evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

well, as creationism can't be a science; evolution cannot either. The difference is, is that creationism is affrontly religious (due to some things you just have to believe happened) and macro evolution, or stellar evolution, (well all of them besides microevolution) is religion (for the same reason as creationism) masqurading as science and taking our public tax dollars to be taught.

So what it boils down to is you object to tax dollars being spent on something that questions creationism ?....... I did ask before if there will ever be enough evidence for you to accept the scientific "theory"

though I surely don't care for every textbook to have a sticker, a Judge cannot rule against any such sticker; whether it be in a bible or textbook.


yes he can and has

Here's the reason behind the hostility toward debasing macro evolution as fact. (which believe me, they are teaching it as such.)

honestly; There is no other theory to take it's place. The only other one is creationism.
So does everything have to have more than one theory?.... should we denounce the way electricity travels through a wire because there isn't a counter theory? again at what point will there be enough evidence?
but wait; that would mean that there's a God. uh oh, problem.

because if there's a god, then this is his earth, and he owns it, and then we might have to follow his rules.

No one likes following rules. So, the evolution religion stands to give people the freedom to live like they choose.

Are you suggesting that anyone that doesn't believe in God is "immoral"?

So i am an Athiest because i don't like following rules ?

I do find it interesting that you use the word "religion" to describe an acceptance of scientific evidence. What with all the ownership arguments lately over such words as "marriage" and "sacred" (I know you were not part of that)

---

..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

a bunch of questions

---

hmm... quote thing is not working...

Quote:

---

So what it boils down to is you object to tax dollars being spent on something that questions creationism ?....... I did ask before if there will ever be enough evidence for you to accept the scientific "theory"

---

wow; of course not; obviously that is not what I stated.
something that questions creationism?
tell me a major university that even footnotes creationism and I will be throughtly suprised.
oh, and BTW; there is next to no evidence that points to evolution theory.

all I'm saying is that creationism and macro-evolution are in the same philisophical boat, only one claims it and one hides it.

if you teach one, teach the other...Or preferrably teach neither; because they both, in my opinion, fall out of the realm of science.

Quote:

---

though I surely don't care for every textbook to have a sticker, a Judge cannot rule against any such sticker; whether it be in a bible or textbook.


yes he can and has

---

Of course, and there lies the problem.

Quote:

---

So does everything have to have more than one theory?.... should we denounce the way electricity travels through a wire because there isn't a counter theory? again at what point will there be enough evidence?

---

no; but there is no other theory that devaluates intelligent design, or the existance of some "God", and, of course, thats whats needed.

Quote:

---

So i am an Athiest because i don't like following rules ?

I do find it interesting that you use the word "religion" to describe an acceptance of scientific evidence. What with all the ownership arguments lately over such words as "marriage" and "sacred" (I know you were not part of that)

---

well, until you show me otherwise, That is all I can come to. You will gladly follow your own rules, I'm sure.



Tell me, if Evolution is true, how do we know right from wrong?
actually, you don't have to bother, as you probably have guessed, there's no answer.

Really though, watch the debates, they're simply amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

wow; of course not; obviously that is not what I stated.
something that questions creationism?
tell me a major university that even footnotes creationism and I will be throughtly suprised.

When someone comes up with solid evidence they will ... you've had a few thousand years ;)

oh, and BTW; there is next to no evidence that points to evolution theory.

That you will accept

all I'm saying is that creationism and macro-evolution are in the same philisophical boat, only one claims it and one hides it.

Here I will note a seperation...creationist claim this is how it happened, but we have no evidence to prove it.... evolutionists claim this is how it happened based on the evidence we have so far...but we will adjust without reservation upon fresh evidence.
You spoke of "gaps" that are as yet unexplained and used those gaps as an arguement for creationism. Please show me where science has claimed it has all the answers?

if you teach one, teach the other...Or preferrably teach neither; because they both, in my opinion, fall out of the realm of science.

teach the one that can be proven with evidence...not acts of blind faith.



Of course, and there lies the problem.

judges make rulings on the constitution as it stands...not as you would like it




well, until you show me otherwise, That is all I can come to. You will gladly follow your own rules, I'm sure.

