you want to call it that.  there is no micro-evolution that somewhere along the line caused apes to stand upright.  the missing link does not exist.  at least no scientist has found a missing link of any animal, plant, or human being having been anything other than what it was created to be.

now, if scientists want to circumvent this and talk in science books as though their THEORY is fact - that is their perogative.  the onus is on you!  you must prove to us Christians that your theory is correct.  we already know from the bible that creation demands a creator and that things did not suddenly appear from one tiny atom.  especially all the elements.  there had to be a preexisting 'something.'  what was that? can you tell us what happened at the very beginning of evolution?  it is as preposterous to us - as us telling you that God is the alpha and omega (the beginning and the end of our knowledge) and yet He existed forever.  that is because it is something we believe by FAITH. 

[pianistimo]

the bible mentions God opening the 'floodgates' of the heavens, and also springs under the ocean.  and, at the same time - a torrential rain that caused the natural lakes, rivers, oceans to combine over the land masses and flood the tops of the mountains.  it is interesting that scientists have recently discovered some 'springs' that enter into the ocean from under the ocean floor.  for God to control how much water falls onto the earth is nothing.  He created it all to be used for His purposes as well as ours.

there is a book about the grand canyon by an expert guide who for many years taught evolution in his tours of the canyon - but changed his mind of how it all came to be after really thinking about the geological findings of the canyon walls and the tectonics under the canyon and the way the water and oceans work.  we presume that some on here understand this as much as a scientist or researcher would after years and years of study.  we would probably all be silent after listening to anyone who actually was in the canyon and studied it for many years. 

anyone can say anything on here.  but, does it prove anything to others?  no.  because none of us are in-depth scientists or canyon specialists or ocean current studying people.  we assume that some sciences will cross-over and be enough to explain each point.  but, as i see it, if you are to fully prove each point - you need a scholar of that field to explain it in the precision of language that will facilitate it being correctly described - or at least as correct as humanly possible.

most of us are musicians.  we have very strong feelings about our beliefs and mine is no less plausible than yours according to many scientists who are stuck at the 'brick wall' of God's supremacy.  that is where Christians take off.  they do not say 'science is all bad'  they say - science can prove things up to a point.  but, past that point it is THEORY.  so why are you all trying to prove theories that even scientists say is THEORY and then telling us - who believe in God - that we are insane?  you think too much of yourselves.

[prometheus]

What we see around us is not evolution - but minor changes to the gene pool over time.

That's exactly what evolution is. Nothing more. You may think that is not evolution. People who think that life on earth evolved do. Darwinistic evolutionists do. Almost all scientists do.

It is going the other direction.  becoming de-volved - if you want to call it that.

But evolution is positive. Species gain new abilities.

Nylon is made out of artificial fibers. We have invented it in 1935.

Now, there is a bacteria that evolved to be able to digest nylon as food. A fiber totally artificial, totally alien to nature and to that bacteria. The ability to do this is totally new. And of great functionality if such a bacteria lives in an enviroment with a lot of nylon available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria

This is just one example. There are more examples where species mutations are causing positive effects. This example is strong because nylon is something brand new.

Some more:
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).


Resistances against toxics and diseases is also a common example. And one from everyday life. One you cannot ignore.

Same with viral diseases. Did you even get a flue shot? If you don't believe in evolution you have no reason to.

Flue virusses don't only change. They also stay strong. They don't degenerate. They clearly evolve.

Also, didn't we talk about the bird flue a while ago? Didn't you take that serious? I mean, how can a hybird of a bird and a human flue virus come into existence when you believe god magically limits the development of new species?

Well, that's the way you think evolution is limited so that it can't explain the diversity of life. right? I mean, you still haven't answered my big question. So it it a mirable by god that evolution doesn't exist? It must be the only reason.

God created a world with evolution and then uses miracles to prevent it. Makes sense, right?

...there is no micro-evolution that somewhere along the line caused apes to stand upright.

No, of course not. Duh. This has nothing to do with evolution.

...the missing link does not exist.

Which missing link? And why is it needed.

...at least no scientist has found a missing link of any animal, plant, or human being having been anything other than what it was created to be.

How can they be something else than they are? I don't get this argument.

You mean a lizard didn't turn into a bird under our eyes? Or a mouse into an ape?
This is a straw man fallacy.


If you look at the fossil record, which is very very very limited, you see a clear trend in life. Obviously this is evidence for evolution. Evidence which you deny exists right here.

...you must prove to us Christians that your theory is correct.

What if Christians just refuse to believe something regardless of the evidence?

And why should scientists make a special effort to persuade Christians? If they want to cook to barbarism in their own ignorance then that is what they should.

But, people open to the facts, the evidence, to reason and to new ideas. Minds independent of bronze age religious dogma, being force-fed to on children, mentally weak people and uneducated people, are easily persuaded by the evidence for evolution.

Even in the US less than 0.15% of the scientists reject evolution.
https://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

And that was in 1987. Surely now it is a lot less.

...we already know from the bible that creation demands a creator and that things did not suddenly appear from one tiny atom.

You only know what bronze age people, that raped, pillaged, enslaved, butchered children, killed everyone they didn't know, burned down cities, forced each other to earth their own feces, believed in dragons, giants, unicorns, magic, demons, angels, thought that the earth was flat, that pi=3 and that god spend 1/6 of the time he spend on creation everything creating a 'firmament' that clearly doesn't exist, though about the world.

And even that what they thought is clearly wrong, as I have pointed out before. Don't take their advice. They were bronze age barbarians. They do not speak for god, even if she existed.

...especially all the elements.  there had to be a preexisting 'something.'

If you try to solve the mystery of the origin of everything using a creator you only worsen the problem. A creater must always be greater than the sum of his creations. A entity that created the universe must be more amazing than the universe itself. God doesn't explain anything. It is only a trick to stop explaining things.

In your mind the universe does need an explenation but god doesn't. Makes no scientific sense.

As for the elements. Didn't we talk about stars? Didn't you read asyncopated's message? She(or he) typed out a whole long message talking about the elements and fusion of hydrogen in stars, especially for you. Then you never replied? Why?

And what about the book about cosmology/astronomy I told you to buy and read? Doesn't it tell us what we know? And more important, why we know?

...  what was that? can you tell us what happened at the very beginning of evolution?

What do you mean? abiogenesis? We don't understand abiogenesis.

Evolution only talks about life when it already exists. Not how it is created. And not how the universe is created. Those are different theories that do not depend on each other.

  it is as preposterous to us - as us telling you that God is the alpha and omega (the beginning and the end of our knowledge) and yet He existed forever.  that is because it is something we believe by FAITH. 

Yes and you need faith because you have no evidence or reasons to believe it.

[prometheus]

for God to control how much water falls onto the earth is nothing.  He created it all to be used for His purposes as well as ours.

That's not an explenation. That is 'God did it'.

So you admit that you don't know how he did it?

there is a book about the grand canyon by an expert guide...

So?

What is your point? Are you using the argument of authority because there is one deluded 'guide' that had some strange experience that made him turn christian and thus  creationist?

