Hey, I just found this board. I am sure I will totaly tick off more than a few of you but oh well.What about the recent "discovery" of so called ancient bones that put the beginings of modern man in Africa instead of France as was originaly thought?Isnt it funny how every time there is a discovery that forces scientist to review what they just knew, they always resist and say "it just cant be" So it would seem that modern man didnt evovle from Neanderthals in France after all (duh) Do you think science will ever admit that God created everything and we are just puney little knats that probably deserved to be swatted? Nah!As for the great flood of the Book of Genesis, oh thats just bunch of stories compiled into one story. We will just ignore the evidence that points to a world wide flood and just make up stuff to fit our own theories. You know...the same way we found the jaw bone of an ancient pig and thought it was a man and drew a whole picture of that man. Oh and you know, how we put multiple bones found over 100 miles and put them all together and called it Lucy. Isnt that science?Oh how about every time we cant explain how or when a clam became a frog (evolution) we just say "it took a billion trillion gazillion years but it finaly happened" You know, the carbon dating trick that can give three differnt dates for the same piece of cloth.Science is such exact science.rec
Rec,I am so so so glad you are here!I have been doing arotten job of supporting everything your post is. However;Hey, I just found this board. I am sure I will totaly tick off more than a few of you but oh well.======= No you will not tick off any board member.You may disagree,but flaming,cussing,or being unplesant is not allowed.We have become a plesant community.We don'tstelth bomb each other.Or fight in any way.We joke a lot and by each others efforts try to become enlightend as to a subject which is very controversial.We have become frends despite our differencs.If you have evedince of what you claime,and I am sure you do.Read back and understand how this board has evolved. Again,glad you are here. Chris
Hey Rec, Let me add that we haven't had much of a debate yet.We have spent a lot of time learning from each other.We cant have much of a debate till we all understand what we are debating.Day by day I hope more and morethe debate never happens.Information is FLOODING ontothe board.And a debate turned into a fight (they do that) could really mess things up.I am sure you havea lot to offer but spend some time reading and get afeel of things ok? With this group I would not be suprised if we gradually came up with a communal theory most of us liked without ever having a debate per say. Some posts are ignored (I wish I could delete some ofmine :)) maybe the group dosen't want to go there yet. You appear to have the "beef" for a lot of points Ifor one want discused.Just give it some time and remember "a man convinced against his will is of thesame opinion still". Chris
I do not think you have to worry about ticking anyone off. You seem to be on the side of creation which is also the board founders chosen side. So you already have a big in. As for those of us that are in the other camp we do not mind if you take an open logical path to enlightening us (you will not be able to). It is when all we hear is the bible being read to us that we get 'ticked off'.As for Science I was under the impression that they say that the world in its far distant past was totally covered with water. The practice with anthropoids is that the whole skeleton must be from the same individual. They are not supposed to use bones from different individuals. Lucy is an anthropoid.With dinosaurs they will use bones from other dinosaurs when they are sure it is the same one.As for evolution it is seen everyday. Viruses change all the time, they evolve and are becoming more resistant to medicine all the time. If that is not proof of evolution what is? How about my friends cat? It has six toes on all of its feet. If a mutuation that changes something and that change takes over that is a form of evolution. Since seeing that cat I have seen others with six toes. Evolution!Carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin would not be accurate the shroud is too contaminated by foreign carbon particles. Sorry for my counter rambling.draco the unbelieveror draco the heretic
rec, Welcome! Chris and I are needing some help here, I remember everything you mentioned. If you go back to #108, I mentioned an article I read that said Neanderthal DNA prove they aren't human. The next post (#109), Amy found the whole article for me! She is just full of websites! And our only Biology, Chemist. There are (3) guys who know lots about Physics that I've seen. So, you make one more for the "God spoke" side. I appreciate your criticism of Science. Everytime they find something to prove their preconceived ideas it is all over the news, the article I mentioned above was a year old! I read it just a few months ago and it was just a blurb. Get the whole article! It's amazing to a creationist. Your comments also reminded me of another problem with Science. Textbooks. A new book is out,'Icons of Evolution", by Jonathan Wells, a developmental biologist trained at Yale and Berkeley. While studying for his biology Ph.D. at Berkley, he discovered that his textbooks contained a serious misrepresentation. They each had a drawing comparing the embryos of vertebrates, such as fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, and human. The books claimed that the drawing illustrated the fact that vertebrate embryos show decent from a common ancestor, because the embryos are