• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

prove me wrong on evolution

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Rain forests have notoriously poor soil. Deserts have high biodeversity and are just as important to the planet as any rain forest.
Rain forests are incapable of growing in many places, "regular" forests have low biodeversity. Sevana and other grasslands actually have better biodeversity than most forests do. Heck, the tundra and deserts have as good or better biodeversity than most forests.

but what does this have to do with evolution?
If you want to keep discussing this issue I suggest a new thread.

wa:do
 
God designed this system in which we live if you read the scriptures and observe nature at its best and study the positive aspects of science then you will see that all the things I have said are true...

A story there was a great flood and there was a man who sat there waiting for god to save him, a man came with a horse and cart he siad "come with me a save yourself", the man said “no a waiting for my lord to save me”, then the water came and started to rise. A man with a boat came and said get in my boat and save yourself, The man” said no I waiting for my lord to save me”, then the water raised more then there was a man swimming by on tree log the man said “swim with me we will have good chance swimming together”, the man said “no I am waiting for my lord to save me” and then the man died when he spoke to god the man was angry and said “why did you not save me O lord”, god said” I tried I sent you a man with a horse and cart, a man with a boat and a man summing with a log but you did not take my help”...

In other words here is god system use it for good and be righteous, our lord has done enough he has brew life into us and shown us the way it is up to us to take his help and look towards him instead of away from him....

I suppose people would like god to run their bath, start their car, cook there food what more do the human want from there lord all I can say we are most ungrateful and lazy...
 
That is the story of Adam and Eve they bit from the tree of Knowledge I bet they were sorry to....But once the milk is spilt you have to clean it up..Well get a dust pan and brush
 
Not the way you would like the scriptures to tell you(The main reason for that is because they where written in a different time), The problem is you have to comunicate these scriptures to the many and not all will understand or believe...

All I can do or say is try reading them yourself and think + only and read between the lines, remebering when they where written...
 

Panda

42?
Premium Member
Im going to leave before I end up smashing my skull from banging my head on the wall so much.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Not the way you would like the scriptures to tell you(The main reason for that is because they where written in a different time), The problem is you have to comunicate these scriptures to the many and not all will understand or believe...

All I can do or say is try reading them yourself and think + only and read between the lines, remebering when they where written...

There is a serious problem when you start trying to read between the lines on
There is nothing between the lines.
anything. The only thing you will find between the lines is empty space. People then
Stop reading between the lines.
use their imagination to create anything they wish and place it “between the lines”.
There is nothing here.
They see it there because they wish to see it there. But in reality there is simply
You are dreaming this.
nothing written between the lines.
 

Random

Well-Known Member
If Evolution is a result of unintended consequence, from whence did the Directed and Adaptive forms of mutation originate?

Also, why do lemmings commit suicide and throw themselves off cliffs? Did Natural Selection not favour their survival?

Does the fossil record show an unbroken chain of speciation, including intermediate forms, linking mankind to a common anscestor?

If Natural Selection favours the survival of species without Intent, why are some species stronger/faster than others?

Isn't it eminently possible that this Universe we occupy runs pretty much like a super-computer in which Evolution is one particular sort of software program?

Are not all environments inherently hostile to Life?

Isn't Natural Selection an inescapably Metsphysical proposition?

Didn't the Pagans thousands of years ago believe, as Evolutionists do, that Life arose by purely Natural means? The ancient Druids of my country, Ireland, did.

Hasn't intellectual missappropriation and misinterpretation of the term "Natual Selection" led to the inevitably racism of Social Darwinism over the last 150 years? Didn't Darwin say he actually regretted the term (understanding its implications) before he died?

Why do evolutionists dance around the borders of consistency when claiming that Evolution is a little bit random but not a totally random process? Isn't randomness a Metaphysical proposition?

