Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While that video is truly enlightening and covers some of the most recent science, I sincerely doubt if squall will take the time (it measures in hours, but what price for one's education, neh?) and effort to take it in!
I really hope so, since I truly think there might be hope for him yet, but sadly, I don't think he will.
We'll see. Perhaps he might actually live up to that important part of his nome-de-plume: lionheart. I have great respect for the nicely evolved wild Felidae family. We'll see if a human can truly adopt one's chosen nom...
We shall have to see whether the explanation is taken on board or some relevant questions are put or we just get the adherence to anti evolution belief (I won't go further than that as Lionheart wanted God made us from clots kept out of it ) with one question after another chucked in - like 'how do birds learn to crack nuts' (1) or whatever.
The answer in that behaviour as well as physiology is best explained by evolutionary adaptation. The Bees' dance, the navigation of birds by crystals in the head, how do lambs know where to go for milk - are all best explained by gradual adaptations which enable the species to survive and it is genetic information that passes on the instinct but not tattoos or lost fingers as they are not in the genetic code.
In the end it doesn't matter to me whether Lionheart takes on the point that the theory is the best explanation that fits the facts, or not: it is his choice to go with reason and evidence or prefer to reject it on trivial if not false grounds.
I have learned a lot and had a few doubts and questions of my own cleared up and I hope a few others might at least see that the evolutionary case shapes up well to the creationists' objections.
(1) (Lionheart wrote:"YES chimps, apes, or whatever need to be "clever" in order to survive. Think about the birds that drop nuts from the wires to the road below to crack them making it easier to open, is this not "clever"?"
Yes it is. That is why I see the cleverness of higher animals as essentially the same behavioural adaptations as those for birds, bees and fish. That is why I see our 'consciousness' as really having the same origins as that of chimps, birds, bees, fish amoebas and indeed plants, crystals and the molecules and atoms of which we are made. It is incredibly amazing and complex but that is not surprising as it has been evolving and developing for millions of years. At least that is what all the evidence indicates and I know of no really sound evidence that indicates any other feasible theory.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-04-2012 at 07:31 PM..
While that video is truly enlightening and covers some of the most recent science, I sincerely doubt if squall will take the time (it measures in hours, but what price for one's education, neh?) and effort to take it in!
I really hope so, since I truly think there might be hope for him yet, but sadly, I don't think he will.
We'll see. Perhaps he might actually live up to that important part of his nome-de-plume: lionheart. I have great respect for the nicely evolved wild Felidae family. We'll see if a human can truly adopt one's chosen nom...
I did watch it more than once .
Really interesting ...
I have a thirst for knowledge and exploration about everything even my professors at college begins to hate my questions
I don't want to make anybody uncomfortable I swear ....but ...!!!
Just imagne that this video contains Haeckel’s embryos or Galapagos Finches which were learned as scientific fact for many years all over the world...Wouldn't it looks interesting & acceptable just like all from what we've seen in that video ?
If those frauds or error were exposed quickly then there wouldn't been any problem .. but what makes me worried is that it took so many years before it did .
There were entire generations that graduated carrying some wrong concepts .
Some fabricated fossils endorsed by scientists for so many years and were taught at college and presented into museums all over the world !!!
Again they took so many years before they were exposed.
So I've come to a certain philosophy ....
Anything real and truthful doesn't need falsify evidence to prove it ... right ?
But if that happen then it tells you immediately that there is something wrong here !!
Or at least we have to be careful before accept anything as a fact .
The solution "from my humble point of view" is to bring everything to logic ...a simple logic that doesn't require a scientist to apply .
The truth is always simple .
I do not deny the theory of evolution ,in fact it does describes and explains a very important aspects of diversity of modern species ,history and nature of life on Earth in the most simple & wonderful way .
I said that before and will repeat it again and again ...
but I have some reservations about some of those aspect .
I think I have the right to my opinion .
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 04-05-2012 at 05:00 AM..
