The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
Sorry to tell you kuniva, but you're dead wrong. Only closing your eyes, plugging your ears and shouting naaanananaanaaa when you're explained the evidence makes you think we have not evolved. Evolution is the fact of science.
Sorry to tell you kuniva, but you're dead wrong. Only closing your eyes, plugging your ears and shouting naaanananaanaaa when you're explained the evidence makes you think we have not evolved. Evolution is the fact of science.
i never said evolution didnt exist lol. im saying that humans might not be subject to natural selection. and theres no evidence to sugest that they are if u take the timeline of human existance in contrast to the time it takes machanism/mutation into consideration . i wud like to see the evidene that humans evolved. the races of humans dna is so strong that not enough time has past for it to of changed from apes into the different races, but that i mean in another 200k years chinese ppl will most likely still be chinese. im not going by a theory i made up, im going by wot academics in the hgp are now saying world wide
i dont dismiss the possibility that we evolved and untill theres conclusive evidence i will stick with the more crazy improbable views that we were put here thro genetics rather than evolution. did u watch that youtube video i posted?
just to add. i have an open mind and dont consider myself ignorant. evolution may be possible, but is certainly not fact, its still a theory as far as i know im not asking this to try and get brownie points but cud u, or sum1 plz post this evidence of evolution i cant find any conclusive? i do know for fact that evolution has never been observed, and that lab attempts at chemical evolution is epic fail. there is more that flaws evolution, granted not alot and may be explainable 1 day.
as i say im open minded and i find it ignorant to proclaim something as truth without concrete evidence and all doubt removed. although ill admit evolution is far more feasable in comparrison to the bibles view, as i dont believe in god at all. but if aliens existed and had genetic research capable, then maybe creationism cud be correct in a sense? just a thought to ponder lol ... ye i may be a fking nut
i have only recently started my personal studies into religion and human origin, never really looked into evolution as a whole, and i dont like the idea of cellestial evolution (big bang) i prefer the intelligent design theory(s)
btw is it possible that mutation, genetics, natural selection cud exist without evolution?
Omg, you don't even know what evolution is yet you're trying to say it may not true.
Repeatedly explaining what evolution is, what evidence it has supporting it, explaining what a scientific theory means makes me want to shout out of anger. See thunderf00t, cdk007 and DonExodus2 channels in youtube. The youtube is patient enough to do it repeatedly.
Omg, you don't even know what evolution is yet you're trying to say it may not true.
Repeatedly explaining what evolution is, what evidence it has supporting it, explaining what a scientific theory means makes me want to shout out of anger. See thunderf00t, cdk007 and DonExodus2 channels in youtube. The youtube is patient enough to do it repeatedly.
misinterpretation doesnt lie within the originator but rather the recipient .. i never once said evolution isnt true (2nd time ive had to tell u this). i was reacting to u saying evolution was fact, now its a scientific theory, forgive me there, i spose its my fault ..
for ur information im a fan of evolution, but im not blinded by it, i will ask questions. maybe i dont understand evolution as well as other people, but i understand the process well enough. as for youtube, patient, repeatedly, that almost sounds like a small witty insult, have i offended u? i am just putting all aspects up for debate. u criticize christians for being so closed minded and not questioning their beliefs,pot kettle .. im not here to argue with u and dont care for ppl who try twist my words to fit an attack because they dont understand wot im saying, my english isnt the greatest as u wud see. if i am wrong in my assumption on u vs me then i apolagise and wud like u to read this as i find it very controversal
"Comparative anatomy is the name given to the science that deals with the structure of animals. Comparing the anatomy of one kind of animal with another is supposed to prove descent from a common ancestor. This is often put forward as strong evidence for evolution. However, the science of comparative anatomy can just as easily be used as evidence of creation, as we shall see.
The bones of a horse are different from our bones, but there is such a similarity that if we are familiar with the human skeleton, we could easily identify and name the bones of a horse. We could do the same if we studied the skeleton of a salamander, a crocodile, a bird, or a bat. However, not only are the bones similar, but so also are other anatomical structures, such as muscles, the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the eyes, the lungs, the digestive tract, and so on. This is interpreted by the evolutionists as proof that these various animals are all descended from a common ancestor.
