Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[outhouse]

 

[`mud]

Before anything existed, before the supposed BB.
Jared and JayJay and Ben and some others believe in the theory of somewhere out in the Cosmos,
in the void of nothingness, there was a God. The great designer !
This 'God' had intelligence, he had to have had it for he designed everything.
Now here we have to avoid the challenging pestering of the question:
"From where did God get his intelligence" ?
What was in the void of nothing to contribute anything in the way of knowledge ?
There was God in all that nothingness, and nothing from which he got any training,
How did he design himself ? From what ? And for what purpose ?
Oh yah...I get it...so he could design everything so everything could see him,
see him with those wonderful eyes that he designed....
oh wait....no-one was supposed to ever see him...damn..that didn't work.
What use were the eyes ? What use was any design ? What use was God ???
~
I quit...I can't get over there from here.
NuffStuff
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

Fossil date boosts S.Africa claim as cradle of mankind


The new dating of Little Foot, reported in the journal Nature, puts the remains at 3.67 million years old, give or take 160,000 years.

That makes it a rough contemporary of "Lucy," the Ethiopian hominid that has the most prominent claim on being our earliest-known ancestor.

"There is nothing to rule out the idea that (Little Foot) was the forerunner of humanity.

 

[JayJayDee]

Fossil date boosts S.Africa claim as cradle of mankind


The new dating of Little Foot, reported in the journal Nature, puts the remains at 3.67 million years old, give or take 160,000 years.

That makes it a rough contemporary of "Lucy," the Ethiopian hominid that has the most prominent claim on being our earliest-known ancestor.

"There is nothing to rule out the idea that (Little Foot) was the forerunner of humanity.

outhouse, I sometimes wonder if you read these things that are posted as "proof" of the evolutionary theory.

Like this.....from your link.

"Named "Little Foot," the skeletal remains are those of a small ape-like creature who fell into a pit in South Africa's Sterkfontein cave complex millions of years ago.
How many years, though, is the question, and teams have put forward an extraordinary range of estimates, from 1.5 to four million.

That makes it a rough contemporary of "Lucy," the Ethiopian hominid that has the most prominent claim on being our earliest-known ancestor.

"There is nothing to rule out the idea that (Little Foot) was the forerunner of humanity. Everything is possible," said Laurent Bruxelles from France's National Institute for Archaeological Research (Inrap), who took part in the study.

The evidence comes thanks to an updated form of the technology used to date the sediments in which the fossil was found.

The technique, called cosmogenic nuclide dating, looks at levels of rare isotopes that are created when soil or rocks are hit by high-speed particles that arrive from outer space.

A first attempt using this method, in 2003, suggested an age of four million years, although it had an enormous margin of error.

That estimate was dramatically countered by dating of different deposits, looking for uranium and lead isotopes, which gave a far younger age of 2.2 million years.

That was devastating news for Little Foot's champions, for it would relegate their fossil to a footnote in the human odyssey.

Last year, though, Bruxelles and colleagues determined that those calcite deposits had enveloped Little Foot in the cave at a much later date......

Both Little Foot and Lucy are from a branch of the human family tree called Australopithecus.

This genus had both ape and human features and could walk upright.

That branch also has forks, with Little Foot called Australopithecus prometheus, and Lucy categorised as Australopithecus afarensis.

Their anatomies were "very different... (which) now raises interesting questions about early hominid diversity," said the study, led by Darryl Granger of Purdue University.

The Australopithecus hominids are thought to have given rise to Homo habilis, the direct ancestor to anatomically modern man, Homo sapiens.

The first traces of H. habilis are dated to around 2.5 million years ago.

Far older fossils of hominids have been unearthed in East Africa and Chad that pre-date both Lucy and Little Foot, but their lineage to Australopithecus is unknown."

Now I don't know how you can state things in such a black and white fashion when reading something like this.

The Google images of australopithecus are hilarious.

Look at Wiki's entry.....

"According to the Chimpanzee Genome Project, the human (Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus) lineages diverged from a common ancestor about five to six million years ago, assuming a constant rate of evolution. It is theoretically more likely for evolution to happen more slowly, as opposed to more quickly, from the date suggested by a gene clock (the result of which is given as a youngest common ancestor, i.e., the latest possible date of divergence.) However, hominins discovered more recently are somewhat older than the molecular clockwould suggest.[5]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, commonly called "Toumai", is about seven million years old and Orrorin tugenensis lived at least six million years ago. Since little is known of them, they remain controversial among scientists since the molecular clock in humans has determined that humans and chimpanzees had a genetic split at least a million years later. One theory suggests that the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged somewhat at first, then some populations interbred around one million years after diverging.[5]"

The pics for these were laughable too. All based on imagination. Unless you have the fully preserved body of these creatures, you are basing all your assumptions on other people's assumptions.

The whole evolutionary theory "appears to be" based on the assumptions of men looking to make their "evidence" fit their pre-conceived ideas.

What you present are not "facts"....they never were.

 

[outhouse]

The whole evolutionary theory "appears to be" based on.

Fact.

