U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 05-30-2008, 07:50 PM
 
1,009 posts, read 1,424,883 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by .....think View Post
The average beak size is bigger in certain parts of the years than others to contemplate for the food shortage. It's not that they purposely evolve its that the ones with wrong size dies out, and the one with the correct size increases.

Its not hard of a concept, things that better suited to live in a environment lives to reproduce. However the onces that arn't don't live as long which lowers the chance of reproducing.
Most animals, from the moment they become fertile, begin mating and reproducing. Good beaks, bad beaks, inbetween beaks. All of them screw as much as possible, for as long as they are able, that's survival. You won't see a forest with a bunch of different birds, and then all of a sudden the ones with short beaks just drop dead from the trees. Sure some of them may die, from lack of food, because they can't reach as much food as the birds with longer beaks. But before they died, they mated. And their offspring will stay in the gene pool, and when those ones are born with weak beaks, they will fly around and mate and continue to stay in the gene pool. Natural selection doesn't select anything. If a creature can mate, it does, whether it 'knows' it has desirable traits or not.

For all the evolutionist atheists: Forget your concept of millions of years, for one moment. Now picture a forest of birds. They fly. They eat. They mate. Food grows short, there is a frantic scramble for eating. Eventually the birds with too-short beaks, perish from lack of food. Meanwhile, they mated, and their offspring live on, especially if they were born to 'long-beaks.' So there really is no way to wipe out a less-than-desirable trait completely, and while the long beak birds may live longer, they will still carry the babies of the short-beak birds. There is no way to 'stop' this perpetuation, of ANY trait. This is because all possible traits are built into every population, forever. If the situation was reversed, and all of a sudden birds with long beaks could not eat, and short beaks ruled, it would not exterminate the long beaks completely. If every possible trait exists inherent in every population, prepared for every possible environmental situation.. It had to start somewhere, and it had to be designed that way. Unless the first animals were 'lucky' enough to have a set of DNA armed to the teeth with all possible outcomes, adaptable to all possible situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .....think View Post
So sure be religious believe god made man,but don't be that close minded to say that evolution doesn't exist. evidence is in the plants, the trees, the animals, in us.
I don't think you even have to be 'religious,' just account for the fact that something equipped life millions of years ago to propogate in almost any condition it would encounter, and to change the environment around itself.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2008, 08:43 AM
 
4,690 posts, read 3,405,699 times
Reputation: 1641
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Most animals, from the moment they become fertile, begin mating and reproducing. Good beaks, bad beaks, inbetween beaks. All of them screw as much as possible, for as long as they are able, that's survival. You won't see a forest with a bunch of different birds, and then all of a sudden the ones with short beaks just drop dead from the trees.
No, of course not. That doesn't mean that creatures with certain traits aren't more successful at passing along their genes than others, though. That differential reproductive success drives natural selection, which will cause the frequency of certain traits to shift. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Quote:
Sure some of them may die, from lack of food, because they can't reach as much food as the birds with longer beaks. But before they died, they mated.
What if they die before they mate?

Quote:
For all the evolutionist atheists: Forget your concept of millions of years, for one moment. Now picture a forest of birds. They fly. They eat. They mate. Food grows short, there is a frantic scramble for eating. Eventually the birds with too-short beaks, perish from lack of food. Meanwhile, they mated, and their offspring live on, especially if they were born to 'long-beaks.' So there really is no way to wipe out a less-than-desirable trait completely, and while the long beak birds may live longer, they will still carry the babies of the short-beak birds. There is no way to 'stop' this perpetuation, of ANY trait.
Wait, they mated after they died? This doesn't make any sense. How are the starving birds magically kept alive without food for months so that they can mate and they immediately die?

Quote:
This is because all possible traits are built into every population, forever. If the situation was reversed, and all of a sudden birds with long beaks could not eat, and short beaks ruled, it would not exterminate the long beaks completely. If every possible trait exists inherent in every population, prepared for every possible environmental situation.. It had to start somewhere, and it had to be designed that way. Unless the first animals were 'lucky' enough to have a set of DNA armed to the teeth with all possible outcomes, adaptable to all possible situations.
Mutation is quite capable of introducing novel traits into a population. Biologists have run experiments where a colony of bacteria cloned from a single cell is grown, and since they are clones all the cells are identical. A toxin is introduced and in some cases, there are mutations which cause some of the bacteria to become immune. So it's patently not true that all traits are built into every population, some are developed from scratch as a result of imperfect reproductive processes.