I am an athiest because i don't believe in fictional characters



Tell me, if Evolution is true, how do we know right from wrong?

What on earth are you on about? what does that have to do with evolution and the origin of species? Do animals other than human know the difference?
actually, you don't have to bother, as you probably have guessed, there's no answer.
tell me...do all cultures share the same opinion of what is "right from wrong"?

Really though, watch the debates, they're simply amazing.

---

Can you give me any reason for doubting evolution other than it goes against what your religious beliefs are?

If it wasn't MCVIV then I now understand why Bush won.

Bush does things that are idiotic in the face of common sense. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Can you give me any reason for doubting evolution other than it goes against what your religious beliefs are?

---

umm, there is no concrete evidence, as far as i know anyways...oh sure theres embryology, carbon dating, mutation, the like...but i haven't seen any new species being formed.

There is no such thing as 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution', there is only evolution. Splitting it up into two parts is a not so clever little trick of the creationists. They cannot argue about the whole theory, so they make out that there are actually two of them. What they fail to understand, or refuse to admit, is that in the timescale of life on Earth their so-called 'micro evolution' is all that is needed to achieve 'macro-evolution'.

(As an aside here, if Hobbes and Jpaul have nothing to offer this discussion apart from an obvious attempt to hijack it, could they please continue their little game in the lounge?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

(As an aside here, if Hobbes and Jpaul have nothing to offer this discussion apart from an obvious attempt to hijack it, could they please continue their little game in the lounge?)

---

Sheesh...welcome to FST... :dry:

If you were stranded on an island (lol, nothing to do with that show), and wile walking to explore the surownding you find that there, in the middle of nothing, is a house, a big and beautiful house; but then you go in and see that it there is furniture, electricity, there is even whater to drink and take a much desired bath, you go to the kitchen and find that its full of food, everything you could need is in there... then the first thing you ask you self is, who could have made this house?.
Noticed?.
Would you think that the house like that came to be by it self?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkster

umm, there is no concrete evidence, as far as i know anyways...oh sure theres embryology, carbon dating, mutation, the like...but i haven't seen any new species being formed.

---

do you think it happens overnight then?

Look at the lung fish..... land crabs.

You mentioned mutation..... isn't that how it happens then?

I suppose that ligers wouldn't count as an example how breeding changes things.

Nature finds a way to adapt...look at how insects breed immunity to our pesticides to become an animal that although hasn't changed physically in appearance can now live in an enviroment that would have killed them before.

look at how our own bodies build immunities and how bacteria and viruses combat those immunities.
The constant change in life is evident before your eyes.... you just have to open them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldpease

If you were stranded on an island (lol, nothing to do with that show), and wile walking to explore the surownding you find that there, in the middle of nothing, is a house, a big and beautiful house; but then you go in and see that it there is furniture, electricity, there is even whater to drink and take a much desired bath, you go to the kitchen and find that its full of food, everything you could need is in there... then the first thing you ask you self is, who could have made this house?.
Noticed?.
Would you think that the house like that came to be by it self?

---

nice try...however have you noticed that life adapts to its enviroment ?...animals that live in cold areas tend to have thick fur or thicker layers of fat..etc.

cave fish are blind but still have the eye sockets from their ancestors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

nice try...however have you noticed that life adapts to its enviroment ?...animals that live in cold areas tend to have thick fur or thicker layers of fat..etc.

cave fish are blind but still have the eye sockets from their ancestors

---

adapted or designed? :shifty:

sorry, due to time constraints; I will answer your other response later.

Yes, and it´s interesting you mentioned it, in fact I think its amazing the adaptive capacity of the ¨creation¨, ...
You see, your cave fish there, is not evolutionating, its mutating. Its just a variation of that organism, not a new one.
When Darwin whent to the Galapagos Island, he saw certain kind of birds wich had an original ancestor in America, but there were some diferences in theyr aspect, for example, ther peaks were little diferen one from the other, so he tought that it was ¨evolution in progres¨, but in reality it only was variation in that spicies, something alowed within the genetic composition of the creature.
The birds were not converting into other kind of animal and never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldpease

Yes, and it´s interesting you mentioned it, in fact I think its amazing the adaptive capacity of the ¨creation¨, ...
You see, your cave fish there, is not evolutionating, its mutating. Its just a variation of that organism, not a new one.
When Darwin whent to the Galapagos Island, he saw certain kind of birds wich had an original ancestor in America, but there were some diferences in theyr aspect, for example, ther peaks were little diferen one from the other, so he tought that it was ¨evolution in progres¨, but in reality it only was variation in that spicies, something alowed within the genetic composition of the creature.
The birds were not converting into other kind of animal and never will.

