Clayten to say that the different races have evolved from one common race is interspecies evolution and I personaly belive that interspecies evolution is a fact it is cross species evoloution that I don't belive. We have angus cows on our farm and in 20 years we have seen 2 red angus. My ag teacher in school said it is a mutation that happens 1 in every 500. I would consider that to be a trait of evoultion.

 

[QUOTE=oilfield-trash;1811444]People today need a guarantee.


10 Camandments out - rape, armed robbery, and cheating are in
Prayer is out - police are in
Image of God is out - evolution is in
Bible is out - values clarification is in
Corporal punishment is out - direspect and rebellion are in
Traditional values are out - unwed mothers are in
Abstinance is out - condoms and abortion are in
education is out - social engneering is in
History is out - revisionism is in

1. Population has tripled since 1970. More people more crime.
2. What does prayer have to do with policeing
3. Both are opinions
4. Dont comprehend that one
5. Have to agree with that one. If jail was an actual punishment their would be less crime. Punishment at home would help also. Discipline and respect are taught at home.
6. What is wrong with that.
7. Did u wait till u got married?
8. Is there a difference
9. There will always be history.

 

I don't understand the question about color? Are you saying that different color skin is a result of evolution? The color of skin is no different than having a bigger nose, or blonde hair, or brown eyes. It's all in the genes.

If you could prove to me that millions of years ago we didn't have five fingers or that we were without legs or something similar then maybe I might feel a little more inclined with your theory. The other problem I have with evolution is why aren't there lesser evolved human beings in existence?

 

Good read DieselJon. But I think it shows evolution is real and that piece backs it up with the science they bring to the table.
When you get down to the part of what really happened they start using terms such as " were probably","they would most likely have". Not the best way to present a theory or a faith.

 

I must say that is one of the best things I have read in a long time. I just wish I was in that class to see the look on the professors face when he got totally shut down. I also like that hole new perspective, I have never heard a religious piece explained quite that way.

 

20 years is not evolution. A mutation is the start of evolution. Those red cows need more time to evolve. But then they may be the start of a weak mutation and die off.

 

DieselJon's links are entertaining if nothing else. T-Rex on the Ark. Now that is rich.

I also noted as mentioned in a post above by Clayten. The site DieselJon quotes uses way too many phrases that include statements with "may have" and "possibly was" as a basis for the facts they want us to believe.

Again very entertaining but not real convincing.

 

It could. But the reality is that we have no proof of evolution at all. We've never found a "missing link", and despite all attempts to connects organisms to each other through common anatomy, vestigial organs or what have you.

Through all of Darwin's experimentation, he was not able to produce speciation, or the emergence of a new species. In his experiments in breeding pigeons, he never made a new species of pidgeon, just ones that were different in color, size, a features-- just like we have dogs in all kinds of different breeds, but they are still dogs.

No one in all of science has witnesses the emergence of a new species. Nor has anyone ever witnessed a beneficial mutation. Even then, mutations do not produce speciation. We've all seen the Internet pictures of 5-legged cows and two-headed pigs and such. Are these new species? No. Are these mutations beneficial? Hardly.

The sheer statistical odds alone make evolution one of the most difficult things to believe as actually possible, never mind real. We're talking exponents of exponents of exponents of statistical probablilities arguing against the mere possibility of it, never mind the actuality.

The odds against a mutation are high. Now add in the odds of it being a beneficial mutation. Now add in the odds of that mutuation being passed down to the next generation. I'd sooner bet on winning the lotto, being struck by lightning and eaten by a shark-- at the same time-- than bet this is a possibility.

The significance of Darwin is that he noted similarity between different animals. But he drew from that conclusions which simply cannot be supported by evidence or logic.

Nature has a habit of throwing a monkey wrench into things just when we think we have it figured out. I'm thinking of the 1938 catch of a fish long thought to be extinct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelecanth

The appeal of evolution is not to the mind, because it lacks both logic and evidence. No, the appeal of evolution is to the heart of man, who in his fallen nature seeks ways to justify himself apart from God the creator. So strong is this impulse that we would sooner claim monocellular lineage than being created beings. (Do i get bonus points for the first DTR usage of "monocellular"?)