Quote:
I don't think you even have to be 'religious,' just account for the fact that something equipped life millions of years ago to propogate in almost any condition it would encounter, and to change the environment around itself.
Why do we have to account for something which isn't true?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2009, 12:21 PM
 
1 posts, read 800 times
Reputation: 10
Default Link to truth!

I agree, people don't always realize, but here is a link that I personally think is awesome, full of great info! EVOLUTION: The Big Hoax!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2009, 12:25 AM
 
1,115 posts, read 1,994,629 times
Reputation: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy View Post
I've asked this question a number of times and I've never received a response from anyone so I'm going to start a thread on it. Scientists who have made progress in any field of study often want to present their work to the scientific community by writing a paper and submitting it to a scientific journal. Scientific journals contain papers that have been peer reviewed in order to establish their credibility and to keep a high standard in scientific publications. If there are scientists who have discovered solid evidence that can be demonstrated following the scientific method that creationism has a foundation based on fact why don't they present this evidence to the scientific community in the same manner that other scientists do? There are countless scientific journals on any topic you can think of in which professional scientists present their work following a rigorous set of established guidelines. I would think that if any scientist could really lay out all of the evidence they've discovered that proves the earth is only a few thousand years old and that mankind has descended from Adam and Eve that they'd be chomping at the bit to get it published because they'd be in Nobel Prize country. Contrary to what creationists are always saying about science it's clear that scientists thrive on controversy and overthrowing a previously accepted idea because a new one can be shown to be more plausible is what scientists do. That's how progress is made. So why hasn't anyone presented the scientific evidence for creationism and published it in a scientific journal?
Because Adam and Eve is not meant to be taken literally. It is a metaphorical tale.

The universe is proven to be over ten billion years old. So if you want to find out about the creation, you gotta go back really far. We aren't quite there yet.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 03:05 PM
 
1 posts, read 421 times
Reputation: 10
The reason there is no scientific proof of creationism is because first of all, practically all of the scientific education texts are based on evolution. This has a great effect on the minds going into science.
Second you have the unfortunate situation that happens in the scientific sphere. Scientist receive grants. That's how they make their living. If a scientist is know to be an advocate of creationism, many times they are denied grant money. You are considered a child that believes in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Colorado
10,010 posts, read 11,683,799 times
Reputation: 2027
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonnebonne View Post
The reason there is no scientific proof of creationism is because first of all, practically all of the scientific education texts are based on evolution. This has a great effect on the minds going into science.
Second you have the unfortunate situation that happens in the scientific sphere. Scientist receive grants. That's how they make their living. If a scientist is know to be an advocate of creationism, many times they are denied grant money. You are considered a child that believes in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

UUmmm NO it is because there is absolutely no evidence for creation, none what so ever.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
7,714 posts, read 6,143,922 times
Reputation: 3142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonnebonne View Post
The reason there is no scientific proof of creationism is because first of all, practically all of the scientific education texts are based on evolution. This has a great effect on the minds going into science.
Second you have the unfortunate situation that happens in the scientific sphere. Scientist receive grants. That's how they make their living. If a scientist is know to be an advocate of creationism, many times they are denied grant money. You are considered a child that believes in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Grants? Most scientists do not make their money from grants. They make it from producing. How deep did you have to dig for this old thread?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 01:12 AM
 
Location: England
2,103 posts, read 1,586,971 times
Reputation: 1757
The Kitzmiller v Dover trial proved beyond all doubt, that there was not one iota of evidence to back the claims of the ID/Creationism lobby who wanted to impose this JUNK science on the pupils of Dover school.