One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.
Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.
We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption.
n fact, there is another logical reason why things look alike—creation by an intelligent designer using a common blueprint. This is the reason that Toyota and Ford motor vehicles look so much alike. They are built to a common plan—you only have to look at them to realize this. However, the problem with the living world is that in many cases either explanation (i.e., evolution or creation) appears to be logical and it is often impossible for us to tell which is the more reasonable explanation. This is why it is important for us to understand which worldview we are using to interpret the evidence.
There is, however, one discovery that appears to make the evolutionary view of descent from a common ancestor look illogical and flawed. This discovery is that structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. If the structures evolved from the same source, you would expect the same genes to make the structures. The fact that these structures are similar (or homologous) is apparent, but the reason is not because of Darwinian evolution. It is more logical and reasonable to believe in a common Creator rather than a common ancestor.
Many evolutionists readily admit that they have failed to find evidence of the evolution of large structures such as bones and muscles, so instead they argue that they have found homology among the complex organic molecules that are found in living systems. One of these is hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Although this protein is found in nearly all vertebrates, it is also found in some invertebrates (worms, starfish, clams, and insects) and also in some bacteria. Yet there is no evidence of the evolution of this chemical—in all cases, the same kind of molecule is complete and fully functional. If evolution has occurred, it should be possible to map out how hemoglobin evolved, but this cannot be done. To the creationist, however, hemoglobin crops up complete and fully functional wherever the Creator deems it fitting in His plan.
this is also controvisty, worth a read (still i am not stating that evolution isnt true, but nor am i saying it is true (at least till theres all doubt removed) but is still the leading, by far, theory man has (now that is the fact))
It is commonly believed (because it is taught in our schools and colleges) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution.
The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.
In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, “If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning.” Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite—that an intelligence is required to create life.
If we look carefully at Miller’s experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller’s experiment was hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago.
There are a number of objections to such a conclusion.
1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.
2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.
3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.
4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.
The problems outlined above show that, far from creating life in the laboratory, the chemical evolutionists have not shown that living systems arose by chance from nonliving chemicals. Furthermore, the vast amount of information contained in the nucleus of a living cell shows that living systems could not have evolved from nonliving chemicals. The only explanation for the existence of living systems is that they must have been created.
Yes, we're flesh and blood. Science never said we evolved from monkeys. Basically it says we ARE MONKEYS and we are in fact animals that just learned how to walk on 2 feet.
Science says that we are Monkeys? And you absurdly said that I am the one whom doesn't understand evolution? lol. It's a common misconception that we evolved from Monkeys, and we are certainly NOT Monkeys. What the GP tells us is that we share a common ancestor with Gorillas and Chimps to which we are closely related. Gorillas and Chimps aren't Monkeys either. Shortly thereafter, this common ancestor diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into Gorillas and Chimps, and the other evolved into early Human ancestors called Hominids.
Also to hit on the point that you've repeatedly put accross evidence of evolution, is a lie, you've declared no such thing, so shout out in anger all you want I'll respect your wishes to refrain from insulting you (dear I wish that you would refrain from double standards and hyporcisy) and I will not call you ignorant and bewildered .. have a good day.
I might comment but cant really make much sense of any of this :- you don't believe in god, yet believe in intelligent design, that seems to me like a self contradictory view.
do you mean you don't believe in god as depicted in various religions ? if there was intelligent design that does imply there was some entity that was intelligent.