What's his name? What did he study? What happened that caused him to become a christian.

Most important, what does he actually say? I though you had an opinion about the Grand Canyon? And that it can only be explained by a 6000 years old earth and a flood. How?

And why is it more plausible than the accepted theories?

...anyone can say anything on here.  but, does it prove anything to others?  no.

Oh, so I can say anything I want. But because you don't want to hear it it doesn't prove anything. But when some guy says something you do like to hear you instantly believe it and claim others should do the same by sheer authority?

...because none of us are in-depth scientists or canyon specialists or ocean current studying people.

No. But those that are all think you are a nut. And that person of you who wrote a book is just one person and was a guide. So was he also a scientist?

Anyway, in science the 'authority fallacy' also doesn't hold. And numders also don't prove anything. Give me the theories and the evidence. Experiments and observations do have power in science. That's the basis of scientific method.

We assume that some sciences will cross-over and be enough to explain each point.  but, as i see it, if you are to fully prove each point - you need a scholar of that field to explain it in the precision of language that will facilitate it being correctly described - or at least as correct as humanly possible.

Are you a scholar? You make all kinds of claims. Why?

most of us are musicians.  we have very strong feelings about our beliefs and mine is no less plausible than yours...

Who is to make that judgement? Why don't we give everyone the freedom to make up for their own if my views are more plausible than yours?

Also, the change that I will have a degree in science or a profession in science is at this point of time greater than me having a degree/profession in music.

...according to many scientists who are stuck at the 'brick wall' of God's supremacy.  that is where Christians take off.  they do not say 'science is all bad'

Obviously they don't. They are scientists themselves.

...they say - science can prove things up to a point.  but, past that point it is THEORY.

Theories are often facts.

... so why are you all trying to prove theories that even scientists say is THEORY

Deeeeeep sign. I though I explained to you about 30 times already that the word 'theory' means something totally different from what your notion of the word 'theory' is.


We have the THEORY of gravity. It will NEVER become 'the FACT of gravity'. It is already a FACT. Just as the THEORY of evolution is a FACT. Etc.


Use the search to reread my 30 replies to you explaining the usage of the words 'theory' and 'law' in science.

and then telling us - who believe in God - that we are insane?  you think too much of yourselves.

I don't say you are. Reality does. The creation of god thinks your views are insane.

[thalbergmad]

the point that i make is that i feel from what we are learning from dna and migration PROVES the bible right.

Cobblers

[ahinton]

Cobblers

I'm not seeking to disagree with your one-word answer here, but who precisely are you trying to stitch up? (just curious!)...

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created  the Grand Canyon cos it's like, so big, that it would have taken a very big jack hammer to make, and no one's ever invented such a big tool, have they?

Not so smart now, eh you scientists?

Proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind all of creation can also be found in the existence of Americans.

After the Flying Spaghetti Monster had created the world and all the water and the Grand Canyon and stuff, he realised he'd forgotten one vital ingredient: humour.

So he created Americans and planted strange beliefs in their heads and and for the rest of eternity the world had something to laugh about.
 

[ahinton]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created  the Grand Canyon cos it's like, so big, that it would have taken a very big jack hammer to make, and no one's ever invented such a big tool, have they?

Not so smart now, eh you scientists?

Proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind all of creation can also be found in the existence of Americans.

After the Flying Spaghetti Monster had created the world and all the water and the Grand Canyon and stuff, he realised he'd forgotten one vital ingredient: humour.

So he created Americans and planted strange beliefs in their heads and and for the rest of eternity the world had something to laugh about.

Nice try, ma chère, but I'm sure you will not take it amiss if I propose a few little amendments...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the earth (he's personal friend of God, so I have it on good authority - and he and God decided between them that creation had better be left to science; God said the the monster could make the spaghetti while He made flying possible, hence their quiet co-operation in which neither found themselves burdened with having to create the earth - which, let's face it, was always going to be quite a challenging task for whoever was end up doing it)...

I don't know all that much about big tools (do you?), but I have read that the one to which you refer was patented by one Jacques Ammer (1979-1866), the distinguished French physicist, whose tomes on motion and gravity are, of course, well known and respected for being both motivating and full of gravitas.

I have gently to take issue with you over your assertion about the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation of Americans; whilst this has long be held to be true, it has recently been disproved beyond all possible doubt by Dr h c Susanistimo Pentecosthalbergmad of Duquesne University, Philadelphia in her famous treatise Aerial Pasta: A Consideration of Perverse Creatures of the Dark Side of Human Imagination (pp.3675-3673), in which she demonstrates that the speed and trajectory of spaghetti when fired from a rocket l(a)unching pad is in inverse proportion to the square arrowroot of that of the boomerang as flung by the indigenous inhabiotants of the Simpson Desert in A'straaalia (as noted in several well respected A'straaalian Medico-Scientific journals). The only possible conclusion is that, not only did neither the Monster nor God create Americans (they did discuss the idea but each found it so terrible to contemplate that they both ran a mile from the entire idea), the Americans were created by nuclear fission (as indeed noted in the Bible in the Newest Testament of All [Abraham, Book Lincoln, Chapter Rockefeller], where, at the first Thanksgiving ceremony in the 1770s, Jesus came to earth for the second time - quietly and without fuss or PR - as guest of honour to celebrate American independence; his American National inaugural speech contained those now world-famous words "I will make fission-men of thee!").

So - the significance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the history and development of humankind is, I must politely tell you, far less than has previously been believed. Anyway - have you never heard of the Flying Scotsman?...

And let's have less of the "all hail to pianistimo", for we surely none of us want her to be injured by hailstones, especially if they do not happen to fall as part of God's meteorological plan as outlined in the Bible...

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

Nice try, ma chère, but I'm sure you will not take it amiss if I propose a few little amendments...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the earth (he's personal friend of God, so I have it on good authority - and he and God decided between them that creation had better be left to science; God said the the monster could make the spaghetti while He made flying possible, hence their quiet co-operation in which neither found themselves burdened with having to create the earth - which, let's face it, was always going to be quite a challenging task for whoever was end up doing it)...

I don't know all that much about big tools (do you?), but I have read that the one to which you refer was patented by one Jacques Ammer (1979-1866), the distinguished French physicist, whose tomes on motion and gravity are, of course, well known and respected for being both motivating and full of gravitas.

I have gently to take issue with you over your assertion about the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation of Americans; whilst this has long be held to be true, it has recently been disproved beyond all possible doubt by Dr h c Susanistimo Pentecosthalbergmad of Duquesne University, Philadelphia in her famous treatise Aerial Pasta: A Consideration of Perverse Creatures of the Dark Side of Human Imagination (pp.3675-3673), in which she demonstrates that the speed and trajectory of spaghetti when fired from a rocket l(a)unching pad is in inverse proportion to the square arrowroot of that of the boomerang as flung by the indigenous inhabiotants of the Simpson Desert in A'straaalia (as noted in several well respected A'straaalian Medico-Scientific journals). The only possible conclusion is that, not only did neither the Monster nor God create Americans (they did discuss the idea but each found it so terrible to contemplate that they both ran a mile from the entire idea), the Americans were created by nuclear fission (as indeed noted in the Bible in the Newest Testament of All [Abraham, Book Lincoln, Chapter Rockefeller], where, at the first Thanksgiving ceremony in the 1770s, Jesus came to earth for the second time - quietly and without fuss or PR - as guest of honour to celebrate American independence; his American National inaugural speech contained those now world-famous words "I will make fission-men of thee!").