---

I'm a religious person but you're splitting hairs there Worldpease. Vidcc is correct about these thingsnot happening overnight (obviously). You say it was just a variation in the species, right? Well over 100 years or 1000 years or whatever there are minor changes that occur no matter how minute. Put these changes together over a stretch of 1000's of years or even millions and... viola, you have a different animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

There is no such thing as 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution', there is only evolution. Splitting it up into two parts is a not so clever little trick of the creationists. They cannot argue about the whole theory, so they make out that there are actually two of them.

---

That's pretty poorly thought out since obviously micro means on a small scale and macro means on a lage scale. In this context it clarifies the difference between slight changes within a species and a leap from one species to another. What the fellows earlier were trying to explain was that evolution has been observed irrefutably on a small scale, as with the moths, but proving, irrefutably (and that's the key word here) that, for example, man descended from apes - ie a totally new species evolving to adapt to it's surroundings - just hasn't been done.

You can't pigeon hole people by saying creationists believe this and non-religious folk believe the other. It is not black and white. I don't believe we were designed yet can see the flaws in Darwinism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

What they fail to understand, or refuse to admit, is that in the timescale of life on Earth their so-called 'micro evolution' is all that is needed to achieve 'macro-evolution'.

---

No it isn't, a bird's beak becomes broader over a period of time to adapt to the larger seeds prevalent in it's surroundings, a moth's wing increases it's pigmentation because of pollution. How can those subtle differences irrefutably explain the aesthetic and DNA chasm separating a shrew and homo sapiens sapiens. It simply cannot be done.

I understand what you're saying about the millions of years worth of evolutionary time that's passed and agree that it is the most likely explanation but to state unequivocally that micro evolution explains macro evolution is entirely inaccurate - and Mr Darwin agrees with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

(As an aside here, if Hobbes and Jpaul have nothing to offer this discussion apart from an obvious attempt to hijack it, could they please continue their little game in the lounge?)

---

4r5e.

show of hands, who believes in evolution? who believes in creation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

That's pretty poorly thought out since obviously micro means on a small scale and macro means on a lage scale. In this context it clarifies the difference between slight changes within a species and a leap from one species to another. What the fellows earlier were trying to explain was that evolution has been observed irrefutably on a small scale, as with the moths, but proving, irrefutably (and that's the key word here) that, for example, man descended from apes - ie a totally new species evolving to adapt to it's surroundings - just hasn't been done.

Maybe you should read up on creationist's claims BEFORE you misrepresent what l said. It is they who claim they are two seperate arms of science, not l. Does evolution make claims of one species to another? l would think evidence of a toad turning into an elephant would be a good argument AGAINST evolution. Man being a descendent of apes is NOT a completely new species. And what do you mean by 'just hasn't been done'? What hasn't been done? We weren't once an ape? Can you prove that irrefutably (your word) l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing.

You can't pigeon hole people by saying creationists believe this and non-religious folk believe the other. It is not black and white. I don't believe we were designed yet can see the flaws in Darwinism.

Creationism versus evolution IS black and white, just because you happen to be grey does not alter that.

No it isn't, a bird's beak becomes broader over a period of time to adapt to the larger seeds prevalent in it's surroundings, a moth's wing increases it's pigmentation because of pollution. How can those subtle differences irrefutably explain the aesthetic and DNA chasm separating a shrew and homo sapiens sapiens. It simply cannot be done.

Once again, l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing, it CAN be done. (your ignorence is beginning to show, maybe you should stay in the lounge!)

