Guitarist Brian Welch leaves koRn

Originally Posted by: PonyOnechuck, in what sense is there not a fairly obvious case for evolution? and also, just out of curiosity (i promise i won't lay into you about it) what is your opinion on how it is that we came to exist?

I find,from what science has dug up so far,that there seems no evidence of our 'self aware' primate ancestors...it seem almost as if we kinda just came about no more than 20,000 years ago tops.

I wouldn't doubt we were 'placed' here on this planet at one time.God in greek(or hebrew) means 'placer' I think.

I am not sure about the true exact details of our creation.I don't consider the book of genesis a credible 'scientific' document so I can only speculate.

Also,there is a huge difference between evolution and adaptation

evolution=process of a species becoming another creature over time

Adaptation=process of a species acclimating to conditions and surroundings over time

There also seems no reason why we would have to evolve from a primate ancestory.What would set such a process in motion?

Originally Posted by: Dr_simon...What about dinosaurs ? You would think such impressive creatures would warrant a mention ?

ummm... check out this passage of the bible: alot of the time people will try to pass this off, saying it's talking about an elephant or a hippopotamus... but those two animals don't quite have a "tail that sways like a cedar;" now do they? so many bible scholars, and myself, believe it was talking about a dinosaur... this is found in Job 40, in case you wanted to know...

15 "Look at the behemoth,

which I made along with you

and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,

what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,

his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God,

yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce,

and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;

the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;

he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes,

or trap him and pierce his nose?

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartI find,from what science has dug up so far,that there seems no evidence of our 'self aware' primate ancestors...it seem almost as if we kinda just came about no more than 20,000 years ago tops.

I wouldn't doubt we were 'placed' here on this planet at one time.God in greek(or hebrew) means 'placer' I think.

I am not sure about the true exact details of our creation.I don't consider the book of genesis a credible 'scientific' document so I can only speculate.

Also,there is a huge difference between evolution and adaptation

evolution=process of a species becoming another creature over time

Adaptation=process of a species acclimating to conditions and surroundings over time

There also seems no reason why we would have to evolve from a primate ancestory.What would set such a process in motion?

I think for the first time this thread, I agree with you, on most of what you just said.

and to say one more thing on evolution... the cockatails may have changed color, and cats may grow extra digits, but they never change species... there tends to be a lot of variety within a species... for example, in humans, we have black, white, asian, jewish, etc. etc. but we are still humans... there is variation within the species... but never actually changing from one species to another... and adaption. our own bodys also addapt to certain changes... someone who is extremely athletic will obviously have a different body composure to someone who sits in front of the tv and eats mcdonalds all day... because a body adapts to what it is subjected to... but that doesn't mean it's changing species... also... if we did evolve from monkeys, then where are the transitional forms? wouldn't it have taken millions of years to undergo a change like that? so you would think that there would be millions, maybe even billions of dead bodys somewhere, and at least some would had to have been fossilized for us to find... by the way. if you are going to try and tell me that there have been transitional forms found, well most of those turned out to be hoaxes, and the remainder didn't have enough evidence to prove they were authentic... ok... and just one more argument, if, we've been evolving for billions of years, wouldn't the population of earth be much higher? you'd have to think that if we have had that long to reproduce that there would be a whole lot more people and animals around...

Please don't think Im having a go at you 'cos Im not. However....

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartI find,from what science has dug up so far, that there seems no evidence of our 'self aware' primate ancestors...it seem almost as if we kinda just came about no more than 20,000 years ago tops.[/QUOTE]

First check this for a time line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Then, the self-aware primates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Name: Homo neanderthalensis vs Homo sapien sapien (us)
***********************************************
The term "Neanderthal Man" was coined in 1863 by Irish anatomist William King. The term Neanderthal is now spelled two ways. The spelling of the German word Thal, meaning "valley", was changed to Tal in the early twentieth century, but the former spelling is retained in English and in scientific names, while the modern spelling is used in German.

For many years, there was a vigorous professional debate about whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter of which places Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. However, recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies indicates that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

It is generally accepted that both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens evolved from earlier "archaic" Homo sapiens, but the classification of Neanderthals becomes an issue depending on when in the timeline these modern humans are considered a separate species from these "Archaic" forms. This complication is introduced because the "Archaic" forms are a chronospecies.
**************************************
That is a different species from [i]Homo sapien sapien [i] (that is us). Now we can go back further if you like and call Cro-Magnon man to the bench. Or even earlier still and call Australopithecus to the bench. Self-aware but not Human !

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheart
I am not sure about the true exact details of our creation.I don't consider the book of genesis a credible 'scientific' document so I can only speculate.

The Book of Genisis is not science.