IMO the design of humans is not very intelligent. who in their right minds would put a pleasure centre right next to a waste disposal plant ?
with regard to the missing link, lack of evidence is not proof of anything, it doesn't prove intelligent design.
what gets me is that people argue about evolution versus god, yet miss the point that evolution only explains a small part. people fail to appreciate that it asks more questions than it answers, the fact that the universe was created in such a way that evolution is probable is just as remarkable if not more so than intelligent design.
with those links, it looks like you've uncovered a plot for the next Stargate type film.
the same type of giants exist today, its a medical condition.
oh didn't see there was another page,,, with regard to future evolution, sadly not only are we no longer evolving ie we may still be the same race in 200k years, but unfortunately i fear we will evolve backwards.
evolution requires selection through survival or non survival, as we increase our our ability to keep even the most unhealthiest babies alive and to live to propagate we are doomed evolutionarily.
similarly there have been periods were survival was very much more in doubt - as evidenced by the periods of extinction in fossil records, evolution always moves much much faster as a result.
in ancient Egypt, cats were once worshipped as gods, cats have never forgotten this. if you ever owned a cat you will know what I mean.
science comes out with more absurdities than religion sometimes...
such as introducing the idea of the passing of a tornado through a junkyard and creating a jumbo jet. although i have no idea if this was a religious or scientific based view.
however evolution is not like that,,, consider an easier to explain situation which is just as absurd :- a room of monkeys which randomly type the works of Shakespeare.
lets make that a little closer to evolution, and start with trillions of monkeys for millions of years and all they have to do is come up with one sentence which makes sense, thats all.
well, although Ive never seen if a monkey can actually type, and doubt if they can even put the paper in. but thats obviously a huge difference in probability, as to be a dead certainty - the one sentence could be the very first amoeba or whatever IE just a few random letters or chemicals put together in random order.
then those monkeys type away again and come up with another sentence that makes sense which also makes sense when added to the first sentence. this could be the next thing up from the amoeba.
if every time the monkeys type a sentence that fits onto the end of the last sentence it gets added on then fairly soon we will have something that makes a lot more sense than one of those forum threads were each poster types one sentence.
note:this doesn't prove evolution it merly displays the absurdity of the claim that its statistically impossible.
the handedness of molecules does not cause a problem, whichever type of organism was created it would chose left or right handed molecules to attach to whichever would fit, it would have a choice of 50/50.
whichever organism was first to flourish and produce more organic molecules would alter the balance and eventually the more abundant would dominate totally.
with regard to the difference in cars, if you actually look at history you will see there were as many different types of control mechanisms for brake, clutch, gear, steering, accelerator etc, so there was no common plan. some were unbelievably difficult to control and not surprisingly never caught on. however the first mass producer picked one type, and the second mass producer copied that type, and so on. thats why they are alike.
the fact that some countries still drive on the wrong side of the road ,,,
oh with regard to the oxygen problem, I believe its said that all the oxygen was tied up with carbon etc, this is why plant life evolved first, the plants created the abundance of oxygen. I think there is evidence of this, in that there are early forms of iron deposition which prove that there was no oxygen available and later deposits of iron are in the form of iron oxide, although I'm not 100% sure of this.
Last edited by meow; 25-10-2009 at 13:42..
Reason: now with added iron
I might comment but cant really make much sense of any of this :- you don't believe in god, yet believe in intelligent design, that seems to me like a self contradictory view.
do you mean you don't believe in god as depicted in various religions ? if there was intelligent design that does imply there was some entity that was intelligent.
IMO the design of humans is not very intelligent. who in their right minds would put a pleasure centre right next to a waste disposal plant ?
with regard to the missing link, lack of evidence is not proof of anything, it doesn't prove intelligent design.
what gets me is that people argue about evolution versus god, yet miss the point that evolution only explains a small part. people fail to appreciate that it asks more questions than it answers, the fact that the universe was created in such a way that evolution is probable is just as remarkable if not more so than intelligent design.
with those links, it looks like you've uncovered a plot for the next Stargate type film.
the same type of giants exist today, its a medical condition.
intelligent design is different from god (enlil) to me because i believe that god was an alien (enlil), which is spoken about in ancient texts. but the true creator, maybe an intelligence we cant measure, and a conscience that doesnt influence us as beings. i think that the universe is too particular not ot be a design, just because of the odds. the universe only had 1 shot at a sculpture if u will and i guess if it wasnt a design a latter chance of how things wud generate is still possible, nop matter how improbable, as sumthing had to of happened. as i say im open minded and maybe intelligent design isnt true.