I'll close this little novel by pointing out that adaptation is not speciation, and thus not evolution. If I put on a coat to adapt to the cold weather, I'm still the same human being I've always been-- just warmer.

Likewise, when furry animals shed their winter coats, they are still dogs or cats or whatever critter you're thinking of.

Finally, consider that the mapping of the human genome has served only to point out the impossibility of evolution. When DNA is unravelled, and we begin to look at specific genes, we only see a finite number of chemical possibilities of that genetic arrangement. You can only arrange nucleotide AUCG codons so many different ways.

Yet we see that human beings have nearly infinite variation within their extremes. How then can we account for this? that would be like saying you can take four single digit numbers and using mathematical operations arrive at every possible number using just the first four. It's simply baffling.


The human body is the most complex mechanism known to man, and there is STILL more about it that we DON'T know than what we do.

The idea that this machine is produced by random sequences of chance atomic and chemical encounters is beyond the stretch of imagination, imo.

justin

 

Yea thats the point I was trying to make that some mutations occur natrual in nature and over time could evolve into another varition of the same species. Like others have said this is a very good debate, I know what I belive and I am not going to be swayed but to hear valid opinions on the other side and why others do not belive he same as me has been very elighting and to do it in a controlled manner without anyone getting on the offensive or getting mad has been a good experence. It just shows how good the people on this form are.

 

I am gonna get mad cow disease if we don't stop talking about these Red Angus...kinda hungry

I love the Lord, and I read & study & teach out of the Bible all the time. With that said, here is what I think makes sense:


I think when God created the basic cell structure, DNA, and oxygen based life forms of this earth, He realized that they could be the foundation of all life on this planet, and He used the same parts (belly, lungs, guts, and buts) to make all the different animals.

I think this is where scientist get confused, they WANT to believe evolution, so they don’t look at the basic building block approach of building an animal kingdom by using similar parts (that COULD prove evolution) in dissimilar animals (that disproves evolution)

It’s simple it seems, you start at the bottom of the animal kingdom, and think of it as a pyramid, and you build the few most basic animals, and the rest of the animals are just extrapolations of the pieces parts you made the other animals out of.

It’s not evolution, it’s Heavenly engineering



-Ever seen a Small Block Chevy Motor? They came STOCK in everything: trucks, cars, wagons, work trucks. And they were put in everything ELSE by backyard mechanics: planes trains and automobiles.

All the animals in the world have the same parts, just like most vehicles in the world have a small block Chevy motor.

A million years from now, if they dig up automobiles, they won’t understand why a small block Chevy motor is in a Ford Pinto anymore than we understand why cavemen did not invent Central Heat & Air

 

HOHN - very well written and articulate. Yes you can have an extra 10 posts added to you post count for the use of 'monocellular". Like I said, I feel it very well written but and there always seems to be a but in these discussions.

The missing link in most of the faithfuls disregard of evolution is time. Since they seem to think that the earth is more or less 6000 years old. There is little chance for enough generations to have passed to form a branch. Since the earth is around 4 billion years old. There is enough time there for a lot of chance events to have occurred.

 

Where is the proof that the earth is billions of years old? When I was a kid it was millions of years old....now it's in the billions?

 

Google is a wonderous thing. Try this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html There are others but this covers it well enough.

 

Here is a good description of how the earth is dated (taken directly from USGS):

The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.

Using that method this can be determined:

The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor.

Now that is one of the nice things about science. What you were taught as a kid may not be relevant now. Science is ever changing (evolving you might say). As new discoveries are made they are compared with the accepted thoughts of that time and adjusted accordingly. Science is always moving forward. Religion unfortunately doesn’t seem to be as lenient. In my personal opinion, there is no reason that religion (all religions) can not find a common ground to stand on with science. In fact they would be well served to do so. Even though there is no proof I could possibly subscribe to the idea that there is something that created all of this (started it in motion). As far as the bible story goes though, I just can’t bring myself to that belief.

Britt

 

Oh, I'm sure I can Google all kinds of stuff I just wanted to know where you got your data from and of course it was from a pro-evolution site.

I also see that most of that was written in the 80's and 90's. I graduated from high school in 1987 so it must not have made the text books yet. So was science mistaken when I was younger?