Evolution and God

The odds of our planet turing out the way it did are really not as high as people make them out to be.

Excellent point, and I just wanted to expand on it. The odds of life forming on a planet in the "Habitable Zone" are very high. However, the odds that we as humans evolved with intelligence are infinitesimally low.

BUT, it is a perfect example of how order can come from chaos.

the only thing that could give you backing and prove me wrong would be the finding of a planet that has what it takes to sustain life.]

Done and done:

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040202231032.di66zsrt.html

It appears that there are rules here that do deal with the subject of plagiarism and I will abide by them.
I will however note that my actions were based on what I saw here, I see in many cases extented use of bible verses directly put into these posts by moderators as well as normal users and I have also seen extented use of other web sites text without following the rule of only a few sentences and then a reference, so there should be a method of enforcement that doesnt make it appear selective.

It appears that there are rules here that do deal with the subject of plagiarism and I will abide by them.

*dumb question mode on*

Why would you need a set of rules to abide by in terms of plagiarism? Is it common practice for you to plagiarize?

*dumb question mode off*

kbc_1963 said:

It appears that there are rules here that do deal with the subject of plagiarism and I will abide by them.
I will however note that my actions were based on what I saw here, I see in many cases extented use of bible verses directly put into these posts by moderators as well as normal users and I have also seen extented use of other web sites text without following the rule of only a few sentences and then a reference, so there should be a method of enforcement that doesnt make it appear selective.

Click to expand...

If you have questions in the future about the rules, you should PM either Rex or one of the moderators. We will answer your specific questions. But you should not be seen complaining about a rule in a public forum.

I will bring this post to the attention of the other moderators.

-pah-

(Q)

the only thing that could give you backing and prove me wrong would be the finding of a planet that has what it takes to sustain life.

Done and done:
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/0402...2.di66zsrt.html

Click to expand...

I guess it is done (well done that is):
"The scorched Osiris orbits ‘only’ seven million kilometres from its yellow Sun-like star and its surface is heated to about 1000 degrees Celsius." http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMJSIWA6QD_Life_0.html

Here is your best hope of proof;

"In December 2001, NASA selected the Kepler Mission, a project based at NASA Ames, as one of the next NASA Discovery missions. The Kepler Mission, scheduled for launch in 2006, will use a spaceborne telescope to search for Earth-like planets around stars beyond our solar system. A key criterion for such suitable planets would be whether they reside in habitable zones, or regions sometimes protected by gas giants but with temperate climates and liquid water."http://astrobio.net/news/article352.html

just finding a couple of key components does not life make

kbc_1963 said:

It appears that there are rules here that do deal with the subject of plagiarism and I will abide by them.
I will however note that my actions were based on what I saw here, I see in many cases extented use of bible verses directly put into these posts by moderators as well as normal users and I have also seen extented use of other web sites text without following the rule of only a few sentences and then a reference, so there should be a method of enforcement that doesnt make it appear selective.

Click to expand...

It is considered polite and respectful to quote your sources. We shouldn't have to have a rule about it, but obviously we do. The rule I quoted you is fairly new in response to this problem. Therefore, for now on EVERYONE is expected to follow it. As for Bible verses, I think it enough to add the book and number of the verse and that is enough, as long as it's just a verse or two. We don't want people quoting a whole book, which has been a problem in the past. If you have anymore questions about this, I ask you to please PM me or another mod for further explanation and let this didcussion get back on track. Thank you.

If you have questions in the future about the rules, you should PM either Rex or one of the moderators. We will answer your specific questions. But you should not be seen complaining about a rule in a public forum.

I will bring this post to the attention of the other moderators.

-pah-

Click to expand...

I had no questions about the rules but now it seems we have rules about complaining that I also knew nothing about.
wouldnt it be easier for you to just tell me to leave and not return since apparently I am doing everything wrong?

"The scorched Osiris orbits ‘only’ seven million kilometres from its yellow Sun-like star and its surface is heated to about 1000 degrees Celsius

You conveniently forgot to include the rest of it:

"The discovery of the fierce evaporation process is, according to the scientists, 'highly unusual', but may indirectly confirm theories of our own Earth’s childhood."

