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 do you believe a talking bird is a myth? Because if you never saw one, you would be one of the first people here saying such a thing is just a myth, and impossible. LOL
If the Bible is just based on fiction, why is it that historical discovery keeps showing us everything discovered is true?
Forgive me, but I will trust the Bibles truth over yours.
Really Campbell, Parrots, Minah birds and such are mimics that's all. They do not start conversations as the mythical creatures in the bible tend to do. And you are wrong, not all history recorded in the bible has proven to be true. In fact very little of it has any basis of truth.....There is very little truth in the bible when compared to the discoveries that have been made recently in the field of evolution.
Personally, I'll give him a day or so to answer those simple questions. If he's SO convinced that it's all a big lie, or wants to deflect with irrelevant stuff that his ministry uses as so-called anti-Evo arguments, (and the congregation CHEERS in mindless agreement!), well, he needs to tell us which of the basic components of The Process of Evolution he fundamentally disagrees with!
Simple as that. Perhaps he's studying up on the big words tonight.
Otherwise I no longer find any amusement or enjoyment in educating or arguing against foolish logic. There's better and far more interesting threads out there tgo participate in.
The reason Christians have come out so fervently against such genetic tinkering is that it proves, again incontrovertibly, that the relentless march of knowledge brought to us courtesy of the tools of science, can and will produce a living organism, soon, out of simple chemicals you can buy from The Fischer Scientific Catalog.
Imagine, like a Chia Petâ„¢, your inquisitive child will be able, one day, to buy a complete "monkey kit", (no, not those old "sea monkey" kits.... that was just sad!). They could equally do a "Human" kit, but ethically, it might be a bit tough, to grow your own slaves, for instance...
But surely, say, a "kit" mouse. Which would, true to the species, then respond to kindness and love and would demonstrate it's own cute little "soul". Not only that, but you could have one in any fur or eye color, length of tail, type of preferred food, etc. etc. adinfinitum. Once the DNA code's read and sequencable, which it almost is now, fully, they can and will be able to do ANYTHING they want to. Danged hoaxy scientists!
Then, oh then, on that glorious day, what WILL the IDTs say? What indeed!
Of course (I'll claim to have said it first, here, live, on C-D...) there WILL absolutely be a huge hue and cry against such things by the IDTs. (Remember what that stands for? Let me know if you don't. It has nothing to do with Dis-Intelligent Design).
After all, only Christians' mythic God can imbue a "soul" and life itself into a live organism, right? So even when they grow their own true monkey or mouse in their own house, or down in the Church basement, away from prying and inquisitive eyes, they'll then just yell that it's not REALLY alive; it's just some sort of trick! By the faker scientists! Yeah... that's it! Let's go with that!
You wanna bet this will never happen?How much, exactly do you wanna bet? In gold pieces please. Multiples of ten would be OK. How much? When they can now easily insert major chunks of synthesized DNA into existing cells that have, BTW, been killed first, as in "Dead", and then these cells happily come back to life on their own? Huzzah! What COULD be going on here? Basic, logical reproducable biochemistry? Nahhh...
Again, wanna bet they'll NEVER be able to creat a living reproducing organism in a test tube? NEVER? I'll take that bet, 'cause I know where science is quickly taking us. On the fast lane. Get on board or get run down!
Well, on the other hand, it's quite true; The intransigent, guiding the illiterate and obstinate, will lead them straight to hell. And they'll ALL have smiles on their faces!
I had a post earlier but i didn't get to send it. Basically I believe that the question isn't whether or not genetic manipulation in humans is possible or not but rather how long until it becomes acceptable and common place.
What group do you think is most likely to want this technology implemented? It's not totalitarian oppresive racist governments. It's parents.
Once the technology advances to the point that we can detect if a baby is going to be born with a genetic defect and change his/her DNA to fix the problem, what parent in their right mind would say no to this? Considering that we are socially and biologically conditioned to give our children the best opportunities in life, parents are going to want to make their children into superbabies.
I'm no geneticist or biologist, but there are those here who are, and their straightforward if wordy! (rifleman, I warned you!) points are pretty well presented. It's like going to a biology classroom. Ever been a teacher,rfm?