So - the significance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the history and development of humankind is, I must politely tell you, far less than has previously been believed. Anyway - have you never heard of the Flying Scotsman?...

And let's have less of the "all hail to pianistimo", for we surely none of us want her to be injured by hailstones, especially if they do not happen to fall as part of God's meteorological plan as outlined in the Bible...

Best,

Alistair

Thank you for setting me straight on that one Alistair. How can I ever compete with your flawless logic? You put me to shame.

Yes, the renouned Jaques Ammer,  who died in 1866 aged -113. I should have acknowledged his historic contribution to science and the creation of Big Tools. I believe he also created George W Bush.

And you are right, no intelligent being, be it god or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, would ever have created Americans.

[pianistimo]

ok.  i apologize to asyncopated but not to prometheus.  instead of accepting that he doesn't know everything - he seeks to make others look foolish whilst not giving any credible evidence for micro-evolution excepting a bacteria that eats nylon.  after this many years - we should at least have a nylon monster.  i mean goats have eaten nails for quite a while and it hasn't affected them majorly.

the nylon monster should be able to compete with the spagetti monster - or even eat the spaghetti monster completely up and again mutate into a bigger blob that is stronger and more efficiently able to wind itself up. 

instead of telling me about laboratory experiments, i am challenging you, prometheus to show me one example of nature 'herself' that shows a species that has naturally NATURALLY (not in a laboratory) mutated to the point that it is another species.  of course dogs are inbred - and horses, etc.  but, in the wild - like kinds breed together.  there are no new species that naturally evolve.  as with ape to man - even after this many 'millions' (according to evolution) there should be a positive proof of this missing link.  there is NO MISSING LINK.  show me the link prometheus that we came from apes.

prometheus,  i will go and read for a month or two the proscribed reading.  in the meantime, keep reading the bible occasionally too, ok.  just to be nice.  then, i am going to pretend like i totally agree with you and pick out points that i think are the strongest for the theory of evolution.  btw, i never found ANY in highschool.  i doubted the entire way through highschool and i still do.  i also doubted about how much God was involved in people's lives.  but, when i found out He was very involved in our personal lives - i decided to not worry so much about knowing 'everything' now - because we actually have a chance to learn more at the ressurrection.  this is not a 'cop out' but a simple realization that no person is going to know everything in one lifetime.  as someone else said - we piece together the information that has been proven from others (and scientists add to it).  and newton's LAW of gravity is a LAW.  not a theory is it?  i've never heard anyone call it 'the theory of gravity.'  maybe it should be a theory when we look at space and wonder 'how is it that only our planet sustains life - among all this heavenly quietness - only ours is imbued with wondrous noise, music, life, color, water, air, sunlight - at precise PRECISE proportions.

how is it that our sun earth and moon are at such PRECISION in space distance-wise that they exactly fit over each other in eclipses.  that is precision.  a clockmaker.  our God is wise!
 

[ahinton]

Thank you for setting me straight on that one Alistair. How can I ever compete with your flawless logic?

Very easily, I should imagine...

You put me to shame.

I don't think that I could ever do that...

Yes, the renouned Jaques Ammer,  who died in 1866 aged -113. I should have acknowledged his historic contribution to science and the creation of Big Tools. I believe he also created George W Bush.

Now it is YOU who put ME to shame! The Big Tools I was aware of, but I have to confess(!)) to ignorance of his creation of the Lying Pathetic Monster that currently terrrrrrises America; if "George", then "Lloyd", if "Walter", then "Bruno" and if "Bush", then "Alan", say I, (based on my take on the egregious Igor Stravinsky's infamously sour barb at Richard Strauss that ran "if Richard, then Wagner - if Strauss, then Johann" - which was "if Igor, then Prince"...)

And you are right, no intelligent being, be it god or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, would ever have created Americans.

Since American independence has been said to mark Americans out as personifications of a self-fulfilling prophecy, I can only conclude that most of them must have created themselves; pianistimo, however, probably emerged as a direct consequence of a quite different generative process...

Anyway - who d'ya reckon created A'straaaalians, then? (as in "on the seventh day, He tried to rest but, despite the relaxing and otherwise beneficial effects of a large glass of Grange, He just couldn't help but think "why in My-Own Name did I ever create those My-Own-Name-damn' box jellies?"...)

Best,

Alistair


P.S.
George Orwell (early 20th cent.): "Four legs good; two legs bad"
Anon (early 21st cent.): "Dame Edna good; Rolf Harris not even on the bloody radar, mate..."

[pianistimo]

'tie me kangaroo, down sport?'   

alistair - when i read your posts - i can't help laughing.  i just read a quote about debating in my daughter's middle school newsletter.  the point was something about not making a decision without debating - even if the debate itself was debatable. 

to all - apologies for stranded thinking.  but, yet - i stand by my island.  perhaps i stand with a few other people - because God is great and can deal with smart Christians and dumb Christians.  i confess (as i have many times) that i am not the worlds smartest person, most scientific person, etc.  but - i am rational (somewhat) and i feel that in most situations i make lemonade out of lemons.  although i must say, alistair has made the most lemonade out of this debate. 

i think knowledge has to be used for 'wisdom.'  if you just debate facts only (not saying debates aren't good) but leave out the implications on moral and ethical decision making.  i appreciate having freedom and choice.  that's what american's stand for. 

[asyncopated]

ok.  i apologize to asyncopated but not to prometheus.

There is absolutely no need to apologise.  I'm the one trying to explain how science works.  If I'm not getting through, it's basically my failure.  Above all, what I do hope is that you and others understand that science is not out to disprove God (certainly) or say that the bible is wrong. 

The bible has a lot of merits, but some "facts" stated in the bible are just too far fetched, given our undrestanding of the world around us today.  Some of these are difficult to accept, based on evidence we see and what we observe.  If you say that the bible is there to give us a clue as to how to lead our lives, I could not agree more.  Most of my extended family are christian, and believe in the bible and it's teachings.  My upbrining was based mainly on christian values, and I do appreciate that.

However, if you claim that the bible is a purely factual book, just as an encyclopedia is, that needs no revision, ever, that is when I just get completely stumped.  If you truely believe this, there is absolutely nothing I can do to try tell about modern day science and how the world around us works.  I feel that's a pity because after all at the end of the day, what we are studying are gods creations. 

Whatever the case may be, most scientist, whether believe in god or not agree that the natural world and is a collision of simple theories, laws or rules that result and complicated and often astonishing out comes.  Most scientist also agree that there is a certain elegance to that way the natural world works.  As with you sharing what's in the bibile, that is what I am trying to share.