[QUOTE=chucklivesoninmyheart]
Also,there is a huge difference between evolution and adaptation
evolution=process of a species becoming another creature over time
Adaptation=process of a species acclimating to conditions and surroundings over time

There also seems no reason why we would have to evolve from a primate ancestory.

What would set such a process in motion?

Well adaptation is part of evolution and not the other way round. The forces that set this in motion are called natural selection and survival of the fittest in conjunction with genetic plasticity.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsummm... check out this passage of the bible: alot of the time people will try to pass this off, saying it's talking about an elephant or a hippopotamus... but those two animals don't quite have a "tail that sways like a cedar;" now do they? so many bible scholars, and myself, believe it was talking about a dinosaur... this is found in Job 40, in case you wanted to know...

15 "Look at the behemoth,

which I made along with you

and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,

what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,

his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God,

yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce,

and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;

the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;

he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes,

or trap him and pierce his nose?

And the bit about there mass extinction 70 million years ago ?

Originally Posted by: Dr_simonPlease don't think Im being rude but I think you have missed the point. Speciation, divergence and survival are byproducts of genome plasticity and that my friend, in conjunction with a selection pressure is what it is all about !

Actually I don't think you're being very rude at all. In fact I find that very interesting. However As the genome developes and evolves in a species, wouldn't the species undergo a transition? I mean, this obviously couldn't occur in one generation. I'm not looking for a "missing link" but rather, "missing links." And if indeed your analogy is a parallel one, then it would mean evolution (in the case of calculators hahaha) needs to be acted on by an outside mind such as man. Because an outside mind is aware (as opposed to outside forces, which act without first reasoning), we could conclude that the evolution in your analogy is guided by an outside being. However, it is merely an analogy and may not be fully applicable to living creatures. However, if it's not applicable in that manner, it may not be applicable to say there are no transitional forms in living creatures as well. I mean, as the genome slowly changes, wouldn't some of the genes manifest themselves physically, creating varied species in the fossil record? I'm obviously no expert in genetics, my questions aren't rhetorical.

Again no offense is meant by any of this.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsand to say one more thing on evolution... the cockatails may have changed color, and cats may grow extra digits, but they never change species... there tends to be a lot of variety within a species... for example, in humans, we have black, white, asian, jewish, etc. etc. but we are still humans... there is variation within the species... but never actually changing from one species to another... and adaption.
[/QUOTE]

See Neanderthal argument above

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrs
our own bodys also addapt to certain changes... someone who is extremely athletic will obviously have a different body composure to someone who sits in front of the tv and eats mcdonalds all day... because a body adapts to what it is subjected to... but that doesn't mean it's changing species...
[/QUOTE]

You are confusing appearance with genetics. A fat person has the same genes as a thinner version of them selves. If the mother looses her arm in an accident the offspring wont be born with one arm because of it.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrs
also... if we did evolve from monkeys, then where are the transitional forms? wouldn't it have taken millions of years to undergo a change like that?
[/QUOTE]

Yep that is correct

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrs
so you would think that there would be millions, maybe even billions of dead bodys somewhere,
[/QUOTE]

Well they went to the same place that all dead bodies go to, it is the carbon cycle ! Why should they be resistant to bacterial decomposition etc etc

[QUOTE=6strngs_2hmbkrs]
and at least some would had to have been fossilized for us to find...

Like the Neanderthals mentioned above ?

[QUOTE=6strngs_2hmbkrs]
by the way. if you are going to try and tell me that there have been transitional forms found, well most of those turned out to be hoaxes,

Like the Neanderthals mentioned above ? Cf the encyclopedia ref, check out Museums etc.
[QUOTE=6strngs_2hmbkrs]
and just one more argument, if, we've been evolving for billions of years, wouldn't the population of earth be much higher?

Why would that be, evolution doesn't stop people from being dead eventually?
[QUOTE=6strngs_2hmbkrs]
you'd have to think that if we have had that long to reproduce that there would be a whole lot more people and animals around...

No mate that is what is meant by ecology and population dynamics. There are many rules governing population density, like food availability, predation, climate etc etc. Just because you are better at getting useful resources or avoiding being eaten than the species you evolved from doesn't mean you can suddenly take over the world !

Originally Posted by: Dr_simonAnd the bit about there mass extinction 70 million years ago ?

I think that dinosaurs may have been wiped out by the great flood in genesis, or even afterwards, considering that the passage in job was much after the flood... fossil dating is very biased and relies on itself... for example, in order to get the number saying it was 70 million years old would require you to first assume that the earth is billions of years old... doing the same method of dating, assuming that the earth is 10,000 years old, max, things have been dated to only being about 1000-2000 years old...

I used to have some books... I had one christian-based science book that gave alot of proof against evolution, and I had one other book that gave both sides of the story, it was not a christian author trying to get you to believe in God, nor was it a science author trying to get you to believe in evolution, it was completely open-minded... and from what I can remember, after reading that book, I had made up my mind that evolution couldn't be real. I have no clue what the name of the book was, or who wrote it, and I can't find it anywhere either...