increasingly similar at earlier stages of development. That is not true! Actually, they are very dissimilar, said Wells. He was troubled and went on to find many drawings that were profoundly misleading. For instance,the famous Miller-Urey experiment showed a diagram of a flask containing elemental gases being sparked by an electrode. But, in fact, the gases in the experiment probably never existed in combination on the earth. Scientists know this, but textbooks still present this experiment as factual. What really bothers me about this is if the textbooks at Berkley are not correct, or up-dated for people getting PhD's, what kind of info is in the textbooks at the high schools in the ghetto? No wonder they can't pass the SAT's!! And what about people like me who learned from textbooks that are 34 plus years old now? What am I thinking that is completely false? All you Physicists out there----do you get my point?This is important! To you, I hope, because only people with accurate info are learning current truth. And to me because science is keeping lots of people from the truth in the Bible. They won't even pick one up because even Theologians are saying it isn't true! I've got more on this ---Becky
Draco, You seem to be on the side of creation which is also the board founders chosen side. So you already have a big in. True I am on the creation side.And you know I am thefounder of this board so you must go back a bit.Why doyou assume he has a big in? I do hope he contributes toa well rounded dissucion.But until we all understand each other we can't be shure what we are discusing. As for those of us that are in the other camp we do not mind if you take an open logical path to enlightening us (you will not be able to). It is when all we hear is the bible being read to us that we get 'ticked off'. I may be wrong but I didn't read bible thumping in his post.And creation is 1/2 of the board name. Lucy is a very hot topic.I brought her up once and was ignored.With time,we will take her apart. A frend of MINE had a 6 toed cat,Amy!Hello Amy! Carbon dating, I personally think it got thwaked whenall those takyons reverse slingshoted thru the cosmose :).And I'm not trying to start a fight here but carbondating I hope we can all agree is not reliable. Referee,Chris
Yo,Becky, For instance,the famous Miller-Urey experiment showed a diagram of a flask containing elemental gases being sparked by an electrode. But, in fact, the gases in the experiment probably never existed in combination on the earth. Scientists know this, but textbooks still present this experiment as factual. They also traped out oxygen which probably was present at the time in which the experiment was ment toreproduce.They "made" %97 tar and 2 ameino asids.If I got it right. Let's go slow and stay frends,Chris
Draco, I suppose you were talking about me 'ticking you' off with my Bible rambling. Sorry, but it is fair game. And I'm sorry you are so sensitive about it. I have read several things since I got here that are flat out not true about the Bible. It hurts me. But not because you folks say it---but because it was 'dreamed up' by people who call themselves Christians!!Darwin comes up with this Evolution stuff and the leaders of the Church either say, "Well, we just don't know. So, well, I guess Adam and Eve and Cain and Able were just stories written to a primitive people to explain where they came from, or they stick their heads in the sand and say " God is right and Science must come from the Devil, so just run away from those guys and pray for their salvation. Don't even listen to them or let your kids be forced to learn that evil stuff." I went to a preacher when I was just starting to read the Bible and he told me Adam and Eve didn't really exist, maybe Abraham? I said Jesus talked about them, and Noah and the Devil---did He lie? Well, he says, hands clasped together, He talked about people that the Jews believed in to help make His point.(He's looking at me like, you poor thing) Well, how in the world can you say you are a Christian and then quit believing one section of the Bible at a time whenever Science says it's a myth! But still believe I'm going to heaven because Jesus loves me!! That's nuts. If you go to the library and get a copy of 'Plato's Republic', are you going to believe Plato wrote it just because he says he did? Or, stories of ancient history gathered together by archaeology, etc.--don't we pretty much read those books and believe them? Schools teach that stuff as fact. And it will be on the test. But, the Bible, which is way,way, newer than that stuff, gets picked apart and called Myth every day. I'm a sheep because I believe Luke wrote the Book of "Luke" and the book of "Acts" just because that's what he said! It hurts alot at first but you get to the point where it's old news. I spent over three and one half years with the Bible on my kitchen table surrounded by Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and piles of paper with notes on them by topic. After that conversation with the preacher, and a year with the Mormon's and another year with the Jehovah's Witness'--I decided I'd have to figure it out myself. And I did. I'd never been sure of anything in my life until the day I piled all those notebooks up and heaved a sigh of relief. I don't even remember what subject I was studying that triggered it! Well, I've certainly gone on here. Sorry to preach but I just don't think the Bible is getting a fair shake anymore. And it's such a wonderful book. Becky PS. Counter ramble on, draco. I'm interested in science, that's why I'm here. And I appreciate everyone's honesty---it makes thing very interesting!