If the Earth was not always in the same orbit that it currently occupies in relation to the Sun, as Science now claims, how can an accurate description of the Evolutionary process by made considering the (unknown) conditions of the environment must have been radically different on Earth billions of years ago when it occupied a different orbit?

Why why why...

I predict a riot!
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
If Evolution is a result of unintended consequence, from whence did the Directed and Adaptive forms of mutation originate?

There are no “directed mutations”, at least not according to the theory of evolution. Mutations that benefit an organism’s survival in a certain environment can be called adaptive mutations. Some mutations will be adaptive to the environment and will be selected. There are also non-adaptive and mal-adaptive mutations. But I cannot stress enough that there are no directed forms of mutation. I must stress that otherwise Jay will beat me up.

Also, why do lemmings commit suicide and throw themselves off cliffs? Did Natural Selection not favour their survival?

Lemmings do not commit suicide. This is a myth. Lemmings have been known to stampede off of cliffs during mass migrations, the ones in front being pushed by those behind. Lemmings are not the only animal known to do this, other herd animals have been known to stampede off cliffs, it is not suicide.

I am not an expert in lemmings or rodent behaviour, but I would say that such mass migrations are an adaptive behaviour that might have something to do with protection from predators, with so many moving at one time some are bound to survive. The behaviour apparently works well enough; lemmings that do this survive enough to produce new lemmings that do this.

Does the fossil record show an unbroken chain of speciation, including intermediate forms, linking mankind to a common anscestor?

The fossil record is not a complete record of every individual or every species that ever existed, but there are enough fossils that suggest that humans and other creatures (all creatures in fact) are linked to a common ancestor.

If Natural Selection favours the survival of species without Intent, why are some species stronger/faster than others?

Why wouldn’t there be some species that are stronger and/or faster than others? Speed and strength are only two of the possible survival strategies that organisms can adopt. One species may be big and strong, an other may be strong and fast, another may be small and fast, another may breed in high numbers, another may be adept at hiding etc. Each species that survives has found a sufficient strategy.

Isn't it eminently possible that this Universe we occupy runs pretty much like a super-computer in which Evolution is one particular sort of software program?

An interesting idea. Yes it is possible, I don’t know how we would ever find out if it is really the case or not. I don’t know if it is “eminently possible”, I don’t see how we can make any determinations of how likely such a possibility is.

Are not all environments inherently hostile to Life?

Yes, to some extent all environments are hostile to life. That is why life must adapt itself to whatever environment it finds itself in or perish. Obviously some environments are more hostile than others.

Isn't Natural Selection an inescapably Metsphysical proposition?

I am not sure what you mean by this. People are bound to make metaphysical assumptions concerning the implications of natural selection. But I think we have to try to keep those metaphysical assumptions separate from the science.

Didn't the Pagans thousands of years ago believe, as Evolutionists do, that Life arose by purely Natural means? The ancient Druids of my country, Ireland, did.

This is interesting. I was not aware that we knew enough about the beliefs of the ancient Druids to make these kinds of claims. Do you have anything to back it up?

But if this is the case, what is your point? It is a fascinating bit of information, and I would like to look into it further, but I don’t see that it has any implications on the theory of evolution one way or the other.

Hasn't intellectual missappropriation and misinterpretation of the term "Natual Selection" led to the inevitably racism of Social Darwinism over the last 150 years? Didn't Darwin say he actually regretted the term (understanding its implications) before he died?

Yes, Social Darwinism was an intellectual misappropriation and misinterpretation of Natural Selection. I don’t know if Darwin said he regretted the term for this reason, he certainly regretted people misinterpreting his theory. The story you are telling here is very close to the common myth about Darwin’s deathbed retraction that I find it highly suspect. Do you have a source to back it up?

I do know that Darwin did once say that the preferred the phrase “survival of the fittest” which was coined by Herbert Spenser over his own term of “Natural Selection”. But I wonder if this was just Darwin being overly generous and modest. Personally I think “Natural Selection” is the much better term. “Survival of the fittest” leads some people to think that all species should be fast and strong. (species are trying to survive, not get an “A” in gym)

Why do evolutionists dance around the borders of consistency when claiming that Evolution is a little bit random but not a totally random process? Isn't randomness a Metaphysical proposition?