I understand what you're saying about the millions of years worth of evolutionary time that's passed and agree that it is the most likely explanation but to state unequivocally that micro evolution explains macro evolution is entirely inaccurate - and Mr Darwin agrees with me.

l did not say it did, again you use misquotes to prove a point, l talked about the timescale needed and the rate of change of so-called micro evolution being enough to account for macro evolution. l should also remind you, in case you are unaware, that science has come a long way since Darwin.

---

Worldpease -- could you explain what you mean by your analogy? Are you saying that mankind arrived here and everything was set up waiting for him? Is that your contribution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKR

Maybe you should read up on creationist's claims BEFORE you misrepresent what l said. It is they who claim they are two seperate arms of science, not l. Does evolution make claims of one species to another? l would think evidence of a toad turning into an elephant would be a good argument AGAINST evolution. Man being a descendent of apes is NOT a completely new species. And what do you mean by 'just hasn't been done'? What hasn't been done? We weren't once an ape? Can you prove that irrefutably (your word) l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing.

---

So if I tell you that your absolute isn't valid - you said there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution - you then say that I need to read up on DNA sequencing. Righty-ho.

A speices jump means they cannot interbreed. Dark winged moths can interbreed with lighter winged moths - that's an example of micro-evolution; Apes cannot breed with homo sapiens sapiens - unproven example of macro evolution. Do you understand it now?

I can't irrefutably (my word) prove macro-evolution one way or the other - that's my whole point. No-one can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKR

Creationism versus evolution IS black and white, just because you happen to be grey does not alter that.

---

:D

So it's a black and white issue yet you acknowledge my grey stance, nice one.

In any case, I was stating that you can't pigeon hole people like you attempted to. It's not a clever trick of creationists, if a creationist coined the argument, fine - but people who reject creationism also embrace the idea of macro and micro evolution. In fact most people who understand the term would have no problem with the concept. It's logical to separate changes within a species and changes resulting in the creation of a whole new species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKR

Once again, l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing, it CAN be done. (your ignorence is beginning to show, maybe you should stay in the lounge!)

---

I see a pattern here, when you can't prove something, you hint at my ignorance. Humour me, tell me who has irrefutably (my word) proved the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path.

I know that no-one has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKR

l did not say it did, again you use misquotes to prove a point, l talked about the timescale needed and the rate of change of so-called micro evolution being enough to account for macro evolution.

---

You say that you didn't say that micro evolution explains macro evolution, that I misquoted you - then you say it again. Please, try to concentrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKR

l should also remind you, in case you are unaware, that science has come a long way since Darwin.

---

I was aware but thanks.

We've come a long way but we still can't irrefutably (my word) prove macro evolution. Unless of course you're about to do it, for which I would doff my cap.


/waits

Well, it's clear that the whole subject is pretty complicated. :wacko:

The way I see it, evolution is a consequence of "lucky" mutation in a small population that is not especially thriving.

let me elaborate. In nature, the successful individuals in a population are the ones that get to breed, and pass on their genetic identity to future generations. The less successful individuals over time are eliminated from the gene pool, and their less successful traits with them.

Mutations happen all the time. If a mutation introduces a dominant trait which makes an individual more successful, then that mutation will be passed on to the descendents of that individual, and over time distributed across the whole population as it grows.

If a mutation introduces a trait which makes an individual less successful, then this clearly won't happen.

Also, if the population is large enough and successful enough anyway, then in these circumstances evolution won't happen either. That is why some species have been around for millions of years without noticeable change.

I would point to the fact that there has always been an explosion in "new species" being identified in the periods following a mass extinction event in the Earth's history: During these times life was clearly difficult for a great number of species, the populations were probably quite small and struggling to survive, conditions that are perfect for evolved new and more successful traits becoming adopted.

The sorts of mutations I'm talking about can simply be characteristics of species, but also minute changes to the DNA and gene structure. These MUST be small changes by definition, or the new individual would not be genetically compatible with the rest of the species. Over many many generations, I see no reason why these small changes could not result in entirely new species, even a new order of species...

The lack of evidence of "missing link" fossils is a major stumbling block to the theory. The only creature that even comes close to being a missing link, is the Archeopteryx, and this is still a major cause for heated debate, with some paleontologists believing it to be the link between dinosaurs and birds, others believing it to be an offshoot of dinosaurs which then became extinct. The only defence for the lack of evidence appears to be the very sketchy nature of the fossil record.. An tiny number of living things actually leaves a fossil record; there are probably millions of species of animals and plants that have evolved, thrived, and been made extinct, that we will never know about.