And when you learn that, and give up quote mining, you might just learn something.

 

[McBell]

Your argument is a double-edged sword, and I'd argue the edge pointing at your view is much sharper than the edge pointing at mine. Let's not forget, the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biology comes down to patterns: Patterns in the fossil record, patterns in morphology, patterns in genomes, etc. -- patterns which allegedly show relatedness, gradual change, and common descent. Shall we apply your critique to it?

"Evolution's not real; it's just our pattern-seeking brains looking for meaning where there is none."

Works for me.

You are very skilled at ratification.
Even when you have to twist everything around to make it fit.

 

[McBell]

Weak argument.

Designers can intentionally (and unintentionally) create things which don't look designed. That's a yawn-worthy revelation.

The question is, can designers create things which cannot be replicated by nature, and if so, what things?

Make up your mind.
Sounds like you are trying to hand pick what you like from both sides.

 

[JayJayDee]

Fact.

And when you learn that, and give up quote mining, you might just learn something.

I'm "mining" your own quote.....don't you read them....I mean really read them? Apparently not.

 

[outhouse]

I'm "mining"

Yes I know. And perverting it out of context as usual.

 

[shawn001]

You don't show a logical answers as well.
Tell me where did the singularity come from, what it was before the born of the universe, the answer should be there was nothing, emptiness and vacuum, even vacuum itself isn't the right word for it as there was no reality, nothing means nothing, then from nothingness then

the universe born.
Is that what we have to learn at school.

If you have an answer that things can be created without the need for a creator, then prove it to us that it can be.
Can we create milk without its raw material being available.



And that is a fact, we can't explain how it happened except by a supernatural power, nature is an Inanimate stones



Does science teach you what bring the universe to existence and for what purpose ?

"Tell me where did the singularity come from, what it was before the born of the universe, the answer should be there was nothing, emptiness and vacuum, even vacuum itself isn't the right word for it as there"

First we know there was a bang, but we don't know there even was a singularity. That is being worked on. In physics there is no such thing as No-Thing. Even in a vacuum of space. You should study up more on astronomy and cosmology.

We do have pictures of the oldest light in the universe BEFORE stars and galaxies existed at all and the universe has evolved from what we see.


"If you have an answer that things can be created without the need for a creator, then prove it to us that it can be."

You can show it without breaking any of Natures physical laws and no one can prove there is a creator or not. That is where everyone is at, to answer it honestly its "we don't know yet."

This is about science and what we learn by science without evoking the supernatural.

"Does science teach you what bring the universe to existence and for what purpose ?"

"Does science teach you what bring the universe to existence"

They are trying to answer those questions and that is real science. Do you really understand science at all here?

"for what purpose"

No but either does religion.

"
EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."

You can start with a hypothesis and then work through the methods. But you can't do that with a supernatural explanation. I can just as well say Pink unicorns created the universe. Prove me wrong, because that is what your doing here.


"And that is a fact, we can't explain how it happened except by a supernatural power, nature is an Inanimate stones"

This is really just bad and your leaving out things like nucleosynthesis and the fact your carbon based life form and every atom in you was fuse in a giant stars nuclear furnace. Your leaving out billions of years of information we do know about of the universe itself and formation of the solar system and evolution of life on Earth.

Tons of people believe in God and know evolution of the universe and life on Earth is a fact and a working scientific theory.

Again we know for a fact the universe evolved is evolving still and life on earth evolved and still is evolving. Its a fact that your beliefs don't change. This is not about taking whatever "God" you believe in out of the picture. Something you don't get it seems, this debate has been going on for 100 of years, what caused the bang. It isn't until recently that we "may" be able to explain it, with new technology and new information. Most cosmologist nowadays think there are multiple universes and they have some hypothesis's on it all. That is not a done deal its being researched.

 

[shawn001]

Good point.

500,000 fossils all point to evolution. Genetics point to evolution. Modern medicine and agriculture point to evolution. And so on.

It's not just the pattern in the fossil record. The fossil record is just the family picture album we have. But it's not the only evidence for evolution.

As well as plate tectonics. But they seem to go after animals and "kinds" before they even know the oxygen they breath is from evolution of photosynthesis.

Or that it took a while for the planet when it was forming to cool enough, especially the iron core for the Van Allen belts to form otherwise all life would be fried from solar radiation. They see the planet now and have no idea how it formed and why that matters.

 

[shawn001]

So FearGod, can you answer these questions?

""What does intelligent design tell you about nature?
Does it tell you what the designer did?
Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with?
Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something?
Does it tell you when the designer did it?
Why the designer did it?""

Of course you will try to use religion and even if you do you can't answer these questions. Not to mention there are tons of different religions.

 

[shawn001]

outhouse, I sometimes wonder if you read these things that are posted as "proof" of the evolutionary theory.

Like this.....from your link.

"Named "Little Foot," the skeletal remains are those of a small ape-like creature who fell into a pit in South Africa's Sterkfontein cave complex millions of years ago.
How many years, though, is the question, and teams have put forward an extraordinary range of estimates, from 1.5 to four million.