Actually, look at the skeleton of a seal. You can clearly see short fingers and claws (which still protrude) in the front "fins". They apparently evolved from land creatures, most likely big cats, back in to land/sea predators. Proof, as you requested. I wonder if you will look into it? How about that, hey? You asked, I provided.
I know, as does most anyone who did even basic biology, that you won't find a pre-human whale. You go back down the lines from today's humans, and you'll find all the right fossils. There are some missing of course. It's been rough out there in the world what with geologists and Christians and grave diggers rooting around. Did you expect that, over the course of millions of years, they would all be laid out neatly, wrapped up for your benefit?
Campbell, you didn't point out which of his points you don't agree with. Please do so It will tell us where you feel that evolution falls short.
You stated that we can clearly see short fingers and claws protruding from a seals front fins. Then you make this giant leap of faith and claim. This shows us (they apparently evoloved from land creatures.) Did it ever occur to you, that maybe, just maybe they always had fingers and claws?
Why do you believe because they have them, this means they must have evoloved? The skeletons of modern seals are virtually identical to the earliest know seals of the miocene era.
If we go down the line we will find all the right fossils for humans? WOW, where did you ever come up with that idea? The fact is, most of what they have found was refuted long ago, yet some still pretend that evidence is still valid. Please, could you show us this evidence? Even one of your own, Dr. David Pilbeam a professor of Social Science at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum states. Students of human Evolution including myself, (HAVE BEEN FLAILING ABOUT IN THE DARK.) Our data base is to sparse, to slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. If your own people are now questioning the lack of evidence, why would you expect someone like me to buy into it?
Kdbrich and Campbell34, you both remind me so much of a toothless old hillbilly, sitting in a rocker on his moldering porch, angrily creaking forward and back in the chair, and spitting "It ain't right! It's all lies! Them newfangled idears is jest da debbil! Git offa mah porch and take yer devilish works wif ya now! We don't cotton to SCIENCE here!"
Kdbrich and Campbell34, you both remind me so much of a toothless old hillbilly, sitting in a rocker on his moldering porch, angrily creaking forward and back in the chair, and spitting "It ain't right! It's all lies! Them newfangled idears is jest da debbil! Git offa mah porch and take yer devilish works wif ya now! We don't cotton to SCIENCE here!"
Well, I have no problem with newfangled idears, as long as those idears are based on good evidence. And 1800 years before Darwin came along, the Bible warned us to beware of science falsely so called. It's obvious the Bible knew long ago that some in science would try to pass off ideas that would attempt to show the Bible to be false, when in fact, it was the science that is false. And this science is now being pushed without any clear evidence of it's truth. And the evidence we are told to believe in, is based on nothing but speculation. A bone here, a fragment there, and the next thing we have, is a whole new story of how man evoloved. The Bible of course has much more evidence for it's truth, yet that evidence is ignored. And it is ignored, even when historical discovery shows us it is true.
"Please answer the questions posed by the other debator, or conceed!"
I'll warn Shibumi, who's apparently new here. Just walk away. no, rfun away! Logic obviously ffails here.
C34, I, being nearer to death that I was yesterday, am willing to throw myself on the burning pyrre of your vast stubborn intransigence.
It's not just the singular fact that seal morphology points to a prior species. They still exist today, more or less unchanges, for the obvious rason that they are superbly well adapted for their particular niche. That in no way means that there aren't other versions out there (Zalophus californianus for an easy example). The originatotrxs simply remain because that niche is still there. I'll betcha there's been minor improvements in ability to hold their breath and ignore rising CO2 blood levels, or to see in dep water vision, nothing too visible obvious but trackable in their DNA no dounbt. It's just not a prioority right now, but give us about 5 years, and you'll be able to drop off a blood sample at your doctor's office and in ab out a week your complete DBNA sequence, showing all your good and bad stuff, will be there. We then go back, you or the seals, and check out the old DNA, and, voila, we'll see consistent species-wide changes. changes, BTW, mean / imply / prove things were different in the past.