It was a victory for common sense & proveable science.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 01:39 AM
 
Location: Moving through this etheria
430 posts, read 316,945 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by underwoodluvr View Post
I agree, people don't always realize, but here is a link that I personally think is awesome, full of great info! EVOLUTION: The Big Hoax!
Actually, it's full of BIG holes.... Like this stunningly absurd excerpt from your "awesome" link:

"
modern evolutionists, who have convinced themselves that the earth is billions of years old. Ironically, they have absolutely NO EVIDENCE of such longevity. Evolutionists have sought out dishonest scientists, who distort the facts, use faulty testing methods, and make erroneous assumptions (unethically stating such assumptions as if they were facts). Evolution is at best still a THEORY. Yet, children are brainwashed in godless public schools all across the world, with evolution, which is taught as if it were a fact. This is evil. It is evil to deny students the Biblical account of creationism. The Word of God makes infinite more sense than the fairytale of evolution. "

"Convinced themselves"? You mean they hypothesized, then sought out the evidence, found it and have revised their time-line as better and better evidence has come to light. Lots of it, in fact, despite the claims of this ill-educated website. Not conjecture or lies, but fact.

"Sought out dishonest scientists"? This is pure, unadulterated chicken excrement. Proof? Links? Even the slightest suggestion of this? No. It's a total fabrication, and you buy into it without question. Of course, we can't expect the dogmatic to know how to check out the facts on anything.... If they like the sound of it, why, it must be the truth!

Distorted? Faulty Testing? Erroneous Assumptions? All baseless and spiteful claims without merit. Godless schools? Thank heaven! There's no room for mandated religion in schools. But let them teach it all in a Comparative Religions class. Not in a science class, since it's about as scientific as basket-weaving or woodworking. You wouldn't like that though, because you'd then want to eliminate all the other competing religions, and just ram Christianity down those innocent childrens' minds until they all respond like the kids from The Westborough Baptist Church crowd. Talk about damaging young minds.

At any rate, logically, how can the truth ever be called a hoax? Now, a man created from a woman's rib, or alien giant angels mating with earth-women to make a race of aliens (strangely now absent, with no fossils or remnants...), and the entire universe finished up in a few days? With absolutely no evidence of such stuff now evident anywhere on this earth? Actually, we know the universe is far from finished, and it's full of evidence of all the hypotheses about it's ongoing evolution.

Yeah, that biblical Creationist stuff all sure sounds credible to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bonnebonne View Post
The reason there is no scientific proof of creationism is because first of all, practically all of the scientific education texts are based on evolution. This has a great effect on the minds going into science.
And you're a scientist with hand's on knowledge of this, or is it just the yammering and unsupported opinion of your hive master? Creationism cannot be proven. Fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonnebonne View Post
Second you have the unfortunate situation that happens in the scientific sphere. Scientist receive grants. That's how they make their living. If a scientist is know to be an advocate of creationism, many times they are denied grant money.
Again, where do you get this stuff? It's just tripe and highly biased opinion, unsupported by any facts. There are many Christian scientists, they just don't let their personal spirituality interfere in their research on, say, digestive enzymes or a better microchip for next-gen cell phones or a new drug to keep you or your family member alive when they get sick.

Science is a toolbox, not a way of life or a book of fixed facts. If you actually knew anything about it, you would stop with such irritating nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra View Post
Grants? Most scientists do not make their money from grants. They make it from producing. How deep did you have to dig for this old thread?
Apparently not very deep, PT. About as deep as a mud puddle. As far as I know and read, most all scientists work hard and are accountable to their peers and public to tell the truth. Unlike any church or religious website. Obviously.

Q: where's the rifleman these days? He might be able to shed some light on an honest scientist's means of making money.

Last edited by Shibumi; 10-15-2010 at 02:00 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 02:34 AM
 
Location: Moving through this etheria
430 posts, read 316,945 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple Living View Post
The following post is from this website: Creation Science FAQ (http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#Myth:%20Creationists%20do%20not%20publi sh%20in%20the%20standard - broken link)

Myth: Creationists do not publish in the standard scientific journals or do any original research.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Creationists are VERY active in original research, much more so in the last decade than ever before. Several organizations exists to facilitate this work, such as the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Science Foundation, the Creation Research Society, the Bible Science Association, Reasons to Believe, and others.

By the way, it should be mentioned that there exist some very high caliber creationist technical journals as well. I personally subscribe to the, "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal" which is published out of Australia by the Creation Science Foundation. For more information, in the United States contact:

Answers in Genesis
P.O. Box 6330,
Florence, Kentucky 41022
1-800-350-3232
If such stuff goes before a peer review process, it will always fail. Why? Because it's not been properly done or comes to outlandish, unsupported but insistent conclusions unsupported by their so-called evidence. For instance, far too many times, I've seen as evidence a biblical quote. ("It says so in the bible, and that's all the proof I need"). This is not acceptable evidence, but opinion, as you well know.