(I'm quite surprised that monotremes such as the platypus or echidna aren't cited as examples of possible evolution from reptiles to mammals, but I guess paleontologists aren't interested in them as they're not dead... :blink: )

The way I see large scale evolution being effective, is in initially small populations, over hundreds of generations. It is an exceptionally slow process, which is why many many species become extinct before they can adapt to changes in circumstances or environment.

To summarize:

The timescales involved for evolution are so enormous that it is very hard from our point of view to observe, especially with the very limited fossil record that we have. The best we can do at the moment is observe the quite clear evidence of small adaptations, and extrapolate the effects of these over longer periods of time.


Well... thats my theory anyway. I've just spent an two hours on it, and that's all I've got to say.. :01:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

adapted or designed? :shifty:

sorry, due to time constraints; I will answer your other response later.

---

Do you believe that at one point all the land on earth was pretty much one mass and separated to become the continents we have today?
If so do you believe each continent took it's own climat with it or just moved to warmer/colder climates?

@colin

worth the time you spent writing... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vid

@colin

worth the time you spent writing... :)

---

Undoubtedly.

An excellent post. Thanks, Colin :D


However, I think UKResident is about to provide proof of the missing link so you'll have to update it later.

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory...My appologise if someone has and i just missed it.

I have started a poll in the serious poll section

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vid

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory

---

I think most people who've posted at length in this thread, save Manny, have kinda discounted magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

However, I think UKResident is about to provide proof of the missing link so you'll have to update it later.

---

Do you ever make a post without first trying to belittle the person you are attempting to answer? You are, without doubt, a good example of the worse aspects of this board. Your four or so answers to my posts have all started with an insult, it is your modus operendi. Well it won't work with me, you will not run me off the board with your ridicule so you may as well stop trying, l'm not one of your lounge bunnies.


This is part of an article you should read, it is a response to one of the main Creationist's arguments.

----------------------------------------------------

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

Source

----------------------------------------------

You really should read more.

I'm finding this whole subject fascinating! :)

This BBC article makes good reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/d...ve/index.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory...My appologise if someone has and i just missed it.

I have started a poll in the serious poll section

---

I have suggested that but not in this thread.

I have always maintained that it takes an intelligent to set life in motion.

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it? I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools. :dry:

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKR

This is part of an article you should read, it is a response to one of the main Creationist's arguments.

---

Well done, you've posted in answer to a creationist argument. Not my argument. I'm picking holes at evolution, not extolling the virtues of creationism.

My premis is to refute your assertion that macro evolution and micro evolution don't exist. I've been quite succesful in that since you've neglected to mention it since.

I also asked you to prove your assertion that the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path can be traced. You've not done so.

I've refuted your suggestion that the micro/macro evolution theory is merely a creationists trick. Again ... nothing.

Now you've copied and pasted something. Oh joy, it doesn't back up your points in the slightest but some of the language is similar:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Isaac

Lack of proof isn't a weakness

---

Really. I'd say that without proof, you can't prove anything beyond irrefutable doubt. You may lap up rhetoric if it fits your agenda, I don't.

Sure, evolutionary theory is the most likely explanation of why we're typing instead of grunting, by a million miles. However, it's not perfect and it hasn't been proven irrefutably.

=========

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decaftar

Do you ever make a post without first trying to belittle the person you are attempting to answer? You are, without doubt, a good example of the worse aspects of this board. Your four or so answers to my posts have all started with an insult, it is your modus operendi. Well it won't work with me, you will not run me off the board with your ridicule so you may as well stop trying, l'm not one of your lounge bunnies.

---

Rattled? Stop whinging. You've hardly endeared yourself to the board with attacks on mods, members and now my good self.

Actually, I think I'm being quite polite given the rubbish you're spouting at me (not the on topic stuff, the 'read more','you're showing your ignorence' -spelled wrongly- 'get back to the lounge' stuff). You must be a rather sensitive soul, sorry if you felt all teary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it? I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools. :dry:

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

---

1. This is actually an argument FOR evolution!!!! life has adapted perfectly to take advantage of its immediate environment through the process of evolution and natural selection.