[lostinidlewonder]

I've read the comments here and came to the conclusion that everything that is said is rather useless because nothing geting through, you are all walls of resistance. We are wasting our time trying to talk about this because there is nothing constructive being produce here. You are all trying to confuse one another with logic and useless opinions which are not pushing any of us on either side of the argument to question further our own understanding.

I can't stand seeing such investigative minds loop around in circle and think they are actually talking about something very clever. Wake up people.

[pianistimo]

yes.  as with piano - you have to actually practice for awhile to become proficient.  i will go and read - as i've stated - and see what might sink in the recesses of my brain to use as ammunition at a later time.  usually i read with an open mind - but then early in the morning something just hits me and i compare one idea with another and say 'ok, if this is true - then this must be true'  - if they don't mesh - then - i'll keep a notebook of my so-called 'biased' thinking and why i still doubt something. 

if something is undoubtedly true to me - i will put it on the other side of the page. 

also, i plan to do some research of my own - without the help of uni - in terms of just basic curiousity about language and migration of world population.  i've always thought that through language and migration - or even one without the other and visa-versa - that one could come back to a single source.  seems that with evolution, a single source  is untenable.  even though it would have to rationally make sense for everything to come from nothing.  how could an atom always have existed.  but, that is probably the same to scientists - as 'how could God have always existed.'  and, yet - at least within the God idea - we have a possibility of the elements having been created. 

[prometheus]

ok.  i apologize to asyncopated but not to prometheus.  instead of accepting that he doesn't know everything - he seeks to make others look foolish whilst not giving any credible evidence for micro-evolution excepting a bacteria that eats nylon.

I don't care about who looks foolish. But you contradict yourself here. You claim I don't provide evidence but then you claim I did.

You claimed that evolution doesn't produce positive new effects and that mutations can only lead to degeneration. I gave one stunning example.

And then I gave 4 others.


I could give even more examples of micro-evolution. Have you never gotten the flue? Don't you get flue every once in a few years?

Yet you only get an illness like Rubella only once. And if you Pertussis you will probably never get it again, though it is possible.

Why? Because the influenza virus evolves a lot faster than those other virusses. The fact that you get flue is evidence for influenza. If there is no micro-evolution then how can you explain this?

But this is stupid. You already admitted that micro-evolution happened.

You contradict yourself once again. You can say whatever you want but clearly I have provided evidence for evolution.


Maybe you don't understand what it means to 'eat' nylon. It means that this bacteria now has developed enzymes that can digest the nylon molecules. These enzymes must be totally new and original because the nylon molecule was made by humans in 1935.

What happened is that an already existing enzyme protein mutated. Protein are encoded using a simple base pair code in the DNA. There are 20 amino acids that are the building blocks for proteins. When one base pair is either left out, added or changed then when the bacteria tries to read this DNA to build the protein an amino acid either gets added, removed or changed.

There must have been several of these mutations in one of this enzyme. But then the enviroment of the bacteria turned out to contain nylon. And the enzyme and the nylon mocelude 'fitted' together. But very poorly because only by accident the enzyme was able to digest a little bit of nylon over a long period of time.

But because this food source was there is such adundance a flawed and very imperfect nylon-digesting enzyme was an advantage. As a result it didn't take long until every bacteria in the colony had the mutations that caused this nylon digesting enzyme.

Then the enzyme can improve. When there is another favorable mutation in the DNA of this enzyme then it will be a bit more efficient. When this happens it only takes a little while before all bacteria without the mutated gene have died out. Those with the mutated gene have a great ability to 'eat' and thus reproduce very effective.

And then the enzyme can improve and improve until there is no more improvement to be made.

the nylon monster should be able to compete with the spagetti monster - or even eat the spaghetti monster completely up and again mutate into a bigger blob that is stronger and more efficiently able to wind itself up. 

What are you trying to do?

instead of telling me about laboratory experiments, i am challenging you, prometheus to show me one example of nature 'herself' that shows a species that has naturally NATURALLY (not in a laboratory) mutated to the point that it is another species.

what. If you actually read my evidence you would have read that this nylon digesting bacteria evolved in a pool where a factory dumped their nylon-polluted stuff. My example  didn't even happen in a lab.

Also, why would it matter? If evolution happens in a lab it can also happen in nature. Both have been proven. Both micro evolution and macro evolution. Both positive and new traids have evolved. Both in nature and in labs. Specification also happened.

of course dogs are inbred - and horses, etc.

It is called artificial selection. It does the same thing as natural selection. Only it is more powerful. But a difference is that because of time limits there are only few actually mutations that caused dog and horse races. Most of it is bringing forth the genes wanted that already existed.

... but, in the wild - like kinds breed together.  there are no new species that naturally evolve.

*A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

*Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venerial tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).



* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).

* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).

* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

*  the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
   
* greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).

* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.

* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
   
* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
   
* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).


Anyway, you also need specification if Noah's arc story is true. Noah took one of each 'kind'. Wolf and dog evolved from the dog-kind Noah carried on his arc. This is evolution more amazing that darwinistic evolution science proposes.

I told you this several times before. But you just ignore it.

  as with ape to man - even after this many 'millions' (according to evolution) there should be a positive proof of this missing link.  there is NO MISSING LINK.  show me the link prometheus that we came from apes.

We didn't came from apes. Come on. Not only is this a cliche. This is something I taught lostinidlewonder 3 years ago. And you many many times as well. Am I really repeating myself.

Some elated Hominidae to homo sapiens:

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Proconsul africanus

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus kadabba

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus bahrelghazali

Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus robustus

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo floresiensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo cepranensis
Homo georgicus
Homo sapiens idaltu


Where do you think this 'missing link' is? Between which two fossils?

prometheus,  i will go and read for a month or two the proscribed reading.  in the meantime, keep reading the bible occasionally too, ok.  just to be nice.

You don't have to read anything. But don't ask questions that someone has already answered for you. And don't claim I don't provide evidence when you don't even read what I post. Don't claim my position is weak if you don't even want to explore it.

then, i am going to pretend like i totally agree with you and pick out points that i think are the strongest for the theory of evolution.  btw, i never found ANY in highschool.

Neither did I.

i doubted the entire way through highschool and i still do.

So did I. In part thanks to christian propaganda. Now do you want to know what is true or follow the bible literally.

And newton's LAW of gravity is a LAW.  not a theory is it?  i've never heard anyone call it 'the theory of gravity.'

Newton's law of gravity is part of the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity is a model to describe how gravity works. A law in science is a simple principle that lies at its basis. Newton's theory of gravity states a law. Just like Newtons theory of motions has three laws of motion.

Just like the theory of evolution has the law of natural selection. And also the laws of genetics. They are part of evolution as well. Together they are called the laws of evolution. But they don't refer to evolution itself. That is the theory of evolution.

...maybe it should be a theory when we look at space and wonder 'how is it that only our planet sustains life

How can you know this? We know there are many planets out there. We know there are planets similar to earth out there. Just a day ago NASA claims they have probably discovered water on Mars right now.

And outside our solar system... Planets are being discovered very quickly now.

how is it that our sun earth and moon are at such PRECISION in space distance-wise that they exactly fit over each other in eclipses.  that is precision.  a clockmaker.  our God is wise!
 