as for the giant thing, if this interests u u shud do research into some of the bones and skulls found throughout history, and historic research refering to such great sizes. sure the bones cud be faked and the stories interpretated wrongly, but its interesting
this is a shortened version of a doc shown on discovery channel
i just like the concept of the annunaki as it puts everything into prespective
hav to also add, my thought of the intelligent design doesnt back creationism in my head as its merely for the laws of the universe. but i do think that humans were created by intelligence, such as the annunaki belief. i dont buy into us evolving so rapidly and possessing intellect, also dont believe much in repeated coincidences of grand scale (like every religion worshiping reptilian like gods that were slightly taller). massive structure such as baalbek created with primitive technology (even todays cranes cudnt lift sum of those stones, never mind quarry and carry them 5 miles). also alien abductions and crop circles, too many coincidences of similarities, even under hyptnosis
btw yes i had a cat for 17 years and knew about wot u were saying and think there cud be a grain fo truth in it. but its debatable as sum specie of cat that are kept as pet arent linked but still similar behaviour
well that clears up some of the confusion.
however in my view the minimum definition of god is "that which created the universe and everything". regardless of whether that thing is whats possible according to science/big bang/string theory, or a being or entity. - this is an "existentialist" view.
many people were worshipped as a god such as Pharaohs but falsely so. your god the alien is what i would consider yet another false god rather than the god. ofc there is no reason why an advanced alien who arrived on earth couldn't be confused for a god. except ofc for the fact that such space travel is problematic in many ways.
I love the discovery channel but unfortunately you do get some documentaries which are unbelievably logically challenged.
the fact that we don't see an obvious way as to how people built the pyramids simply means that we don't know, it doesn't mean that aliens must of built them. however there are many plausible methods which don't require aliens - just the materials which were probably available at the time.
there is precious little evidence remaining to be certain which method might of been used.
the Chinese build fantastic structures using bamboo as scaffolding. this would ofc leave no evidence. although there is just sand there ATM, desserts also have not always been desserts - Egypt may have not always just been full of sand and little else.
statistics is something that is naturally difficult to grasp some of the consequences of, i seem to have a natural. :- in my first maths lecture at uni, we were asked what is the chance of two people in the class having the same birthday, i was the only one out of 45 or so that said it was more than probable.
he subsequently called out every date of the year and asked people to put their hand up if it was their birthday ... was I right or wrong ?
I don't know what makes you think they were worshipping taller people, most such cultures at the time would bow down to kings and so would appear shorter in depictions. the tallest human may have been chosen to be the leader, this doesn't make them non human just because they were tall.
I think if you believe in crop circles and alien abductions revealed under hypnosis you have looked at one side of the evidence - crop circles are made by humans, alien abduction syndrome is caused by hypnagogic hallucinations.
again your assumption that the universe is a 1 shot system shows a closed mind, how do you know that this isn't the 10 trillionth universe to be created ? but just happens to be the first one where life comes out. we only can see this one.
also the anglo american corporation found ancient mines in africa dating to 60k bc. and lets not mention the mystery of cydonia of mars. and theres a video of a crop circle happening thats proven not to be a tampered video. too much for my tiny brain to keep on remembering everything, but theres more if u want to hear about
edit. i agree with the majority of ur last post and half of me believes the more logical side that argues against the alien conspiracy, apart from the universe thing, true multi universes may exist, but i was talking about this universe, only 1 shot, wot i meant was its only possible for 1 outcome, and we're livin in it. others wud be different ofc
sorry i tend to speak in riddles sometimes wen im writing like this. i cud attempt a more syntactical approach but im out of touch with my grammar and vocab. its been a long while since ive been on a news group. read a book. or just written sumthing lol
im just posting alot of information that i think shud be taken into consideration wen searching for our own personal beliefs. its still possible that thro all humans theories and speculations that the ultimate truth of existance hasnt even been imagined anbd maybe never will be. and as for being an annunaki believer i know that sum of the theory will be proven correct or wrong in my life time. id rather be proven wrong than die never knowing. btw the planet nibiru is in our solar system which is real, discovered in 1983 so travel is possible
btw if u have the time u shud watch as many good videos on youtube about 2012 as u can, it will giv u a basic grasp on the theories out there. its a very fun topic to indulge urself in, skeptic or otherwise. maybe hunt for a video on george green aswell (very wealhy banker - ex area 51 soldier), and zacheria sitchens work raises alot of question, although most of his work seems fabricated to me
btw how big was ur class in uni? at very 1st i thot it wud be 1/365 wud be the chance, thot, not very hard u got ur bday and only 1 in 365 chance of sum1 else havin same bday. but then realised it was more than 2 ppl in ur class hehe. mm i shud be sleeping lol. but ye very high probability. maybe 1 in 10 for average sizes of classes
ps, i knew about that the alien adbuctions cud be hallucinations, i know quite abit about vivid hallucinations as i suffer from sleep paralyses. and crop circles are argued by scientists as hoaxes, both these are common knowledge. of course it cud be dreams (but for world wide similarites in different individuals isnt really feasable, especially reports for more than a 100 years old) so i dont believe its really a biased statement
well needless to say I was right ofc otherwise i would of hid my embarrassment of being the only idiot to get it wrong !!!!! instead i was just thought of as a bloody smart ass after that lolz !
