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.
And keep Genesis with Adam and a talking rib and a talking snake????
Are you sure about that??
It's interesting how often Wiki gets dismissed as a valid source. It is very, very useful and the right course of action, if the evolution skeptic has doubts, is go and research further. But a mere pretext for dismissing the evidence is usually what we get.
...well, so far, we have had denial, more denial and even more denial, using all sorts of false claims, sour dismissal and simple 'I don't want to know'. What more does Creationism have, I wonder?
I don't expect you to read all those links, just to substantiate the value of evolution - quite apart fropm the value of knowing where we came from.
Nobody is asking you to Believe in evolution, but at least give it a fair chance. ALL the evidence supports it really. You can be bored if you like. I just hope you won't use that as an excuse for avoiding looking at the evidence that backs up evolution. It may be that the discoveries in those links could have been made without evolution theory just as spectacles and telescopes were made before Newton worked out the principles of light. However, the point is that evolution theory has practical applications and without it, we would be working in the dark.
Your points about how the world began and all the inventions and discoveries made before the theory of evolution was worked out are irrelevant to whether it the evidence makes it the best explnation for what we observe and and indeed proves that the mechanism for biolgical change is proven. To deny that is simply..denial.
You are right in that, up to the appearance of origin of Species, 'Creation' was the only explanation there was. When they say that Galilaeo, Newton and the Founding fathers were all 'Creationists', there is a measure of truth in that. There was no other explanation. Now we have one and one that os demonstrable in pracice and which is suppoerted by all the evidence. Creation has no place now in science.
Question for you AREQUIPA...... Do you have nipples?
Question for you AREQUIPA...... Do you have nipples?
Question for you...what the freaking heck has that to do with anything? Ah..I get it. The sinful sexes are the same until the chromosomes make us male and female made they him them?
http://www.livescience.com/32467-why...e-nipples.html For the first several weeks a developing embryo follows a "female blueprint," from reproductive organs to nipples. Only after about 60 days does the hormone testosterone kick in (for those of us with a Y chromosome),), changing the genetic activity of cells in the genitals and brain (e.g. by developing the concept of not always being right). But by then those mammary papillae aren't going anywhere.
It's interesting how often Wiki gets dismissed as a valid source. It is very, very useful and the right course of action, if the evolution skeptic has doubts, is go and research further. But a mere pretext for dismissing the evidence is usually what we get.
...well, so far, we have had denial, more denial and even more denial, using all sorts of false claims, sour dismissal and simple 'I don't want to know'. What more does Creationism have, I wonder?
Yes it is. and so is tube. We do have to be careful to be sure, but you are correct. They are just fine as a basis for honest and reasonable people. Yes, again we hit "I disagree". the facts say clearly that one claim is far more rational than another stance. I mean I even gave eub a graceful way out and a comfortable landing spot. I did for you too ya know. I do understand that eub cant just let go a life time of experience but I don't understand the unreasonable defensive stance they take. that one baffles me.
Yes, the body is made wonderfully, I agree. Is it possible that God created us to evolve because that is what he wanted to happen? He of course would still be the one that created/was in charge of evolution. Evolution does not take anything away from God and his power, and it still makes us his children, and he still would be the creator of our souls.
If you would believe in the word of God, He made (created), that excludes evolution as evolutionist believe, God does not need evolution, Adam and Eve were made perfect, very good in the eyes of God, not in millions of years, but in 24 hours, one day our time. Why you want to believe in deception from the god of this world, a deceiver?
Yes it is. and so is tube. We do have to be careful to be sure, but you are correct. They are just fine as a basis for honest and reasonable people. Yes, again we hit "I disagree". the facts say clearly that one claim is far more rational than another stance. I mean I even gave eub a graceful way out and a comfortable landing spot. I did for you too ya know. I do understand that eub cant just let go a life time of experience but I don't understand the unreasonable defensive stance they take. that one baffles me.
Rusebius? He doesn't ever need an escape pod or a safety net - he is never wrong and no -one can ever beat Him. I have that on Excellent Authority.
If you would believe in the word of God, He made (created), that excludes evolution as evolutionist believe, God does not need evolution, Adam and Eve were made perfect, very good in the eyes of God, not in millions of years, but in 24 hours, one day our time. Why you want to believe in deception from the god of this world, a deceiver?