Those are questions of a different nature. It has nothing to do with evolution. Also, while it is amazing it is not impossible at all.

You mention the solar eclipse. Yes, the distances are just right to create a corona. But the moon is moving away from earth. In the future the moon will be too far away for the people on earth, is they still exist, to see a corona. It will no longer be possible.

So this 'perfect clockwork' is very slowly falling apart.

[prometheus]

and, yet - at least within the God idea - we have a possibility of the elements having been created. 

You did apologise to asyncopated, which was not needed, but you still didn't read what he posted about how the elements were created according to science?

The creationist explenation about how the elements were created is: God did it.

The one provided by asyncopated and also in video's I provided is much more complex. But it is a better explenation. Because 'God did it' explains nothing. It has the same meaning as 'it just is'.

Science cannot explain everything. They do have a good explenation here. Why ignore it if you are interested?

[ada]

We didn't came from apes. Come on. Not only is this a cliche. This is something I taught lostinidlewonder 3 years ago. And you many many times as well. Am I really repeating myself.

Some elated Hominidae to homo sapiens:

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Proconsul africanus

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus kadabba

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus bahrelghazali

Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus robustus

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo floresiensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo cepranensis
Homo georgicus
Homo sapiens idaltu


Where do you think this 'missing link' is? Between which two fossils?

Thank you Prometheus for pointing this out. Of course it has never been suggested that hominids evolved from "apes".

That assertion is a just a piece of creationist propaganda, and anyone reading the tosh Pianistimo is spouting should be aware of that.

That's what the creationsists have to resort to to suck in gullible people: lies and misinformation. Therefore people repeating this rubbish are either liars or they have been duped by the very ideology they profess to hold.

[pianistimo]

i read through your list of supposedly the links from A to B (creation to now) and yawned. you'll have to excuse me, but i'm bored of this coversation because you only repeat knowledge.  you've never doubted it yourself.  you are exactly what others call me.  brainwashed. 

i want - pictures of each of those - basically the list would be from here to eternity - so that list is fairly short.  everything, plant/animal/human would have to be related and go back to a single source.

so what if viruses, bacteria, and whatever mutates.  viruses do not have 'cells'  - therefore you cannot find fossilized evidence of them.  they come and go as they please and have probably mutated quite a bit in the last few days.  and yet, the diseases themselves have not changed dramatically in the symptoms.  why?  can yoiu explain that.  why does chicken pox still produce chicken pox.  wait!  i think doctors will mutate it and we'll have polio chicken pox.  you know - stiff legs at the same time.

[prometheus]

Thank you Prometheus for pointing this out. Of course it has never been suggested that hominids evolved from "apes".

Actually, at this point in time scientists classify humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans to make up the family Hominidae. The members are called hominids.

But taxonomy is always tricky and inaccurate.

So humans are also apes. Or apes are humans, however you want to use everyday language. Science uses the word 'hominid'.
Humans did not evolve from chimps or gorilla's, like almost everyone knows. Just like you aren't the child of your nephew.

All hominid members currently alive evolved from a common ancestor. Which of the skeletons we have found is the closest is not clear. Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Orrorin tugenensis are canditates and they come close.

But fossils are rare. If we had hundreds of fossils of each of these species then it would be easier. But most of these species have only a few skeletons.

The whole Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo genera are all either our ancestors or the 'brothers and sisters' of our ancestors. A lot of these fossils are related hominids that died out. There is only one line from the common ancestor of all great apes of today to homo sapiens. Which skeletons and thus species I have listed are part of this line is hart to figure out.

I have many deja vu's. I also mentioned most of this before. That time I also gave Cranial capacities for many of these human ancestors. You can clearly see they progress in steps. There is no sudden leap from monkey to human.

[pianistimo]

this is a lie.  perform dna testing on these chimps and declare them chimps.

the lie is apparent when you hear - 'but we have few fossils.'  why.  there are fossils enough to prove this or that.  obviously 50 years ago diane what-chamacallit was declaring names to each of these bones and fossils as though she declared them long lost relatives.  how many of those are now declared - through modern dna testing as regular old monkeys?  she's not discussed anymore.  why?  her theories were false.

[prometheus]

this is a lie.

What is a lie?


You want pictures? Are you trying who has the most stamina? You can find all these yourself. You aren't stupid. You can find all the facts that seem to support your view.



Proconsul africanus

-Lived approximately 18 million years ago
-Possible comman ancestor for all great apes.


Fossil:


Artists impression:





Pierolapithecus catalaunicus

-Lived approximately 13 million years ago.
-Possible comman ancestor for all great apes.

Fossil:


Artists impression:





Sahelanthropus tchadensis

-Lived approximately 7 million years ago.
-Probably only a human ancestor. So after the split off from chimps

Fossil:


Artists impression:






Ardipithecus ramidus

-Lived aprox. 4.4 million years
-Early hominid

Fossil:


Artists impression:






Australopithecus anamensis

-Lived aprox. 4.1 and 3.9 million years ago.
-Probably often climbed in trees

Fossil:


AA:






Australopithecus afarensis

-Lived aprox. 3.9 to 3 million years ago
-Probably an ancestor of the genus Homo

Fossil:


Artists impression:


Wait, that one looks so ugly you may not want to be related too it, thus destroying my whole case, right?





Australopithecus africanus

-Lived aprox. 3.3 and 2.4 million years ago
-Another different species of the Austrolopithecus genus

Fossil:


Artists impression:



Australopithecus bahrelghazali

-Lived aprox. 3.0 to 3.5 million years
-Probably another seperate Australopithecus species


Fossil:


AA:
None found






Australopithecus garhi

-Lived aprox. 2.0 and 3.0 million years ago.
-Maybe the 'final' 'missing link' between Austrolopithecus and Homo
-Controversial due to to its ambiguous morphology

Fossil:


AA:




Paranthropus aethiopicus

-Lived aprox. 2.7 and 2.5 million years ago.
-All Paranthropuses are probably hominids on a evolutionary side-branch seperate from our ancestors

Fossil:


AA:




Paranthropus robustus
-Lived aprox.  2.0 and 1.2 million years ago
-Another species of the Paranthropus genus

Fossil:


AA:



Homo habilis

-Lived aprox. 2.5 million to 1.8 million years ago
-Finally some real 'humans'
-Used tools for sure

Fossil:


AA:

 

Homo rudolfensis

-Lived aprox. 1.9 million years ago
-Similar to H. Habilis but thought to be a seperate species

Fossil:


AA:



Homo erectus

-Lived aprox. 1.8 and 1.0 million years
-Maybe evolved in Asia, maybe not an actual ancestor of H. Sapiens

Fossil:


AA:


Homo ergaster

-Lived aprox. 1.9 to 1.4 million years ago
-Maybe a subspecies of H. Erectus

Fossil:


AA:


AA:




Homo neanderthalensis

-Lived aprox. 130,000 to 24,000 years ago
-Lived together with Homo Sapiens

Fossil:


AA:





Homo sapiens idaltu

-Lived aprox. 154,000 years ago
-Extinct subspecies of homo sapiens
-Lived in Africa

Fossil:


AA:



There are more, but they aren't that important. Just look up the others yourself. For many species several fossils have been found as well.