dunno which was worse.
as I indicated there were ~ 45 people in the class I think. we had huge lecture theatres where mechanical and electrical engineers shared common subjects like maths. but mostly smaller classes otherwise.
So:-
on any 1 day the chance of there being someone with a birthday is 45/365 = 0.123... or 1 in 8.
on any one day the chance of any 2 people having a birthday is the above squared (approximately) which is 1 in 8x8 which is 1 in 64. as there are 365 days in a year the odds are surprisingly to most people rather high at 5.7 to 1 IE likely to be 6 days with 2 birthdays.
the lecturer didn't get very far into the year before two people had the same birthday.
technically i think the odds is 45/365 * 44/365, because the second term has to take into account that you have to disclude the person from the first term.
yeah i find these conspiracy theory and myths fascinating and love to get absorbed in them, I only get involved in discussing them seriously when people try and enforce such unsupported views on us as that god made everything or that there is no god.
I would regret if I ever spoiled anyones enjoyment of religion or myths, however scientists seem to insist that it is necessary for them to be subjected to such reasoning.
...the universe only had 1 shot at a sculpture if u will ...
Not necessarily. If we take the idea of the "Big Crunch", perhaps there's been more than one Big Bang. Perhaps there's been millions. Statistically speaking, the conditions that we now see in our universe will be met eventually. N.B This is just supposition.
I've watched some of these videos and, while fascinating in a Stargate type way, they mention a planet (Nibiru) that will bring about the end of days in 2012. This planet is suppsedly 5 times the size of the Earth and has an eliptical orbit around the sun. It is also only viewable on certain days, and then suddenly not viewable. I stopped looking into it, right about then.
Not necessarily. If we take the idea of the "Big Crunch", perhaps there's been more than one Big Bang. Perhaps there's been millions. Statistically speaking, the conditions that we now see in our universe will be met eventually. N.B This is just supposition.
I've watched some of these videos and, while fascinating in a Stargate type way, they mention a planet (Nibiru) that will bring about the end of days in 2012. This planet is suppsedly 5 times the size of the Earth and has an eliptical orbit around the sun. It is also only viewable on certain days, and then suddenly not viewable. I stopped looking into it, right about then.
only 1 outcome is possible at a time. this specific time is wot im getting at in this specific universe, changes are still apart of the 1 specific outcome as only 1 set of changes can occur wotever path it may take, and wot ever odds it may defy. u cant have 2 realitys of same measurement occupying the 1 space. and nibiru have been observed thro SOHO as a winged disk. just like the ancients claimed, and just like the giant owl represents
only 1 path in this universe is definitely what seems most plausible to me. although the <movement> through time is very much a human abstract thought.
quantum theory may seem to indicate otherwise but I think this may just be a rather far fetched interpretation of it - such as Schroedinger's cat.
I think the interpretation of the carvings in the video is rather imaginative indeed
I'll respect your wishes to refrain from insulting you (dear I wish that you would refrain from double standards and hyporcisy) and I will not call you ignorant and bewildered .. have a good day.
Linear Mode