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonActually I don't think you're being very rude at all. In fact I find that very interesting. However As the genome developes and evolves in a species, wouldn't the species undergo a transition? I mean, this obviously couldn't occur in one generation.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly this is a mind-boggelingly slow and random process that occurs over thousands of generations with out design, goal or intelligence. The time span makes it easier to see it going on in organisms like bacteria and yeast that don't live very long.(Cf MRSI earlier)

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI'm not looking for a "missing link" but rather, "missing links." And if indeed your analogy is a parallel one, then it would mean evolution (in the case of calculators hahaha) needs to be acted on by an outside mind such as man.
[/QUOTE]
No because that was not what I was trying to get at. I was trying to use the parallel of the the evolution of a unit of cultural inheritance (an idea) as opposed to an organism.

This is quite far out so Ill give you an example: I have a good idea, I tell you, you think "Bloody hell what a great idea and go tell your friend" and the idea propagates as long as it is useful. It also mutates like a Chinese whisper, evolving !!

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson Because an outside mind is aware (as opposed to outside forces, which act without first reasoning), we could conclude that the evolution in your analogy is guided by an outside being.

No that is a propter hoc argument. Look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc" on google.

[QUOTE=Jolly McJollyson] However, it is merely an analogy and may not be fully applicable to living creatures.

correct as I was driving at the evolution of an idea not an organism

[QUOTE=Jolly McJollyson]
However, if it's not applicable in that manner, it may not be applicable to say there are no transitional forms in living creatures as well. I mean, as the genome slowly changes, wouldn't some of the genes manifest themselves physically, creating varied species in the fossil record? I'm obviously no expert in genetics, my questions aren't rhetorical.

Again you are correct and the answer is there if you look again the neanderthal argument. The point is that neanderthal may not have been a common ancestor to anything but rather a failure (hence the extinction). The problem is that a variation in genotype is very slight and you may be looking ant the result in the fossil record and not ever realize it !

Again don't think that I'm having a go because Im not and this is not personal.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsI think that dinosaurs may have been wiped out by the great flood in genesis, or even afterwards, considering that the passage in job was much after the flood... [/QUOTE]

If all but two of each animal was cooped on a boat for 40 days and 40 nights, what did they eat ?

If all but two were wiped out how do you account for genetic diversification with in a gene pool. All the members of a species would be genetically identical to there parents. Consequence of this "in breading" are very bad and are seen in examples such as hemophilia with the in the royal families of Europe

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrs fossil dating is very biased and relies on itself...
[/quote]

no it doesn't it relies on the constant decay of a Carbon isotopes as well as the placement of fossils in geological strata. This is how people know how old rocks are and the approximate age of the earth (see below)

[QUOTE=6strngs_2hmbkrs]for example, in order to get the number saying it was 70 million years old would require you to first assume that the earth is billions of years old...

It is 4.5 billion years old Cf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[QUOTE=6strngs_2hmbkrs]doing the same method of dating, assuming that the earth is 10,000 years old, max, things have been dated to only being about 1000-2000 years old...

See above !

well, maybe God made the earth, already a few billion years old... what I mean is, that when he made adam, I don't think he made him as a newborn baby, but that when he was created that adam was already a grown man... so God could have made the earth pre-aged (much in the same way you could buy a Gibson Les Paul special faded, where it already has a faded finish when you buy it brand-new...) that is one possible explanation I think.

Originally Posted by: Dr_simonAgain you are correct and the answer is there if you look again the neanderthal argument. The point is that neanderthal may not have been a common ancestor to anything but rather a failure (hence the extinction). The problem is that a variation in genotype is very slight and you may be looking ant the result in the fossil record and not ever realize it !

I see, that's very interesting actually. I was aware of how closely related genetically humans are to primates such as the chimpanzee and orangutan (what is it, like 99.9% identical genes?). I can see how transitional forms could be extreme in some cases if a small part of the genome were altered...but I find a random altering in favor of environmental pressures incredibly unlikely, which is why I believe that evolution (if there is indeed interspecies evolution) may be guided by an outside force. However, that is just a personal belief and I certainly would not want schools to teach it that way, hahaha! I just personally don't see how something as complicated as a cell could have came out of nothing...didn't we already disprove spontaneous generation? I'm no expert though, and I don't claim to be. I'm sure you of all people, Simon, know MUCH more about this than I do! I'm majoring in English, hahaha, all I can do is write about how I don't know anything, haha!