Yes randomness can be a metaphysical proposition. It can have more common meanings such as undirected or unpredictable. We say that mutation is random because it is not guided and does not follow any predictable patterns. Those mutations are then subject to natural selection. Natural selection does not select randomly, it selects those traits that will benefit the organism in survival and passing on its genes,

If the Earth was not always in the same orbit that it currently occupies in relation to the Sun, as Science now claims, how can an accurate description of the Evolutionary process by made considering the (unknown) conditions of the environment must have been radically different on Earth billions of years ago when it occupied a different orbit?

This is an interesting but highly speculative question. We can tell from the fossil remains of animals and of plants what kind of environment they likely lived in. In some cases it is extremely different from the modern environment they are found in, fossils of marine animals and plants found in the desert for instance.

Why why why...

In the words of my favourite Muppet, “but why wonder why Wonder”. Maybe there is no reason why, maybe it just is.

I predict a riot!

Why would there be a riot? Are you planning something?
 
Don't ask question about what you can't understand everything happens for a reason... The more you look at things that you can’t understand the more you are missing all the possible pleasures that you can understand...We can talk about things we don't understand until we go extinct then where will be “at 0”. Let’s not go there let’s go somewhere else like forwards instead of being stood still stuck of something you don't understand or going backward because while you’re looking at that point the world is collapsing around you. “Make a move, make it in the right direction” [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 

Papersock

Lucid Dreamer
Don't ask question about what you can't understand everything happens for a reason... The more you look at things that you can’t understand the more you are missing all the possible pleasures that you can understand...We can talk about things we don't understand until we go extinct then where will be “at 0”. Let’s not go there let’s go somewhere else like forwards instead of being stood still stuck of something you don't understand or going backward because while you’re looking at that point the world is collapsing around you. “Make a move, make it in the right direction”

We look at and question things we don't understand so we can figure them out. How are we suppose to move forward if we don't try to understand things. That's what humans do. That's how we make progress.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Yes there is, and it's called non-scientific distinguishing. By class I am sure you are not referencing this (as my link is the scientific use of "class").

Are you looking for something more like reptiles evolving into birds? Because there is a wealth of evidence on that.

Here's a start:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18075420/from/RS.5/
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA12/dinobird398.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020214080242.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

It's as I thought the conclusions are based on supposition and does not provide direct evidence.
 

Zeno

Member
It's as I thought the conclusions are based on supposition and does not provide direct evidence.

You did not provide direct evidence on how we can classify animals in terms other than accepted biological nomenclature.

Make the cries to "direct evidence" all that you want, but the fact of the matter is that this link is not debated among scientists who have a much better understanding of genetics than you or I.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
You did not provide direct evidence on how we can classify animals in terms other than accepted biological nomenclature.

Make the cries to "direct evidence" all that you want, but the fact of the matter is that this link is not debated among scientists who have a much better understanding of genetics than you or I.
And they make their suppositions as well as anybody.
 