I did watch it more than once .
Really interesting ...
I have a thirst for knowledge and exploration about everything even my professors at college begins to hate my questions
I don't want to make anybody uncomfortable I swear ....but ...!!!
Just imagne that this video contains Haeckel’s embryos or Galapagos Finches which were learned as scientific fact for many years all over the world...Wouldn't it looks interesting & acceptable just like all from what we've seen in that video ?
If those frauds or error were exposed quickly then there wouldn't been any problem .. but what makes me worried is that it took so many years before it did .
There were entire generations that graduated carrying some wrong concepts .
Some fabricated fossils endorsed by scientists for so many years and were taught at college and presented into museums all over the world !!!
Again they took so many years before they were exposed.
So I've come to a certain philosophy ....
Anything real and truthful doesn't need falsify evidence to prove it ... right ?
But if that happen then it tells you immediately that there is something wrong here !!
Or at least we have to be careful before accept anything as a fact .
The solution "from my humble point of view" is to bring everything to logic ...a simple logic that doesn't require a scientist to apply .
The truth is always simple .
I do not deny the theory of evolution ,in fact it does describes and explains a very important aspects of diversity of modern species ,history and nature of life on Earth in the most simple & wonderful way .
I said that before and will repeat it again and again ...
but I have some reservations about some of those aspect .
I think I have the right to my opinion .
Of course you do and that's encouraging. I also have had some doubts about evolution - notably how on earth the feather could have evolved.
In fact, that has been stunningly proven by the originally contested links between dinosaur physiology and birds (and it was right that it should be contested) and then the feathered dinosaur fossils coming out of China. And I read an evolutionists had dismissed that as a fairy tale some time ago.
The fact is, my good pal, that there is going to be debate and some unanswered questions and some assumptions that do need to be corrected, as in the Haeckel embryos - what's wrong with the Galapagos finches, by the way? - though the mistakes generally seem to be on the creationist side these days as in the T- Rex soft tissue (which was actually fossilized mineral) the Hadrosaur mummy (which was again stone fossil) and the Chinese 'fake' fossil which was actually two genuine fossils and their fitting together to get a better price was discovered by the fossil - experts.
The Archaeopteryx fossil was denounced as a fake (actually there are eight, I believe) but I think we can now accept that they are genuine. These fake fossil accusations are still the sort of creationist trash that is not worthy of you. If you have some doubts about any aspect of the evidence that is or has been presented, share them with us. So far they have not looked anything like as damning as you had presented them.
Now, while all questions and unknowns and doubts are to be welcomed, what is more welcome is that you at least appear to recognize that the theory is sound and fits with and is supported by the evidence, and the objections made, even where correct (many are not) do not really do more than adjust the details.
This message is also for all the other evolution - skeptics out there.
(1) Evolution is an eminently feasible mechanism for the development of life - even if God did make the first cell or it was brought here on a meteorite or by visiting alien scientists.
(2) It is supported by all the evidence, ALL of it. And creationist objections at best are mere details (like the quibbles about the pepper moth and embryology, though Haeckel did go too far) and at worst are misrepresentations like Miller -Urey or downright poor science like Irreducible complexity or information cannot be added. The rest is just nonsense of the whirlwind in a junkyard or the Giraffe could not evolve type.
(3) Evolution does not disprove God, so it isn't a choice between evolution or God. There are a lot of evolutionary theists; but it does undermine the literal reading of the Genesis Creation story. But how many people take that literally? Who wants to be in the camp of those talking about day and night before there was a sun? About talking snakes and all species crammed onto the ark?
Believe in your god, if you must, but take pity on your minds and your intellectual integrity and go with the evidence, not with the ludicrous myths of Genesis.
(waits for applause, and falls backwards off soap - box)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-05-2012 at 06:10 AM..
I had a look at the Galapagos finches, and blow me if it isn't Mr Wells again.
"Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches
This article examines one of Wells' "icons" -- the finch species of the Galápagos islands -- in greater detail, showing how Wells' claims about them do not stand up to scrutiny.
"In Chapter 8 of Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells examines the case of "Darwin's Finches", and claims that textbooks exaggerate not only the importance of the finches to Darwin's thinking, but also the evidence that they are an excellent example of evolution in action. He also accuses biologists Rosemary and Peter Grant, who spent 30 years studying these birds, of exaggerating the evidence as well. As we shall see, Wells's case is weak. Darwin's Finches remain one of the best examples of adaptive radiation in the literature of evolutionary biology.....Wells's contention that Darwin only looked back at the finches years later is false. ...."
I won't summarize the whole refutation of Wells' beefs with Darwins' finches in case, Lionheart, that isn't your objection, but read the article to see that there is nothing faked about them other that the creationist claims that there is something phoney about them.
I do hope, Squall, that you won't further besmirch your credibility by tossing in further Creationist rubbish. You have -really -a final opportunity to save face and approach the subject rationally and honestly. You can ask (as I have said) 'what about this?' But not present it as a 'Ha! The Galapagos finches were a fake!' It just makes you look increasingly suspect.
You wrote:
So I've come to a certain philosophy ....
Anything real and truthful doesn't need falsify evidence to prove it ... right ?
But if that happen then it tells you immediately that there is something wrong here !!
I trust that philosophy works just as well for you when it is the source of most of your objections so far which look false or not wholly truthful.
P.s "Icons of Evolution is a book by the intelligent design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells," I didn't know that, but I can't say I'm astonished.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-05-2012 at 10:30 AM..
On t.v. last night they had a show called "The History of the world in two hours." In it they confidently assert that all life began as a one celled amoeba. Then these amoebas got together and figured they wanted to be dual celled amoebas and so one. The "scientists" then stated that these amoebas got together and became fish. They said "our ancestor the fish" telling us that humans are directly from fish. I'm not making this up. Then these fish, as least some of these fish I guess didn't like the ocean and so they somehow (the didn't tell us how) sprouted legs and arms and crawled out of the ocean. Then these "scientists" told us these fish, which came on land became chimps and they said "our ancestors the chimps" thus telling us we, humans, came from chimps. Then they talked all about how grasslands all of a sudden came on the earth and the chimps, while walking on all fours could not see above the grasses so they learned to walk on two legs so they could see above the tall grasses. Somehow (they don't tell us how) these chimps wanted to grow bigger so they could REALLY see above the grasses so they became apes and the scientists then said on the show "our ancestor the ape . . ." thus telling us that all humans come from apes. Here is a handy dandy chart detailing this:
Here's another:
Notice how the picture tells a thousand words. It looks part human part ape as if we somehow metamorphised from apes.
So the myth is thus: amoeba to fish to chimp to ape to human. I purposely left out all the in-between steps. The chart above does that for you. If this is at all sensible to you, that we really come from a fish, may I suggest . . . well, I'm not allowed to say what I think or this post might get deleted.
What I find interesting is that these scientists cannot, by their own science PROVE these bald assertions that we evolved from an amoeba to a fish to a chimp to an ape to a human. No, not even a teeny bit of scientific evidence. Yet the evolutionists castigate the Christian for believing in God creating mankind as a mature man and mature woman. It is true Christians cannot PROVE God did this anymore than evolutionists can PROVE we came from an amoeba. I just wish they would quit denouncing us for believing the way we do when after all they are just as guilty as believing in something unprovable.
Last edited by Eusebius; 04-05-2012 at 12:16 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed!
) with one question after another chucked in - like 'how do birds learn to crack nuts' (1) or whatever. 
- though the mistakes generally seem to be on the creationist side these days as in the T- Rex soft tissue (which was actually fossilized mineral) the Hadrosaur mummy (which was again stone fossil) and the Chinese 'fake' fossil which was actually two genuine fossils and their fitting together to get a better price was discovered by the fossil - experts.