In other words, that planet could be a young Earth.

just finding a couple of key components does not life make

That is where you are wrong. In fact, over 30 species of life thrive right here on Earth without the need of light, for example.

Muad'dib said:

We know full well that micro evolution itself can effect dramatic changes within a species. Billions of years worth of dramatic, micro evolutionary changes should equal macro evolution.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is that macro evolution is totally separate from micro, not just an superlative of it. Billions of years worth of dramatic micro changes equals nothing more than a lot of micro changes no matter how dramatic their effect may be. Its like saying say a thousand grapes equals a watermellon. Nope, sorry, you got nothing more than a fruit salad.

Nga_Believe said:

The problem with that is that macro evolution is totally separate from micro, not just an superlative of it. Billions of years worth of dramatic micro changes equals nothing more than a lot of micro changes no matter how dramatic their effect may be. Its like saying say a thousand grapes equals a watermellon. Nope, sorry, you got nothing more than a fruit salad.

Click to expand...

Some will disagree with you that there is no difference. But many will agree with you that it is not a matter of quantiy of change

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

Click to expand...

-pah-

naaaa nothing like that at all, the forums are a great place to gain information and since I can't be everywhere at once it is easier to get leads for possible new information here and then I can go and look into it first hand, like the leads Mr. Spinkles has given.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. My point was - if you can disprove evolution (like you believe you can), why are you only doing it here? Why aren't you writing books to prove it, challenging biologists in public debates to explain these erroneous arguements, etc. If you truly believe evolution is wrong, and that you know why it's wrong, why are you not informing the masses? You say you became a Christian because you don't believe evolution is possible. Why are you not trying to save others by disproving evolution?

Maybe because you know that the biologists will not only have explanations for all of your problems? Because you know you won't prove anyone anything because evolution has not been disproved?

kbc-- Don't worry, I know you didn't intentionally omit the website for your quote. All is forgiven, just try to let us know when you are quoting someone from now on. No biggie.

As far as the mice with ears, I was wrong --the DNA of the mice who grew ears was not manipulated. However, genetically engineered mice have grown things normally considered part of a different order (or even phyla, I think, in pah's example). Through genetic engineering, scientists were even able to grow human breasts on mice. Here is an article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/dispatch/story/0,12978,1176845,00.html

kbc_1963 said:

according to what I understand from what I read they havent tryed to do artificial insemination technics so the whole thing is still a bit fuzzy around the edges, so as of yet I can't give ya a concession.

Click to expand...

Are you honestly suggesting that if scientists can artificially inseminate one plant with another's genes those plants are the same species, despite the fact that the two plants will never breed in nature??

I do believe that it is probable that we could have a form of speciation where you could get a multitude of different plants or animals or whatever the phyla may be it is just restricted in that they can't crossover to another phyla such as from plant kingdom to animal kingdom

Click to expand...

Do you realize what you just said here? Nowhere in evolutionary theory do plants "cross over" into the animal kingdom or vice-versa. From this statement, you seem to agree with evolution, but you beleive it had a divine instigator.

For the love of Pete, kbc, take your logic to the next step! If animals can evolve into a huge variety, don't you think it would make sense to classify and group the different varieties according to ancestry? Don't you think that, billions of years down the road, some of the groups of animals would be so different from each other that it would be difficult for us to conceive of them all having a common ancestor?

Is it possible that plants and animals have common ancestors? Nowadays, it may be difficult for us to conceive of a tree and a bird having common ancestors...however, there are unicellular organisms in the animal kingdom that are ancient ancestors of birds, and there are unicellular organisms in the plant kingdom that are ancestors of trees...can we conceive of a common ancestor between the unicellular protozoa (animal) and the unicellular Euglena (plant)? Yes, we can!

No one will ever win this debate,neither side has solid proof to back thier belief.
Man has the Spirit of God,the difference between man and everything else,it can't
be measured or weighed.If God wanted you to know he existed it would be very clear.
Its all faith!

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen.

Good opint, The ReD ToRnado. Each person must make their own decision based on the evidence presented to them. Since there is no proof on either side, each person must choose what to believe and have faith that theirs is the right choice.

Linus don't I know you from Tribes 2?