[pianistimo]

people who will not perform modern science honestly - and have to keep covering up false ideas in the hopes of keeping religion out of science.

[prometheus]

people who will not perform modern science honestly - and have to keep covering up false ideas in the hopes of keeping religion out of science.

Non-sense statement. Maybe you mean 'in the hopes of keeping science out of religion'. No matter how wrong science is and how dishonest and lying scientists are, religion has no place in science. You don't pray to recharge your cellphone.

[jakev2.0]

Re: Contradictions in the Bible?

YES! The thing on page 153!!

[mad_max2024]

A guy goes away for a couple of days and finds this thread flooded with new info... I'm lost now lol

people who will not perform modern science honestly - and have to keep covering up false ideas in the hopes of keeping religion out of science.

I dont exactly understand where this sentence came from but it seems obvious to me that religion should have nothing to do with science.
By religion I don't mean the belief in one or another god or miracles or any of that, I mean religion itself
Religious thining is the exact opposite of science, in science a man knows he doesnt know anything and he struggles with his intellect and reasoning to understand what happens in the universe he's in, so basically he questions everything and tries to figure out which answer is more likely to explain what he sees.
In religion the process is somewhat reversed, there is a core of beliefs that rule man's understanding of the universe and he struggles to adapt what he sees and experiences to fit those beliefs, he believes without questioning.
They are probably both necessary, religion brings comfort to man and gives him some illusion that he is special and meaningful, a lot of scientists are religious and most of them openly claim they believe in religion because they want to believe and it gives them hope.
However, when we see something in nature that we cannot explain we should question it and discover what happens and how without preconceived notions about what should happen.
If we adapt the world to our beliefs our knowledge will come to a halt, we should always do the opposite.

[asyncopated]

Prometheus -- Thanks for sticking all the pictures in your post.  I have never seen them all in one place before layed out like that.  Interesting and certainly and eye opener.

[timothy42b]

people who will not perform modern science honestly - and have to keep covering up false ideas in the hopes of keeping religion out of science.

pianistimo is not a scientist.  She is a musician, and a good one judging from her posts on more musical threads.  We can't expect her to understand all this scientific stuff. 

However the creationist movement does have a few real scientists, and they do know the facts.  And lie about them.  I know I should be calm, but this kind of dishonesty from Christians infuriates me. 

Fortunately not all Christians are young earth creationists.  In fact, more than 1.3 billion of them, including myself, accept evolution.  This antiscience bunch is a small but vocal and sometimes politically powerful subset. 

[mad_max2024]

Fortunately not all Christians are young earth creationists.  In fact, more than 1.3 billion of them, including myself, accept evolution.  This antiscience bunch is a small but vocal and sometimes politically powerful subset. 

I for one am aware of that, but the problem is that creationist movement tries to impose it's ideas on the form of science and try to lecture them as if they are scientific theories in classrooms.
That would undermine the very essence of scientific thinking and teach future generations the wrong idea about what science is, I think that's why scientists from all over the world are so critical of creationism, I have rarely seen such a chaotic and bickerig community as the scientific so united in a purpose.
Creationism is a religious belief and it should stay that way, to call it science is not only wrong and inappropriate but also harmful to scientific progress.

pianistimo is not a scientist. She is a musician, and a good one judging from her posts on more musical threads. We can't expect her to understand all this scientific stuff.

It's always good to think and discuss though, even if noone understands anything
Thinking is all that matters

[pianistimo]

it works both ways.  what if all those furrowed brows mean ape skulls?  maybe they were apes?  plausible?  i mean a human skull doesn't have those big brows and teeth that come down the same way.  looks to me like a modern day ape skull.  let me find a pic so you can compare a modern day ape skull with homo erectus and homo ergaster.  in the meantime:

www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen3.html

of course, today - we wouldn't think of scientists doing what they did back then to prove a point or two - or many to cover the first mistake. 

here's a little light reading for those inclined to believe in a Creator:

www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Design1.html

[mad_max2024]

it works both ways.  what if all those furrowed brows mean ape skulls?  maybe they were apes?  plausible?  i mean a human skull doesn't have those big brows and teeth that come down the same way.  looks to me like a modern day ape skull.  let me find a pic so you can compare a modern day ape skull with homo erectus and homo ergaster.  in the meantime:

Of course they look like apes, that's the whole point, they have the characteristics of both apes and human skulls and they trace a path from a simian ancestor to humans.
You are assuming evolution works rapidly, the changes take place over millions of years and are very subtle
If they looked like human skulls, they would actually disprove evolution by proving humans remained unchanged for millions of years

As for the links...
Just because some scientists lie for personal gain it doesnt mean that the theory is not valid
There are stupid people everywhere and science is no exception

As for the second link all it does is point out unusual things about nature and assume it proves that a creator is present
The giraffe doesnt sprout a neck over night, it slowly evolves from very small changes that accumulated
If the mites lived on both of the moth's ears, the moth would die and most likely so would the mites thus not creating descendance
etc... etc... etc...
In the words of David Hume, for a miracle to be proven, all other possible explanations must be even more miraculous...

[pianistimo]

if modern day apes have the exact same skull...nothing's changed.

[mad_max2024]

if modern day apes have the exact same skull...nothing's changed.

Exactly right, but they don't
Fossils are similar to modern day apes, but they are not the same
They share similarities with both apes and humans
We just see more apish characteristics because we classify everything non-human as ape

[pianistimo]

a national geographic finding - of a skull in africa - turns out to be ape and not pre human ancestor - from testing.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1009_021009_chadskull.html

also - there have not been found any missing links between an ape creature that walks on four legs and a ape/human that walks on two.  the dna cannot cross-over.  the apes are born with a pelvis that does not allow walking on two  legs for extended periods of time. 

there is no connection that i see.  it is falsified evidence.

[pianistimo]

the reason i see it as false is that we have had several pole shifts (according to scientists) and several dramatic climate shifts over the periods of so-called evolution.  if the hadar, ethiopian site (which claims 3 million year old fossil of early man) truly has a hominid - it would have been one made of iron.  they would have survived several SIZEABLE shifts of climate change.

ok.  let's suppose everyone survived - or a few lucy's even.  we get to nihewan basin, china - 1.8 - 1.6 million years ago  - these fossils are discovered amongst tools and such - and indicate human activity.  BUT, are dated by MAGNETIC properties.  they are dated by pole shifts -of which scientists are still unsure as to exact dating.  this is just wierd to me.

now, we get to homo erectus (but the homo wasn't erect - according to some scientists - that cannot get recombinant ape/human dna to mesh) in olorgesaille, kenya.  i'd rather start here - if you don't mind.  why do they call them erect?  they still had the pelvis's of apes!

this is what i believe:

australopithecus afarensis = tree climbing ape or 'lucy' - thought to be 'erect' because of knee similarities NOT PELVIS

java man = giant gibbons

australopithecus = skull of 3 year old chimp

[prometheus]

it works both ways.  what if all those furrowed brows mean ape skulls?  maybe they were apes?  plausible?  i mean a human skull doesn't have those big brows and teeth that come down the same way.  looks to me like a modern day ape skull.  let me find a pic so you can compare a modern day ape skull with homo erectus and homo ergaster. 