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson but I find a random altering in favor of environmental pressures incredibly unlikely, which is why I believe that evolution (if there is indeed interspecies evolution) may be guided by an outside force. [/quote] This gain implies design and that is a big old bucket of fish heads that is unnecessary for evolution to occur. Living in a chemically reactive environment (full of Oxygen , UV radiation and all the other things than can cause cancer (random genetic mutation) causes ... wait for it random genetic mutation ! This is the driving force behind genetic plasticity. It is then just selected for (if it helps survival) or selected against (the organism dies) in accordance with how well the mutation fits the environment. Not the other way round !

[QUOTE=Jolly McJollyson]I just personally don't see how something as complicated as a cell could have came out of nothing...didn't we already disprove spontaneous generation?

That is the whole point mate!

Evolution is not spontaneous !!

It happens over many generations and a very long period of geological time. It is for this reason that it is sometimes difficult to see it happening in front of you. However you can if you know where to look !

Evolution is quite an intellectually intense subject and, to quote Douglas Adams (another arts major) "If it hasn't absolutely stunned you and totally altered the way you see the world, you haven't understood it."

Lets also consider what evolution is and what it isn't.

It is not a way of explaining the beginning of the earth or the universe (I am not going to be drawn into that argument at the moment as Im focusing upon evolution first. Maybe later 3_rd degree burn!!). They are physical not biological events and not subject to the same laws and pressures.

It is a way of explaining how biological complexity can accumulate slowly over a long period of time.

It has very little to do with proving weather any form of deity exists or not. It can explain how biological complexity can randomly accumulate to give the appearance of design.

I majored in Ecology and Microbiology, have a PhD in Cell Biology and do genetics every day for a living !! Is it a fair fight, well I don't see what hat has to do with anything !

Could someone explain to me why someone would rather believe in stories from a book than science?

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartive never met a 'true' athiest.

In that case I can be your first. :cool:

Third degree burn
Every one of those arguments has holes the size of mountains.

Examples:

Helium is not emitted by every form of radio active decay !! Alpha beta or gamma particles are emitted by radio active decay. Not the same at all. I work with isotopes and have set up hot labs !!

Not enough mud on the sea floor. What about tectonic shift and the formation of sand stone, changing water tables etc etc !

Not enough sodium in the sea. Look up the Carbon cycle, the sodium cycle and the way all the other mineral elements circulate through the biosphere. Again this is just not true.

Earths magnetic field is shifting polarity not decaying at the rate they are quoting. There is no problem with its stability vis a vie the age of the earth.

And as for the skeletons argument... Do you really believe that or do you think it is the last resort of a desperate mind !! Why do you think we are not overwhelmed by human remains, imagine how many millions of people die every year !! Or the remains or ants, millions of them die every day word wide !!

One final note, if you are going to quote directly from web sites it is a good idea to credit them or you are committing plagiarism.

Originally Posted by: SPLCould someone explain to me why someone would rather believe in stories from a book than science?

I have no idea. Personally I prefer to believe in both. But please don't call the text I base my existence around a "book of stories" in that condescending manner. I don't call science (even though I have no religious qualms with it) a crock of ****.

Originally Posted by: Dr_simonThis gain implies design and that is a big old bucket of fish heads that is unnecessary for evolution to occur. Living in a chemically reactive environment (full of Oxygen , UV radiation and all the other things than can cause cancer (random genetic mutation) causes ... wait for it random genetic mutation ! This is the driving force behind genetic plasticity. It is then just selected for (if it helps survival) or selected against (the organism dies) in accordance with how well the mutation fits the environment. Not the other way round !

Oh, of course! My mistake there.

That is the whole point mate!

Evolution is not spontaneous !!

You missed my point. I was not calling "evolution" spontaneous, but rather the development of a single living cell out of UNliving chemicals.

I majored in Ecology and Microbiology, have a PhD in Cell Biology and do genetics every day for a living !! Is it a fair fight, well I don't see what hat has to do with anything !

I'd hardly call it a fight! I'm genuinely interested, Doc! Besides, it's nice to be educated outside of school! Well argued points, all. I had never thought about the fact that a tiny change in the genes of an organism could alter a species SO dramatically that it might not leave a clear transitional species. Now I know interspecies evolution is debated by some in the scientific community (please understand that my questions for you are NOT from a religious standpoint, but out of a general scientific curiosity), so I may read up on that and come back with a few more questions, but for now, thanks a lot for putting up with my slow mind and answering my questions, haha! :D

OK now Im putting my moderators hat back on.

I am going to step out of this argument so as not to be bias towards one side or the other.

Philosophically and intellectually I have said all that I am going to. Feel free to attack it (not me) if you feel so inclined, just follow the rules.

We have kept this civilized and no one has lost there tempers so far and that is brilliant as this is a subject people feel passionately about!

However swearing, cursing and flaming generally are the first steps along the path that leads to closed thread vill, wether I agree with what you are saying or not.

Please respect each other opinions wether you agree with them or not.