Zeno

Member
And they make their suppositions as well as anybody.
  • "Out of seven total sequences, we had three that matched chicken uniquely"
  • The bottom line was that the T. rex's biological signature was most like a bird's.
-MSN Article
  • "It demonstrates that major structural modifications toward birds occurred much earlier in the evolutionary process than previously thought. "Furthermore, these findings help counter, once and for all, the position of paleontologists who argue that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs," he adds.
    The fossil is more than 130 million years old and sheds light on dinosaurs during the transition from the Jurassic period to the Cretaceous period. Sinovenator changii (sigh-no-ven-ay-tor chang-eye) is a troodontid (tro-don-tid), a type of theropod (tare-a-pod). Although many theropods, such as Tyrannosaurus, are large animals, theropods close to the ancestry of birds show an evolutionary trend toward small body size.
-Science Daily Article
  • The forearm bone of Rahona is long and shows anatomic evidence of well-developed feathers, indicating it was a capable flyer.
  • "This new fossil is one of the strongest last nails in the coffin of those who doubt that dinosaurs had anything to do with the origin of birds. Rahona was at the base of the bird family tree, right next to Archaeopteryx. It had a feathered wing and many bird features in its hips and legs, including a perching foot. But it also kept the big killing claw of its theropod ancestors," Forster said.
  • The skull of Shuvuuia deserti reveal an important physical characteristic found only in birds: the animal was capable of "prokinesis," the movement of the snout up and down independently of the rest of the skull. This allowed the animal to open its mouth quite wide enough to eat very large dinners. Shuvuuia's diet might have included insects, lizards and even small mammals.
-National Health Museum article


..."mere suppositions."

Here are some more "suppositions:"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#features

Creationist claim: There are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
 

worshiper

Picker of Nose
ok does anyone want to quiz me on evolution and see if they can stump me?

;)

good luck

i am suprised when i read this post. i think this forum is suppose to be a challenge between MURDOCSVAN verses the creationist (if i may call them). but it turned out to be battle between Evos and Creos (not an offical acronym ... i just like the sound of it)

i am not as smart as most of the people debating in this forum. i'm a kinda person that accepts what make sense to me. i would like to state my stance on Evo vs Creo. i am convinced that i am sitting on the fence with this. i believe evolution did happened but it is guided by the creator. evolution alone is imposible why? ....


taken from http://www.submission.org/suras/app31.html
[SIZE=+3]
Evolution: Divinely Controlled[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]We learn from the Quran that evolution is a divinely designed fact:[/SIZE]
Life began in water:
[SIZE=+3]"From water[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+3]we initiated all living things."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](21:30, 24:45) [/SIZE]

Humans not descendants of monkeys:
[SIZE=+2]"He started the creation of man from mud." [/SIZE]
([SIZE=-1]32:7[/SIZE])
Man created from "aged" mud:
[SIZE=+2]"I am creating the human being from `aged' clay." [/SIZE]
([SIZE=-1]15:28) [/SIZE]

Evolution is possible only within a given species. For example, the navel orange evolved from seeded oranges, not from apples. The laws of probablity preclude the possibility of haphazard evolution between species.

A fish cannot evolve into a bird; a monkey can never evolve into a human. [SIZE=+2]
Probability Laws Preclude Darwin's Evolution[/SIZE]

In this computer age, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get: 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations.
Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086.
This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes.
If we increase them by one, the number of combinations becomes 1x2x3x4x5x6=720, and the robability of getting any combination diminishes to 1/720, 0.0014.
Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes
to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50, or
[SIZE=+1]0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000209[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]

Darwin's famous statement that "life began as a `simple' cell" is laughable.[/SIZE]


As recently as 50 years ago, Wells, Huxley, and Wells wrote in their classic textbook that "nothing can be seen inside the nucleus but clear fluid." We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions. The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides; we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.
Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.
A fitting quote here is that of Professor Edwin Conklin; he stated:
[SIZE=+2]"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory." [/SIZE]

*make sense dont it?

p/s: i'd like to hear from Murdocsvan the smart "pro" evolutionist regarding this excerpt. looking forward to hear from you Murdy!!!! and keep your nose clean:tsk:
 

UnTheist

Well-Known Member
is that the best you can do? owh well since you are not Murdocsvan i guess it doesnt matter.
Is big numbers the best you can do? Creationists use unrealistic models of probability that they can't even prove true to try to disprove Evolution and Abiogenesis. Even though they admit a snow flake or a tornado or gas evenly distributed in a tank or a cloud or stars can happen without design, as well as countless other examples of order coming from disorder, due to a constant supply of energy from the sun.
 
Top