The Creation Institute and Answers in Genesis are NOT credible scientific organizations, BTW. Ever. The Creation Science Foundation in Australia? when that one was looked into, it turned out to be an abandoned gas station in the outback, with no one home! It was a scam. Just so you know.
Be a skeptic for a change!

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
Here's the problem I'm talking about. Science may initially use guesswork, but it then backs it up with real evidence. Scientists do research to find out which of their guesses correspond to the real world and which don't. The ones that don't are discarded and the ones that do are refined into useful theories.
Yes, the "guesswork" ploy is just the usual tired taunt to discount (, well, amongst the faithful only) scientific "theories". Rather, they are always based, as we know, on repeatable studies and peer-reviewed results. What we have here is parroting of an old mantra.

Let's all chant together: "Evolution is just a theory!!" Sorry. very unconvincing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
In science classes, science should be taught. Evolution is science, creationism is religious dogma, so it's obvious which should be taught in school science classes.

And it's pretty misleading to try to conflate a scientific theory supported by evidence with an article of religious faith which requires believers to ignore the real world to make their belief reasonable. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about originally. It's never just "we want to believe", it's " we want to believe and we're a political force that's going to try to get your kids to believe, too, using your tax dollars".
In other words, it's not only unethical and dishonest, but also in contradiction of our Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
Actually, there is never any pure truth derived from science
(Not true, demonstrably. What if research does happen to discover an actual fact? Like, say, the existence of the H1N1 virus? or the "theory" of nuclear science? You saying all those H-bombs won't work? how about the "theory" of flight? Or bacteriology? Remember: the church used to "treat" the bubonic plague by whipping the infected. Wonderful! There are now literally millions of proven facts via science. you're being sort of selective, aren't you?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
... and this 'real world' you speak of is constantly being redefined. Science always uses guesswork, forever. Everything is ALWAYS open to further discovery, better methods, or new theories.

And then a new scientist will be born with the Einstein gene, and he (or she) will shake the foundations of science as we know it (in the future) and all of a sudden everything we thought we knew will be outdated and open to interpretation again.

So you're saying that in essence, we've learned NOTHING of any value or truth since the beginnings of scientific testing and hypothesizing? You want to drown all the kittens in one big barrel huh? That science is not a valid and useful process? WE should just default to mindless, dogmatics and book burnings? Not very intelligent, IMHO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro View Post
The Bible and it's believers? Oh, they'll probably still believe God created the universe, and everything works in harmony because He says it should. It's a simplistic view of the universe, but it never changes, and it MAKES SENSE if you believe it. If you believe there is no God, and you only believe in scientific discovery and conclusions, you will literally never stand on ground that makes perfect sense. The ground you stand on is now subject to Quantum Theory. Who knows when scientists will have their own Bible of everything. I say.... Never! Until never, good luck agreeing on what you all believe about the universe, scientists .
I don't think scientists intend to have a single final answer. They seem content to have questions to work on, else they'd be out of work! As well, they seem to enjoy working on questions.

True. Science should be taught in science class. I just think it's funny that every science book teaching evolutionary theory convenently skips the "How" of evolution, for example how the mutations of species (which MUST have existed), which were not adaptive and successful, completely disappeared from the fossil record. Where are all the incomplete animals?

There is an intelligence and a plan behind all of creation. At least it makes sense [/quote]

Or not. Evolution teaching doesn't skip the "hows", BTW. Evolution is not required to provide a neatly laid out set of all the species involved in the process, tagged and ID'd with a sample of it's DNA in a handy bottle tied to it's toes. Now though, with DNA mapping, it is possible to trace the lineage, and over time, as scientists (guys like Craig Venter) map past and current species, they will be able to show us peons in detail the indisputable evidence of slow change over long periods of time.

We no longer have to look for some croc-o-duck or ape-man or half alligator, half whale. Those ideas are just silly and antiquated, yet Creationists still bring it up to discredit it in hopes of getting a bit of traction for their tired ideas. Why don't they read a bit and learn some?

Count on ever-increasing knowledge. Today's mysteries will be uncloaked and debunked, even if subject to theoretical improvements over time.


Last edited by Shibumi; 10-15-2010 at 02:43 AM..
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top