There are many different kinds of skulls, ape-like skulls, ape-like skulls on human-like bodies. Then proto-humanlike skulls with almost human-like bodies. Etc.


So now, where is your missing link? Or were you wrong? If you were then how did that happen? How can you prevent it from happening again?

in the meantime:

www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen3.html

of course, today - we wouldn't think of scientists doing what they did back then to prove a point or two - or many to cover the first mistake. 

Piltdown Man was a hoax that has been exposed by science. Not by Christians.

What's the point? It was even exposed in 1953.


Because the forgery contradicts darwinistic evolution it is believed it was forced by racists or nationalists. Not by scientists. This fake fossil, if it were real, would have been a big problem for evolution.

here's a little light reading for those inclined to believe in a Creator:

www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Design1.html

The cryingvoice site is a creationist propaganda site. Not a site of science.

These claims made have been refuted long long ago


The Giraffe's Special Circulatory System
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html

Mites Defeat the Theory of Evolution!

The mites are parasites. If they live in both ears then the moths will be eaten by bats, including the mites.

The moment mites start to live in one ear they have an evolutionary advantage.


Creationism can't explain anything.


The Climbing perch, Anabas testudineus, doesn't walk on land or in top of trees. That's a myth. Anyway, it wouldn't be a problem. A creature can gain an advantage by developing the ability to breate oxigen from air. Because then it can live in shallow water  and in the end walk on land.

https://www.ryedaleaquaristsociety.co.uk/CLIMBING%20PERCH.htm


About the bats and the moths. It claims the problem is that because it took humans thousands of man-hours to develop radar and radar jamming and radar absorbation that bats and moths can't do it.

First off, bats don't use radar. They use sound. Huge difference.

And about the whole 'problem'. Obviously evolution can do what humans can't do. The reasons for this is because life builds on a molecular level. Humans don't. Also, evolution has millions or years to slowly develop something. Humans needed thousands of man-hours.

I don't get the objection.


About argiculture ants and their fungi. Symbiotic relationships are no problem for evolution. Actually they support evolution. Because these relationships can only grow. Relationships don't appear out of nothing. Anyway, use google and you will find many articles on both these ants and symbiotic evolution in general.

Symbiosis is actually a major driving force for evolution. Lynn Margulis published and wrote books on this. She fleshed out the Endosymbiotic theory created by Andreas Schimper.

Large blue and ants, another symbiotic relationship.


The Gecko Lizard's Secret.

If the gecko would stick to everything it would die. And so would its genes be eliminated. Not so strange that we don't see gecko's without a solution for this.

I can't even confirm if the 'stick lizard' exists. What it its actual name?

Hummingbird.

The creationism propaganda site claims that because we do not know how this bird navigates that proves it cannot have evolved. Doesn't matter.

This just displays the way this site works. Try to find a amazing thing in science and prove that it can't have evolved. But at the same time we know evolution happens and that almost all species not only could have evolved but we also understand how.

Ok, so we don't know how this one creature evolved. Does that disprove evolution? No, it doesn't. Do you really believe all life on earth evolved except for this one bird or lizard?

The site has a footnote to Vance Ferrell, Evolution Disproved Series, Books: Origin of Life and Other Evidence Against Evolution

I tried to find out who this person is. I didn't have much succes.

But this site writes about this person and his books:
https://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f05/web2/naltshuler.html

I do know this person makes all kinds of silly claims about science that are big misunderstandings and have been refuted long ago. This person also claims to have a MA and BA but not which kind and from which college/university. This is a pattern. This person keeps excluding the field and the college. And I have found many other sites that point this out.

Not to say that this person has ever pubished in a peer reviewed journals.


This person is not a scientist.

[pianistimo]

say darwin had said 'the origins of everything '  not just 'species' - he would have been more realistic.  the origins of species are species specific.  we know that now by dna.  you can repeat all the stories you want

explain to me how all this has survived through several ice-ages and now is extant today. how come everything didn't die off together.  how would it 'recreate' itself from bacteria?  are you saying creation occurs over and over.

if you do - i say your story is more hoaxish. 

most scientists even agree that mankind (as the species IS) could not be over 10,000 years old. 

do you realize evolutionists piece together this very early history (millions of years) by jawbones and teeth.  that's all they really have left.  everything is pretty much pieced together and they say 'aha, it means this.'  i could go and do that. 

btw,  i  liked your 'missing link' joke.  still working on photobucketing.

LET's TALK ABOUT PELVIS'S.  oh.  and i forgot to ask - HOW DID WE GET SHORTER ARMS 0 BECAUSE APES HAVE LONGER FOREARMS THAN HIND LEGS.  WHAT HAPPENED?

[prometheus]

a national geographic finding - of a skull in africa - turns out to be ape and not pre human ancestor - from testing.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1009_021009_chadskull.html

I posted about that skull. It is Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

This article talks about how we have to fit these fossils together. The article claims that now more scientists believe that Orrorin tugenensis is the earliest human.

Anyway, either way Sahelanthropus tchadensis is either an ancestor of chimps of of humans. So it always proves evolution.

I forgot to post Orrorin tugenensis yesterday.

also - there have not been found any missing links between an ape creature that walks on four legs and a ape/human that walks on two.

Didn't you read the article? We have bones for Orrorin tugenensis. The femur suggests it walked upright.

But for Sahelanthropus tchadensis we only have a skull.

Anyway, there is a debate between scientists. All of them accept evolution as a fact. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to do their job. Without evolution these fossils make no sense. And with creation they shouldn't even exist. And with christianity these people should destroy these fossils so no one will ever find out.

  the dna cannot cross-over.  the apes are born with a pelvis that does not allow walking on two  legs for extended periods of time. 

Obviously.

there is no connection that i see.  it is falsified evidence.

Thou shalt not bear false witness!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsified_evidence

These skulls are not frauds. They are no forgeries. If they were scientists would find out, like they did with Piltdown man.

[pianistimo]

say you are correct (even though modern dna has proven that species cannot macro-evolve due to distinctly separate dna structures between species).  what if -- what if we did come from apes.  where did the apes come from?  i know.  fish.  and the fish from amoeba.  and so on.  it all makes perfect sense.  especially knowing HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR ONE SINGLE SPECIES TO MAKE A VERY MINOR MICRO CHANGE (deletion of a gene).  genes can only select between pre-existing traits.  they CANNOT make new ones.  i'm talking about living creatures now - on the cellular level and not about viruses and bacteria which do not have cells.  even genes of non-resistant bacteria die out and that is why the stronger bacteria survive and thrive.  so - it's a constant dying - not regenerative process where we have more of something and it's adapting forwardly (adding processes) but they are degenerating.

