Evolution, 2 cents.


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by username

JimF: yeah because neowin.net is a good place to get your crusade started against evolution being taught in public school. You know its funny how it is taught in Catholic schools also. As well are major Christian universities such as BYU and ND.

Here is another fact supporting evolution:

Whales are mammals that live their entire life in the ocean and breathe air using lungs (same as you), cannot live on land at all. Some whales have PELVIC BONES. These bones serve no function what so ever because whales do not have legs. However, mammals do have pelvic bones and have legs breath air, have hair, live offspring, mammary glands, Type I. So, the creator who magically made whales somehow put in a now recessive gene that allows for the development of pelvic bones? I don?t think so, again, another proof of evolution.

Also, don?t you think its strange how all mammals embryonic fluid has the same salinity and contents as the salt water oceans of the world.

Or how all living vertebrates have the same basic embryology?

Again, some more FACTS I would like to throw your way.

Didn't you know that according to the bible whales are fish and bats are bird:) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JimF

username: PELVIC BONES serve no function ?? Do you know that or do you think that ?

It serves no function in whales. They also have "finger" bones in their front flippers as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rodhocetus.jpg

Now the last time I checked, whales did not have legs or some type of extremity that was attached to these bones like ALL OTHER MAMMALS.

evolution.gif

Here is a picture of the fin, stange how is has the same bones as you have, yet these mammals have flippers and now live in the ocean.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOS . . .

What on earth does the Bible's reference to birds and fish have to do with anything?

Please make your arguements lucid.

Jim . . . I read those websites from your previous post. I don't share that opinion . . . and it is an opinion. Just because a thing is reduced to writing, doesn't make it so. Just because someone put up a website, doesn't make it true either.

-TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern whales have what appear to be rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones. You can call this relationship "evolution" if you like, but all you have done is to put a label on a mystery. What Darwinists want us to believe (and want to believe themselves) is that they know how mindless natural forces could have produced all those diverse mammals from an unknown common ancestor, and ultimately from a microorganism. The problem is that their theory doesn't fit the evidence,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JimF

Evolution is not proven theory, the same way as creation is not.

Get a dictionary. Theories are not proven by definition. If they are proven, they become laws.

Originally posted by JimF

I asked many times for proof for evolution and I got none.

Have you been reading the thread? You have gotten several small-scale examples. Is there proof that bacteria eventually evolves into animals? No. Once again, it is still a theory.

Originally posted by JimF

Evolution is just about as rediculous as your Flying Martian Banannas.

You may not be aware of this, but there has actually been lots of study on the specifics of evolution. :ponder:

Evolutionists don't walk around with their copies of The Origin of Species saying 'no more research needs to be done, Darwin told us what happened'. But that's exactly what creationists do.

You have been asked many times to provide some shread of evidence that suggests that Creationism might have happened. I haven't seen you answer those posts yet.

Looks like you have about as much evidence to support your idea as I do for my Flying Martian Banannas hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence from vestigial organs ??

Evolutionists have also claimed that within our bodies are structures and organs which now have no function, but which were useful to our evolutionary ancestors. These organs and structures are called vestigial organs, the idea being that now they are only useless vestiges of once-useful structures. Approximately 100 years ago, a German scientist named Wiedersheim listed 180 structures and organs in man which he thought were now useless. He included, for example, the pituitary gland, the thymus gland, the pineal gland, the tonsils, the appendix, and the coccyx, or tailbone.

After a century of medical research, we now know that all of these structures have an important function in man, and, in fact, without many of them, we cannot live. The pituitary, thymus, and pineal glands are vital to our existence. The tonsils and the appendix are now known to be, among other things, important disease-fighting organs. The tailbone serves to anchor certain pelvic muscles. You cannot sit comfortably without it, and it protects the end of the spinal column. In a scientific journal, not long ago, an evolutionist published an article in which he declared that supposed vestigial organs offer no support for evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JimF

username: Strange that most cars have 4 wheels. It proves they all evolved from an explosion in a car factory.

No way, that's how the martians sent them here. Haven't you seen all of the banannas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have been asked many times to provide some shread of evidence that suggests that Creationism might have happened. I haven't seen you answer those posts yet.

The Bible itself provides some evidence. It is direct testamony. Now before you go off on it, I'm not asking you to accept the Gospel, I'm only asking that you acknowledge that it is in fact a pretty old book, that the story has endured remarkably well, and that it tends to indicate that divine creation is a possibility.

-TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TimeRider

The Bible itself provides some evidence. It is direct testamony. Now before you go off on it, I'm not asking you to accept the Gospel, I'm only asking that you acknowledge that it is in fact a pretty old book, that the story has endured remarkably well, and that it tends to indicate that divine creation is a possibility.

-TR

I'm not a bible historian, so I won't rip it apart, but you know you have to have more than that.

Yes, I will admit that it is an old book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I'm a Christian Catholic.

That should put off all you protestants and atheists... ;)

Now, to the creationists...there are 2 creation stories in Genesis; which story do you pick and choose to believe?

Until you really know about the origins of the stories in Genesis, have studied the original Hebrew and researched the cultural Jewish teachings of creation , please sit down. (Remember, as a Christian, all of your beliefs come from the Jewish people -before you disagree, even Jesus was a Jew)

As a modern western Christian, chances are that you do not know the origins and the ACTUAL translation of either creation story. If you did, you would immediatley see that the BIBLICAL creation stories, in their original form, support our current evolutionary theories. That's why the two largest factions of Christianity (Roman and Orthodox Catholics) teach and support evolutionary theory.

As for you evolutionists that believe that evolution precludes a Creator...how can you believe in the wonders of evolution, a process so grand it takes millennia, yet have no faith in the possibility of a higher, grander power? Have so many nonsensical Christians destroyed any wonder a creator might have by their hypocracy and blind, unthinking belief? It is the thing that is most dangerous to the teachings of Jesus...

I believe in quantum theory, evolution, a variation of superstring theory... I believe in so much of science, because it makes factual sense. And what ties it all together? God; THE Grand Unifying Theory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what you are saying is that in 100years from now, science will prove that all living things do not have a similar origen and that the entire scientific community was wrong.... yeah right.

Your little example there was one scientists look at organs at the human body that was 50 or so years ago, like we knew anything about the human body then.

Also about the bible, how many times has it been stranslated? What do we know about translation. Ever done the experiment when somone tells a story and pass the story around in a circle and see if it is the same.... The bible is a good way to live your life, but not as a basis for science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JimF

username: Strange that most cars have 4 wheels. It proves they all evolved from an explosion in a car factory.

Well whatever the hell that analogy(i think that is what your tried to do) is supposed to mean has got me. You know, people who have faith usually don't have to argue about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TimeRider

NOS . . .

What on earth does the Bible's reference to birds and fish have to do with anything?

Please make your arguements lucid.

Creationism is based on the bible. It is inaccuracies like this which show that Creationists have no idea about the real world. If one were to write a biology exam based on creationist teachings with sources like this than one would be put back a few grades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JimF

username: Strange that most cars have 4 wheels. It proves they all evolved from an explosion in a car factory.

Did you read those links I gave you? By your statement it appears that you didn't bother to, because that is one of the more inaccurate statements I have ever heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TimeRider

No truer words have ever been spoken.

-TR

That depends on which parts you read. The bible can be quite violent and bloody in many parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bible condones slavery and capital punishment for misdemeanors.

I couldn't agree more . . . but then again I would never suggest that there was a celestial sphere either . . . even though that was once the consensus among scientists.

I would suggest however, that the Bible is less a primer and more a philosophy. I certainly don't believe in stoning, but for a long time we considered hanging to be appropriate as well. I think that there is much in the Bible that needs to be discounted as the signs of the times, including references to whales and bats that do not conform to modern concepts.

You also have to remember that the New Covenant subplanted the old, and I know of no where in the New Testament where Jesus suggested Slavery, Stoning or Capitol Punishment as methods for dealing with society's problems . . . then or now. And for any Christian, the teachings of Jesus Christ is the Word.

I don't expect you to share my faith . . . I can only tell you that is what I believe. What you do with it is up to you. But as I have said, more than once, I do not discount evolution and have no problem reconciling that theory with my beliefs.

-TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JimF

Evidence from vestigial organs ??

So you care to discuss human anatomy. Well, this is an area I have studied in university so I will take pleasure in answering your question.

There is no doubt that some organs and bone structures are NOW useless to the human body. However, it is also evident that they were there for a purpose. Much the glands you described are part of the endocrine system. They are self regulating and produce hormones essentail for growth, development and nutrient regulation. Useless, they are not.

The os coccyx (tail bone) is virtually a usless structure in the body now and I will not disagree that there is no need for it. I would like to see a list of the 180 remaining structures in the body which he quoted as "useless".

Some structures adapt to an individuals needs. What one thinks is useless, another may need. There is some concensus that the big toe is useless. With shoes and the balance requirements of everyday life, most don't need a big toe if anything most need one much smaller or just 4 toes. However, some gymnasts and other athletes actually have bigger toes because of adaptation to their sport. It takes thousands of years for useless structures to be discarded genetically.

As to the other poster's view that science had silly thoughts about the earth remeber that what was pointed out was largely European scientific belief. The Catholic church prevented disclosure of revealing the thought the Earth was not flat and would kill anyone publishing or speaking the contrary. European scientists ensured their death for speaking against the thought of the chuch - including perhaps the most briliant of all Da Vinci.

Pythagoras and his colleagues discovered well before that the earth was round. If you dispute any science based on astrology or physics you would need to disprove the mathematical PROOFS underlying the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholic church prevented disclosure of revealing the thought the Earth was not flat and would kill anyone publishing or speaking the contrary. European scientists ensured their death for speaking against the thought of the chuch - including perhaps the most briliant of all Da Vinci.

Actually that's a common myth. Da Vinci's greatest supporter was Rome, and although some individual sects of the Church were set against scientific progress (regardless of the official position of Rome), the renaissance was pretty much funded by Church sponsored Universities.

As with all of history, the bad usually is all that's remembered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks they can have variety without evolution is fooling themselves. The fact that there is variety alone supports evolution. I'm not going to explain it. If you can't figure it out, take biology 100 in your local community college.

As for "you can't prove evolution because you can't demonstrate it," I can't easily "demonstrate" the speed of light either. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Most modern inventions and ideas accepted today couldn't be proved before the technology to do so existed. Does that mean that before we had the ability to prove something, it was false? Before Kepler devised the laws of planetary motion, did the planets orbit the Sun in "perfect spheres"?

And for anyone who questions the "power of God" or "why bad things happen to good people" or "why God lets bad things happen to good people" I suggest you hit amazon.com or your local bookstore and pick up a copy of Descartes meditations. Descartes does an excelent job in "proving" the existance of God, and why He is not responsible for "everything under the sun." Granted, it's philosophical, and I imagine at least sixth grade reading skills are required to grasp a minimal understanding of it (guess that excludes you, JimF).

For those of you who cannot see evolution as something that makes this universe even more amazing, and thus, respect the Creator that much more for the elaborate place which we live in, I pity you and your petty-mindedness. (Although it would seem the majority of the posters support evolution).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.