Also, we have to combine this with the utter silliness of trying to round up a worldwide population in order to cram literally millions (X2; needed one of both sexes) onto an obviously too small Boat.
And BTW, another minor ecological fact: only two of any species cannot, ever, possibly sans a laboratory environment, successfully create a viable population. Cannot happen. You need, in many cases, several dozen at minimum. So, Q#7 for you, added in late, is: how, exactly, did good old Noah hope this would happen? Again, if it's just Gawd's magic finger, why the heck did he go through all of this flood trouble? A simple nose-wiggle would have killed off all the sinners, and populated the entire Earth with suitable species.
It's all such an obvious allegory. To buy into it as literal? Absolutely amazing! But sooo very indicative!
(...unless Noah went from port to port, loudspeaker blaring: "The good Ship Ark will be docking in Now flooded Atlanta for a brief opportunity for another 10, 532 species pairs to get on board. You Brontosauri and T-Rexes in the back, please crunch up together and stop fighting/biting; we gotta make a lot more room here. We've got 55 more ports of call to visit and the water's rising!").
So, we take the handy tools of science to look at alternates, and lookee what we find! Good alternate, logical and nicely intertwining findings that support an ever-more-proven unified theory. We conflate it with our own strong emotional beliefs and personal spirituality (I deflect incoming from Mystic here), coupled with our emotional maturity and need to find something less, well, fairy-tale, and more logically believable, and we get an alternate and ever-more supported scenario. You have one tool to use, your blindered spirfituality and obedience to the Church; we have or had THAT, but add in the obvious answers that the logical tools of science offer. Not limited to, but rather, expanded by.
BTW, We're still waiting for your point-by-point answers. Which, exactly, of my points do you disagree with? Those 6 little points define Evolution. If any of the separate points are inerr, then it all falls apart. Go ahead; take your best shot!
I, now impatiently, await your thoughts and answers. I appreciate your time in answering these (now seven) simple questions. I suspect you might have been up all night trying to catch up on your basic biology, but THAT won't save you; it's far too complex for a Reader's Digest level of understanding. Despite what your local minister might blather (He, ditto, has likely NEVER taken any biology or science courses so he and you simply don't understand how it all works. That much is documented in your responses so far. You speak to things you know nothing about because of your emotional mindset on the topic.
Just check out the evidence provided by Shimumi. No matter what any of us says, you deflect or provide nonsense answers. And since you know you won't be cornered by answering 6 (ooops... 7) simple questions, you pretend (ears covered, yelling "NahNahNahhhhand pretend they aren't there or aren't valid.
Just play along and answer them. Don't worry, I'll wait for a bit more time, and I promise to not any more burdens (questions) on your time if you'll just answer them, succinctly and to their points, exactly. No deflective stuff for now.
Then.... we'll play the opening music from "Jaws"....
VI. Seal Origins Seals evolved from bearlike carnivores about 25 to 30 million years ago. Early seal fossils are found in Europe’s North Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. By 8 to 10 million years ago seals were well established in the northern hemisphere—numerous seal fossils have been discovered in the Chesapeake Bay region of the United States dating from this time period. Found with these fossils are giant teeth resembling those of the great white shark, perhaps then, as now, an important seal predator.
Really Campbell, Parrots, Minah birds and such are mimics that's all. They do not start conversations as the mythical creatures in the bible tend to do. And you are wrong, not all history recorded in the bible has proven to be true. In fact very little of it has any basis of truth.....There is very little truth in the bible when compared to the discoveries that have been made recently in the field of evolution.
sanspeur, can you show us what history you are speaking about that shows us the Bible is untrue? Making general statements like that is easy to do, yet can you back up your statements with facts?
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.
Tick-tock Tick-tock....
"Please answer the questions posed by the other debator, or conceed!"
Seal Origins Seals evolved from bearlike carnivores about 25 to 30 million years ago. Early seal fossils are found in Europe’s North Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. By 8 to 10 million years ago seals were well established in the northern hemisphere—numerous seal fossils have been discovered in the Chesapeake Bay region of the United States dating from this time period. Found with these fossils are giant teeth resembling those of the great white shark, perhaps then, as now, an important seal predator.