[prometheus]

say darwin had said 'the origins of everything '  not just 'species' - he would have been more realistic.

He would have been lying. Because the things he talked about only talked about the origin of species, the diversity of live and how it evolves.

the origins of species are species specific.  we know that now by dna.  you can repeat all the stories you want

Please rephrase this glibberish.

explain to me how all this has survived through several ice-ages and now is extant today.

They didn't all survive? Humans you mean? Doesn't the fact that we still exist prove that we survived?

Anyway, the last ice age didn't cover the whole planet in ice. Non-sense objections.

how come everything didn't die off together.  how would it 'recreate' itself from bacteria?  are you saying creation occurs over and over.

Almost everything died out. About 99.9% died out already.

if you do - i say your story is more hoaxish. 

Haha? What?

most scientists even agree that mankind (as the species IS) could not be over 10,000 years old.

 
Source?

do you realize evolutionists piece together this very early history (millions of years) by jawbones and teeth.  that's all they really have left.  everything is pretty much pieced together and they say 'aha, it means this.'  i could go and do that. 

Uuh... I just posted the pictures of them.

What is the point?

btw,  i  liked your 'missing link' joke.  still working on photobucketing.

Which joke?

LET's TALK ABOUT PELVIS'S.  oh.  and i forgot to ask - HOW DID WE GET SHORTER ARMS 0 BECAUSE APES HAVE LONGER FOREARMS THAN HIND LEGS.  WHAT HAPPENED?

It evolved. DNA changed because of mutations. We know this happens. Then specific kinds of DNA were selected because it survived while 'unfit' DNA died out and was eliminated from the gene pool.

[prometheus]

what if we did come from apes.  where did the apes come from?

THEN DARWINISTIC EVOLUTION WOULD BE WRONG!!!!!!

Didn't we talk in depth about how humans and great apes (chimp gorilla, urang utang) share a common ancestor? Proconsul africanus? Pierolapithecus catalaunicus?

(even though modern dna has proven that species cannot macro-evolve due to distinctly separate dna structures between species).

What are you talking about? Give me a scientific study that 'proves' such a system exists.


Human evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_human_evolution

[pianistimo]

don't you remember!  every 10,000 years there is a pole shift and there is a DRAMATIC climate change.  not a little.  enough to basically kill everything.  instant freeze.  something like that.  that is where we explain the polar regions.  remember!

you are the scientist here - you go look up dna limitations. 

[prometheus]

I talked about climate changes and species extinction in another topic about global warming.


Obviously climate changes didn't kill off all life. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.


I can't believe I am now trying to convince you of the fact that planet earth harbors life.


Also, that the poles switch every 10,000 years is not (yet) worn out by the facts. We know that the poles switched and that it rebalanced 800 million years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_theory#Recent_Research

Otherwise, it is psuedo-science from new age people. You as a christian shouldn't have the same faith as new age people.

[prometheus]

you are the scientist here - you go look up dna limitations.  everyone knows about it now - and it makes evolutionists look stupid.

Which ones?

I don't know of any science book or scientist or science article that claims DNA has limitations that prevent evolution.

You make claims. Now back them up. Don't say I should know about it as an excuse.

[prometheus]

say you are correct (even though modern dna has proven that species cannot macro-evolve due to distinctly separate dna structures between species).  what if -- what if we did come from apes.  where did the apes come from?  i know.  fish.  and the fish from amoeba.  and so on.  it all makes perfect sense. 

Weak dishonest stray-man fallacy. Be ashamed. God saw you do it too.

...especially knowing HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR ONE SINGLE SPECIES TO MAKE A VERY MINOR MICRO CHANGE (deletion of a gene).

Depends on the rate of generations, obviously. A single mutation happens in one generation.

...genes can only select between pre-existing traits.

Genes don't have any traits. They only have base pairs.

DNA is a code. It only has a pair of G-C or a pair of A-T. Either a pair is added, deleted or changed into the other time.

That's all.

  they CANNOT make new ones.

I already gave you evidence that it does happens. Why don't you try to refute that? Don't act like I didn't gave you evidence.

I'm talking about living creatures now - on the cellular level and not about viruses and bacteria which do not have cells.

Bacteria are living creatures. I also gave you specification in mammals.

Bacteria and virusses have much much much more generations over time. So evolution happens faster.

There is no difference between bacteria and animals that limits evolution. If you claim there is propose a theory/system and provide evidence.

even genes of non-resistant bacteria die out and that is why the stronger bacteria survive and thrive.

The genes die out. Yes. But these bacteria colonies start off from one bacteria. You can't claim that some bacteria already were resistant to a toxin. These traits are new and evolved from mutations in the DNA. It is observed fact.

so - it's a constant dying - not regenerative process where we have more of something and it's adapting forwardly (adding processes) but they are degenerating.

No. This is not true. Go email the scientists that did the experiments. I gave their names. You made reading errors.

Don't tell those scientists what experiments they did. They know it. You and I don't.

Or where you there?

[pianistimo]

the mechanism for natural selection is random mutation? 

www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

[prometheus]

That article talks about Behe's book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe

Note he is a chemist. Not a biologist. In his field he can get around evolution and still be able to do his job.

He



He proposes Intelligent Design, so why do you want to consider what he says?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box

Anyway, the idea is that there are 'Irreducible complexity' things in nature that cannot have progressed in steps because if one element is removed it will no longer function at all.


The problem with this idea is that 'Irreducible complexity' is not something scientific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Some proposed 'Irreducible complex' things in nature already have been proven to be ruducible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Reducibility_of_.22irreducible.22_systems


The problem is that Behe doesn't consider functions. It only considers the present function. For example his famous flagella.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella

With one mutation the flagella will not work at all. At least not as a propellent.

The problem is that it doesn't consider that the flagella used to have other functions.
https://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Behe's works has been refuted many times. He is not able to publish in peer reviewed journals because his ideas cannot stand up to the critisism.


Christians tried to get Intelligent Design in science lessons. They failed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Behe was called up as a witness in ths case and extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.

There court established the fact that there are no articles about Intelligent Design in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, ID is not science. Therefore it does not belong in schools.
Another loss from fundamentalist christians.

The court also ruled that "the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's;"

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Irreducible_complexity_in_the_Dover_trial


It has all been refuted.  Irreducible complexity is dead. ID is dead.


You added a link about MtDNA and Neanderthals. It does not talk about evolution or the limits and impossibilities of DNA or mutations.

It talks about the debate between scientists that all accept evolution. Otherwise they wouldn't have the debate described.

[pianistimo]

NONE OF IT HAS BEEN REFUTED. 

it is impossible to refute God.  face it.  there was intelligent design.  natural selection couldn't produce what we have today in a zillion years - and yet if you tract mtdna back - it's young!  and btw, counting all these polar shifts - how many times can one undergo that?  it would be a fairly catastrophic thing to suddenly have the ocean currents going another way.  it would really change everything much more dramatically than just a deep freeze.

[pianistimo]

i will now go and study as much as i can find out about the hadar site in ethiopia, nihewan basin, china, olorgesaille, kenya and tanzania, olduvai gorge.