Do you think science will ever admit that God created everything and we are just puney little knats that probably deserved to be swatted? Nah!And creationists claim that evolution is a depressing way of looking at the world...
I am sure I will totaly tick off more than a few of you but oh well.It can't be too much more than a few of us, I think there have been less than 10 posters on this board! ;-)Anyway, you do bring up some good examples of bad science. Not everything that is done in the name of science is right; there are a lot of people out there with really big egos, who either can't believe that they are wrong, or just want to convince everyone else that they are right, even if they know that they are wrong.I'm sure you are aware that there are many examples of bad religion also. ("send me money or God will call me to heaven" comes to mind). Neither religion or science should be judged solely on the kooks.The important aspect of science (too often overlooked) is not the facts, but how those facts were derived. Proper scientific education teaches one how to think. Certainly the findings are important, but without learning the process of getting there, it is empty knowledge.Some people criticize science because it is always changing. This is simply because science is a never ending quest for answers. There is very little out there that scientists will say is totally known about. Any scientific "fact" must be changed when there is legitimate evidence to the contrary. Of course, there is often controversy regarding what evidence is legitimate, which is a good thing; it keeps it interesting!Welcome to the board.David
We will just ignore the evidence that points to a world wide flood Just curious, what evidence is there that points to a world wide flood? (Sorry, quotations from the Bible don't count).David
Just curious, what evidence is there that points to a world wide flood? (Sorry, quotations from the Bible don't count).As usual, there's counter-arguments at talkorigins.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#implications
You talk about the trade as some of us talk about the faith. (not me, but some of us) Science is not Bul...dog theories pulled out of thin air specifically designed to prove that G'd has nothing to do with the equation of life.Science is a methodical researching of evidence and facts in which data is obtained that DISPROVE every other idea except the right one.Clarifications:Carbon gives you 3 dates because there are 3 isotpes of carbon. C12,C13,C14. The correct (most accurate ) date is the C14 isotope. this is the one we test for and publish.All of lucy's bone were shown to be of the same individual, genetically."Pigbone"; one little mistake could happen to anyone, we fifound it and fixed it though. Another fluke of this kind is when we mixed up pieces of three different skeletens and thought we had found the missing link betwee dionysis and arcyopteryx. These errors will occur less and less frequently with the increased use of molecular biology techniques currently being introduced.A clam did not become a frog. Not even an ancestral frog. Science knows this as well as you do.<see reallyx3simple way of evolution>What evidence are you talking about for the flood?Keep in mind that tectonism and continental drift as well as ice age developements are just as true and real as the great flood are no more made up than the bilical accounts of global climate and geological change are.That is to say, neither are faulse and so you like us shouldn't say "Well the fossles of fish in the desert prove this..." THEY DON'T Those fossils show that the desert was one an ocean. They don't confirm nor deny wheather or not it was an ocean due to the great flood or due to a change in the elevation of the terrain due to tectonism. It could still be either one since both happened at different points in time.