2. Good point.

3. We ARE still apes too, just a type of ape that has adapted in a rather unorthodox way to the challenges of survival. Our ancestor-apes were probably weaker and less agile than other apes, so the adaptation that worked for us was to become intelligent, and discover the ability to learn and make tools, and pass on our knowledge to our descendents. Other apes adapted differently, and because of our success, they are on the way out.. In terms of timescales, you are still seeing only a snapshot of the bigger picture...

4. Plate tectonics is tomorrows subject.. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbarossa

1. This is actually an argument FOR evolution!!!! life has adapted perfectly to take advantage of its immediate environment through the process of evolution and natural selection.

2. Good point.

3. We ARE still apes too, just a type of ape that has adapted in a rather unorthodox way to the challenges of survival. Our ancestor-apes were probably weaker and less agile than other apes, so the adaptation that worked for us was to become intelligent, and discover the ability to learn and make tools, and pass on our knowledge to our descendents. Other apes adapted differently, and because of our success, they are on the way out.. In terms of timescales, you are still seeing only a snapshot of the bigger picture...

4. Plate tectonics is tomorrows subject.. :P

---

1. Well, I believe it's an agrument for creation as well. Legislative law is made by man and the laws of nature were made by God. The difference is that the laws of nature don't change.

3. We are not apes. Everything else you said is PURE speculation. The use of probably denotes that.
If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.
Please, there is no need to answer because I know what the answer is.....there isn't an answer..... only speculation and theory that looks good on paper but it's the best we got.

I believe in some sort of evolution but I don't believe it started on it's own.

out of all the billions of billions of planets why is it so hard to believe in all the millions of years primordial soup came about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by busy

If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.
Please, there is no need to answer because I know what the answer is.....there isn't an answer..... only speculation and theory that looks good on paper but it's the best we got.

---

we lost the need for the strength and coat as we evolved to be smarter and rely on tools

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

out of all the billions of billions of planets why is it so hard to believe in all the millions of years primordial soup came about

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

we lost the need for the strength and coat as we evolved to be smarter and rely on tools

---

I wish I hadn't posed the questions. I wasn't REALLY looking for answer...sorry. :(

Now we'll have folks on here speculating why we have a different brow then cro-magnons or why we walk upright. All unproven but fits doesn't make it fact.
I do get to mark "some college" on my resume. :dry:

If over 100,000 years all my ancestors stopped "working out", I doubt my DNA would change. :lol: :lol: :lol: but....would it? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I believe that God created the Universe. However I believe it has changed significantly between it's creation and now.

I believe therefore that God created the earth, but not straight away. It formed from the universe he created.

I believe that life has evolved on Earth. However i also believe that it was created by God in the first place.

UKR, your style is very familiar, have we met at all.

---

Finally someone who agrees with me.

That's a whole...one person. :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I have suggested that but not in this thread.
i don't doubt it :)
I have always maintained that it takes an intelligent to set life in motion.

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it?
my answer would be that life adapts to enviroment...there are creatures at the bottom of the sea that live in very different climates...personally i think this point doesn't really support either view
I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

that would have been my question...give it back :angry: :D

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools. :dry:
yes you may
3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

Who has said that evolution only takes one direction ? Just becuase a mutation occurs it doesn't mean that all follow. a species doesn't have to become extinct for a branch to evolve from it

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

---

So at some point all land living animals where on the same land but were cut off and we can see the differences in their evolution..if there was no evolution why don't we have the same animals everywhere? .which was why i asked that question of manny :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

So at some point all land living animals where on the same land but were cut off and we can see the differences in their evolution..if there was no evolution why don't we have the same animals everywhere? .which was why i asked that question of manny :)

---

I've heard a creationists theory that the Biblical flood helped separate the continents (could the flood have been started by earthquakes? Tsumani anyone?(please don't answer)}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

Who has said that evolution only takes one direction ? Just becuase a mutation occurs it doesn't mean that all follow. a species doesn't have to become extinct for a branch to evolve from it

---

Again, not really looking for an answer because it's speculation.