* Fossils - the order can be determined by stratification alone (no radiological dating) it is unarguable and life started simple and got more complex. Here is a simple chart to show what I mean: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/success...
* Circular species. Meaning that it geographically evolved in two geographic directions with interbreeding possible between all steps but not the two ends. The two ends are actually separate species. Example
* Mitochondrial DNA regressive studies. - This comes only from your mother and the only changes to it are through mutations. These mutations occur at a known rate, and converge world wide 150,000 years ago give or take. If Eve (6000 years ago) was the only female, it would be almost identical world wide. It is not. The flood gives a second bottleneck that matches the facts even less well.
* Geographic distribution of related species. Meaning related species are usually near each other.
* Wisdom Teeth - there isn't room on your jaw for them anymore.
* Your little toe - totally useless. Nice intelligent design here.
* Your appendix - totally useless now but it does digest cellulose in other species.
* Your inner eyelids - They don't even work now, but they do for lots of other animals like house cats. Bet you didn't even know you had 'em.
* Vestigial DNA - meaning chromosomes that we have but don't use, but that are used in other species. We have several that other primates use but are totally useless to us.
* The fact that we share so much DNA among species
* There are no wild milk cows. They evolved through artificial selection and are totally man made.
* Different breeds of dogs, cats, livestock.
* Viruses and bacteria evolve quickly and you can actually see it. This is why you need a new flu shot every year.
* Your tail bone. It is even not that uncommon to be born with a tail.
* Goosebumps - this would be useful if we had fur because it fluffs it and makes more insulation. For us it is worthless.
* The hair standing up on your neck when you are frightened. Animals use this to make themselves look bigger. Doesn't work when you walk upright and don't have fur.
* The fact that humans have gotten measurably and heritability taller since the 1600s
* The fact that humans jaw have gotten measurably and heritability smaller since the 1600s
* The fact that humans little toes have gotten measurably and heritability smaller since the 1600s
* Human lower back problems. Your back is intelligently designed to have support from your shoulders.
If you would believe in the word of God, He made (created), that excludes evolution as evolutionist believe, God does not need evolution, Adam and Eve were made perfect, very good in the eyes of God, not in millions of years, but in 24 hours, one day our time. Why you want to believe in deception from the god of this world, a deceiver?
This is why I really didn't want an evolution debate here. it is sometimes not unlike trying to discuss the theory of relativity with a sandpit of three -year olds.
There is evidence - hard evidence - for evolution.
There is no sound evidence for what is in Genesis.
I hear what you are saying but as you said "I guess I just don't know what I don't know." and when it comes to human origins, I'm comfortable not knowing.
Back at ya. Good show. The only place I really disagree with ya is the what we are teaching other people. "we have no way of knowing "anything" about how people got here. That is not the best choice. That's no good no matter how you slice it.
Where you are correct is that for some people it makes no difference. You have to know for some it is of interest. It is ok to "not care" Until we start using the rock record as proof that there is no way of knowing. The rock record is a way of knowing.
We can't be sure exactly what happened at "THE BEGINING" but we have some reasonable guesses, like Von Neumann probes, and we can see the sequences of events after that start. As far as time goes, we can reasonably talk in orders of 100(s) million years between events. radioactive decay, strat formation, fossil, and Uniformitarianism do support those time frames. If you are truely a science guy, you understand the truth of that stance.
We are a great example of what I have been saying. It not what people believe, it's how they believe it.
Question for you...what the freaking heck has that to do with anything? Ah..I get it. The sinful sexes are the same until the chromosomes make us male and female made they him them?
Why Do Men Have Nipples? For the first several weeks a developing embryo follows a "female blueprint," from reproductive organs to nipples. Only after about 60 days does the hormone testosterone kick in (for those of us with a Y chromosome),), changing the genetic activity of cells in the genitals and brain (e.g. by developing the concept of not always being right). But by then those mammary papillae aren't going anywhere.
Accurate, but incorrect. I am wondering what you or the rest of the scientific community thinks about male nipples. If evolution is to be true, then I need to know if they are gonna fall off, or if I can expect my sons or their sons, etc. to one day have the ability to breastfeed.
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.
Ah..I get it. The sinful sexes are the same until the chromosomes make us male and female made they him them?
that one baffles me.
is why I really didn't want an evolution debate here. it is sometimes not unlike trying to discuss the theory of relativity with a sandpit of three -year olds. 