They did exist.I was hoping to save this tidbit for later, after I had finished all my post about abiogenisis and how evolution really works, but you have drawn it out of me.Science has, using molecular biology techniques of mitocondrial DNA scanning shown that every single human being are decended from ONE woman. Thats right! We haven't found her skelloton yet, but we have found the genetic marker for Eve.Sorry I do not have a link, I saw it on a PBS nova special. When conducting Mitocondrial DNA experiments, there was not a single human out of every volonteer (and they did a lot from all races nationalities and cultures) that did not have a common sequence found in the fossil record as far back as the earliest cromagnon homosapien fossles of 12,000 yrs ago. All modern humans are from the same Great Grandmother!!!And evolution still occured between then and now, i.e. cromagnon homosapians ---> anatomically corect homosapians.Now lets all smile sigh in relief.Guiding with the light, the shepherd
Genes can't tell us everythingBy PHILIP BALL Precambrian: the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old New research casts doubt on the theory that genes contain 'signatures' that can provide an insight into how the genetic code itself evolved.According to the coevolution theory, first mooted over 25 years ago, the DNA that makes up the genetic code in any organism contains a signature of its own development. In other words, genes hold a 'historical' record of the origins of life.Stephen Freeland and co-workers at Princeton University have revisited the theory and say that this signature is illegible. There is more than a 1 in 2 chance that any record of how the genetic code developed has been scrambled beyond meaningful interpretation, the team reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA1. The genetic code translates one molecular language into another. Proteins, the workhorse molecules of the cell, are chains of interlinked small molecules - 'amino acids' - of which 20 types appear in nature. The sequence of amino acids along the protein chain is recorded in DNA by a string of different molecules, 'nucleotides', along the double helix.There are only four kinds of nucleotide, denoted A, C, G and T. They are read in groups of three by the molecular machinery that makes proteins. This gives enough different permutations to encode all 20 amino acids. Each group of three nucleotides - AAC, say, or GCT - is called a 'codon'. In almost every organism on Earth, a particular codon encodes the same amino acid, indicating that this universal genetic code sprung from a single evolutionary source.Ccoevolution theory suggests that the genetic code was once simpler, because there would have been fewer types of amino acids on the early Earth. The idea is that as the earliest organisms got more complex, they made new amino acids from the ones that already existed. Then, the theory says, a new amino acid would have usurped one of the codons that previously represented the amino acid from which the new one was made. So by inspecting the present-day genetic code, we should be able to figure out the sequence of steps by which the earliest code expanded to encompass more amino acids. This amounts to a kind of evolutionary history of genes, extending the 'tree of life' back even before the earliest recognizable single-celled organisms.But the theory would fall down if the relationships between codons and amino acids could have occurred by chance. For example, the amino-acid leucine (for which one of several codons is CTT) is said to have been made from valine (codon GTT). The single nucleotide difference between the two codons points to this evolutionary relationship, the theory claims.But this depends on whether it is reasonable to suppose that valine was made from leucine rather than from some other amino acid. And Freeland's team argues that some of the precursor/product pairs assumed by coevolution theory don't make biochemical sense. The theory also fails to take into account the shortcomings of the protein-making machinery that translates the code, the researchers say. After correcting these misconceptions, they find that there is a 62 percent probability that the codon relationships between precursors and products claimed as support for the coevolution theory could arise by pure chance. ------------------Ronneberg, T. A., Landweber, L. F. & Freeland, S. J. Testing a biosynthetic theory of the genetic code: fact or artifact? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 13690-13695 (2000).
No you will not tick off any board member.You may disagree,but flaming,cussing,or being unplesant is not allowedWell this isnt natural...at least by the standards of other boards in this domain. Good to see that there is a civilized place to debate the rigors of everyday life from the eyes of each who live it. As shall read as much as I can.rec
As for evolution it is seen everyday. Viruses change all the time, they evolve and are becoming more resistant to medicine all the time. If that is not proof of evolution what is? Ok, I am not a scientist by trade but I do know the dif between MICRO and MACRO evolution. What you mention is Micro evolution and no one disputes this. It happens within our own body. Thats how we develope anti-bodies and such. The dispute comes when people try to translate Micro evolution to MACRO evolution.There is absolutly no credible evidence to support Macro evolution-the complete changing of one species into a tofaly different one.By the way, anybody see on PBS recently when they discused finding bones of man that seems to point that modern man came from Central and Southern Africa and NOT from Neanderthals in France? But some people WONT accept the evidence.How about my friends cat? It has six toes on all of its feet. If a mutuation that changes something and that change takes over that is a form of evolution. Since seeing that cat I have seen others with six toes. Evolution!Not exactly. Evolution would demand that ALL the descendants of