That makes it a rough contemporary of "Lucy," the Ethiopian hominid that has the most prominent claim on being our earliest-known ancestor.

"There is nothing to rule out the idea that (Little Foot) was the forerunner of humanity. Everything is possible," said Laurent Bruxelles from France's National Institute for Archaeological Research (Inrap), who took part in the study.

The evidence comes thanks to an updated form of the technology used to date the sediments in which the fossil was found.

The technique, called cosmogenic nuclide dating, looks at levels of rare isotopes that are created when soil or rocks are hit by high-speed particles that arrive from outer space.

A first attempt using this method, in 2003, suggested an age of four million years, although it had an enormous margin of error.

That estimate was dramatically countered by dating of different deposits, looking for uranium and lead isotopes, which gave a far younger age of 2.2 million years.

That was devastating news for Little Foot's champions, for it would relegate their fossil to a footnote in the human odyssey.

Last year, though, Bruxelles and colleagues determined that those calcite deposits had enveloped Little Foot in the cave at a much later date......

Both Little Foot and Lucy are from a branch of the human family tree called Australopithecus.

This genus had both ape and human features and could walk upright.

That branch also has forks, with Little Foot called Australopithecus prometheus, and Lucy categorised as Australopithecus afarensis.

Their anatomies were "very different... (which) now raises interesting questions about early hominid diversity," said the study, led by Darryl Granger of Purdue University.

The Australopithecus hominids are thought to have given rise to Homo habilis, the direct ancestor to anatomically modern man, Homo sapiens.

The first traces of H. habilis are dated to around 2.5 million years ago.

Far older fossils of hominids have been unearthed in East Africa and Chad that pre-date both Lucy and Little Foot, but their lineage to Australopithecus is unknown."

Now I don't know how you can state things in such a black and white fashion when reading something like this.

The Google images of australopithecus are hilarious.

Look at Wiki's entry.....

"According to the Chimpanzee Genome Project, the human (Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus) lineages diverged from a common ancestor about five to six million years ago, assuming a constant rate of evolution. It is theoretically more likely for evolution to happen more slowly, as opposed to more quickly, from the date suggested by a gene clock (the result of which is given as a youngest common ancestor, i.e., the latest possible date of divergence.) However, hominins discovered more recently are somewhat older than the molecular clockwould suggest.[5]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, commonly called "Toumai", is about seven million years old and Orrorin tugenensis lived at least six million years ago. Since little is known of them, they remain controversial among scientists since the molecular clock in humans has determined that humans and chimpanzees had a genetic split at least a million years later. One theory suggests that the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged somewhat at first, then some populations interbred around one million years after diverging.[5]"

The pics for these were laughable too. All based on imagination. Unless you have the fully preserved body of these creatures, you are basing all your assumptions on other people's assumptions.

The whole evolutionary theory "appears to be" based on the assumptions of men looking to make their "evidence" fit their pre-conceived ideas.

What you present are not "facts"....they never were.

JayJayDee, was there a Permian mass extinction? Have there been mass extinctions on Earth in the past?

 

[shawn001]

Not only do we know evolution is a fact, scientists are working on

Intelligent Self-directed Evolution

 

[jonathan180iq]

If there is a Creator and he did design and manufacture all the originals, then where does that leave your theory?

If "he" designed the originals, evolutionary theory still wouldn't change. It would be exactly the same. These types of questions just further show that you don't really know what it is that you'r arguing against.

Under your premise, you would had have an original set of lifeforms, designed by the creator, and they would have evolved, over the eons, into the forms that you and I can study today. That's how biology works. Unless you have some secret studies that show otherwise, what you're arguing against is the entire common understanding of biology.

Regardless of what your imagination tells you about abiogenesis, the evolutionary model wouldn't change in the least because of what we know about how life has adapted and evolved after that first moment of life. All of the evidence, from nearly all of the sciences, support evolution. There's just no way around it.

The only argument that you guys could possibly make with any rationale is an argument in philosophy. That's why, I would guess, that you guys have to push so hard for this idea that "the problem isn't the data, it's the interpretation of the data..." You just want science to see things through the glasses that you've chosen, as opposed to the ones that are closest to being unbiased. Why else would you spend so much time trying to tear down an incredibly well established discipline, if not in an attempt to show that your philosophical theory is somehow on the level with it?

Riddle me this - without faith in your particular religion, where is your argument for Intelligent Design?
If it's really about the science and not the faith, then where does that leave you? What arguments do you have, if they don't come from your belief system?

 

[McBell]

What arguments do you have, if they don't come from your belief system?

So far it seems her argument is that she dislikes the wording...

 

[jonathan180iq]

So far it seems her argument is that she dislikes the wording...

Yes, exactly. There's a whole lot of effort going into highlighting and underlining sentence structure for an idea that's already been explained and debunked:

http://www.losmedanos.edu/core/documents/OneHundredWaystosaySaid.pdf

Ways to Say Said Vocabulary Word Bank - EnchantedLearning.com

Another Way to Say “Said”

Those links contain nearly 500 examples - none of which are highlighted and underlined.