I was going to write something about the different races of man originally being one race but separated by climate. The same can be said of migrating apes....but I don't fully buy the change in DNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim

UKR, your style is very familiar, have we met at all.

---

A long time ago, you called yourself Jim then, and were quite helpful l believe, posting links and stuff, you've certainly 'evolved' since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manker

My premis is to refute your assertion that macro evolution and micro evolution don't exist. I've been quite succesful in that since you've neglected to mention it since.

---

My assertion is they are one and the same thing, you have not proved otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manker

I also asked you to prove your assertion that the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path can be traced. You've not done so.

---

My assertion? It just so happens though that scientists have found a genetic link way back to a 'shrew like animal', our DNA contains a 'history' going back to the beginning of our 'evolution'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manker

I've refuted your suggestion that the micro/macro evolution theory is merely a creationists trick. Again ... nothing.

---

Now you're acting as though l 'owe' you an explanation, l owe you nothing, in fact l find you rather tedious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manker

Rattled? Stop whinging. You've hardly endeared yourself to the board with attacks on mods, members and now my good self.

---

Resorting to humour now, it doesn't make your 'arguments' any more intelligable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.

---

l would argue that we do. The theory would be that whatever ape we were would have been quite prolific. Some of them would have been quite comfortable and safe doing what they were doing, living where they were living, and others had a radical change, and found themselves facing new circumstances. It could have been that we came down from the trees and learned to hunt on the plains in packs. We may have faced an ice-age that those of our ilk in warmer climates didn't. There are many things that could have brought about the divergence. l wouldn't claim though that we descended from apes, as far as l'm concerned we are an ape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I agree as well.

---

I'm starting an army then. :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

I believe that God created the Universe. However I believe it has changed significantly between it's creation and now.

I believe therefore that God created the earth, but not straight away. It formed from the universe he created.

I believe that life has evolved on Earth. However i also believe that it was created by God in the first place.

---

Now here is a theory that could be conceivable even though the god part requires faith and has no evidence.

It isn't however what the bible says at this time..or is it ?, and certainly would never have been considered if the "evolution" evidence hadn't come to light. Does anyone think it will in a future re-write if enough people of faith think it is a better explaination?

to which point do you think that the bible of today is not the bible of those that "were actually there" when it was written?
If God created man and spoke "unto him" surely those men would know the truth better than those who are reading the various interpretations that have been written over the years.

To date I have yet to see "macro-evolution" occur in animals conclusively proven, but to me this aspect of evolution is trivial.

I think "evolution" really gets shaky when it attempts to tackle that very first self replicating organism.

Ok, so we have a primordial soup and molecules bump into one another. Sometimes they react to creat a new molecule, sometimes they don't.

Say as an anology, you throw some yarn in the dryer and come back to find a sweater. That would be very unlikely, but probable, but that is not even close to the miniscule probability of creating a single cell.

A cell that has a memory stored in the form of DNA.

How did randomly reacting molecules (DNA) suddenly become arranged in a pattern which allows another randomly created molecule (RNA) to take that information, go elsewhere and have the endoplasmic reticulum (assembles proteins) understand the base pair language and send another molecule out to get the appropriate amino acid, bring it back for incorporation into a final product protein. This protein is then taken by another protein or vacuole to a cell membrane where it is placed.

How did we randomly get all the information needed to re-create a cell exactly. It is one thing for a complex molecule to form temporarily, but another thing to capture the information to reconstruct that same molecule again. How could molecules bumping at random coordinate the successful creation of a cell membrane, the cell intrastructure, the nucleus and the ability to provide energy to maintain homeostasis.

As much as I am a person of science, I have yet to be able to understand this. For our micro/macro arguments, I can at least logically envision how it is possible, for the creation of the first replicating cell, I cannot.

I would love to get some insight on this.

So now I get to the crux:

I see very serious flaws in "evolution", flaws that make me think that "intelligent design" is likely. Then I realize my next problem, who then created the God who created us? I have solved my problem of life on Earth by creating something more complex than the spontaneous and random creation of our universe. That is of no help. :no:

Hobbes

I think the most rational answer to all that would be....stuff happens even if we dont yet know how or why..... but i would love to be there when we do