this cat have 6 toes. By your def. joined human twins would be evolution. No, its just a mutation. Mutations are not evolution they are just acidents in nature that usualy get corrected by that individual not surviving.Carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin would not be accurate the shroud is too contaminated by foreign carbon particles. So carbon dating bones that have been exposed to the elements and dirt for centuries would produce more accurate results? I agree that there are problems with carbon dating especialy when you can get multiple dates from the same item. Dates that vary that widly prove that the system of carbon dating is far less than an acceptable scientific test method.And yes Chris is correct "a man convinced against his will is of the same oppinion still" but then so is the person who REFUSES to accept the evidence that would force them to change thier oppinion. It seems that some evolutionist would have a melt down if there was proof that MACRO evolution didnt exist.But then that is par for the course when you talk about anyones religious beliefs...and evolution is a religious belief.rec
No you will not tick off any board member.You may disagree,but flaming,cussing,or being unplesant is not allowed== Well this isnt natural...at least by the standards of other boards in this domain. Good to see that there is a civilized place to debate the rigors of everyday life from the eyes of each who live it. As shall read as much as I can. rec === Rec,you just don't know how good it is to hear that!! Sincerly Chris
Rec,please calm down and use more lower case letters.Take some time to get the flow of the board.It has beenvery calm until lately (about 4 days). ChrisPS Your comments on carbon dating are interisting and thot provoking.I am not familer with the shroud of turin as to where it has been.(I do think it is a hoax)But what does it have in common with buried bones as tocarbon dating?(something else I have little faith in)And as an aside,when the bones are dug up,how are theyhandled in respect to the cd test they will undergo? PSS does anyone have an answer for bones of the sameanimal or even the same bone having radically differentdates?And the surrounding dirt having a different datealltogeather?PSSS And what happens if the object "bone" is scrapedby an excavation tool? Or handled by human hands?PSSSS What happens if an animal takes a "wizz" on theground over a very shallow bone? And the bone is dug upyears later after rain and etc. I know I keep stepping on my own foot here because almost all of my arguments make the senareo older but Iwant the truth if such a thing can be found on this topic. Again,Chris
Ok, I am not a scientist by trade but I do know the dif between MICRO and MACRO evolution. The first part of your statement is proven by the second part. I have never heard a scientist refer to Micro or Macro evolution.There is absolutly no credible evidence to support Macro evolution-the complete changing of one species into a tofaly different one.Here you are correct. There is no evidence of a species changing into a totally different one. There is however much evidence of species evolving into similar but different species.By the way, anybody see on PBS recently when they discused finding bones of man that seems to point that modern man came from Central and Southern Africa and NOT from Neanderthals in France? But some people WONT accept the evidence.Actually, the findings cast doubt onto the accuracy of earlier assumptions regarding Neandertals. The whole issue is rather cloudy, and has certainly not been resolved in either direction (or any other direction for that matter). Else where on the board I posted a link to a Scientific American article that casts doubt on the doubt.Not exactly. Evolution would demand that ALL the descendants of this cat have 6 toes. Not exactly. Evolution would occur if the mutation were beneficial, causing the cats with the mutation to survive or reproduce more effectivly that the cats without the mutation. Eventually, the non-mutated would diminish in number, perhaps even vanishing, but there could still be some non-mutated descendents from the original mutated cat.So carbon dating bones that have been exposed to the elements and dirt for centuries would produce more accurate results? This is why carbon dating is done with samples from the interior of the bone. With a cloth, this is not possible.I agree that there are problems with carbon dating especialy when you can get multiple dates from the same item. Dates that vary that widly prove that the system of carbon dating is far less than an acceptable scientific test method.Just because carbon dating does not produce exactly one totally precise number does not mean that it is not useful. Imagine this scenario: you are abandoned in the desert. You are told that there is refuge in the closest mountain. You can see two mountains, one to the left, one to the right. You have no way of knowing the distance, other than what you can observe with your own eyes. If you can tell that one is closer, do you consider this useful information? Perhaps it is obvious that one is closer, but do you know how far away it is? No. Do you know how much closer it is? Not really. Does this information help you? Yes.So measurements can be helpful, even if the precission is not perfect.and evolution is a religious belief.No. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a religious belief, and in the view of many people, does not contradict most religious beliefs.David
Ok, I am not a scientist by trade but I do know the dif between MICRO and MACRO evolution. The first part of your statement is proven by the second part. I have never heard a scientist refer to Micro or Macro evolution.The two terms were seemingly invented BY creationists, FOR creationist arguments.On the talk.origins newsgroup, there is a fellow whose signature says:Definitions:Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Definitions:Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |