Where we created by Religion or Evolution (353)
MikeHD: Enthropy is increasing? Does that mean you believe we are breaking down faster?
Of course not!
Entropy of an isolated system just tends to increase over time. That's what the second law of thermodynamics is about after all. Did you forgot it already?
MikeHD: And I am talking about external intelligent manipulations, not one in a hundred million billion billion chance.
It is interesting that the universe is estimated to contain 10^78 atoms (thats a 1 followed by 78 zeros). And it is estimated that the universe is 10^17 (thats a 1 followed by 17 zeros) seconds old.
But the chances the whole universe just happened by chance is makes the number of atoms multiplied by the number of seconds look infinitely small. wink
It is interesting that the universe is estimated to contain 10^78 atoms (thats a 1 followed by 78 zeros). And it is estimated that the universe is 10^17 (thats a 1 followed by 17 zeros) seconds old.
But the chances the whole universe just happened by chance is makes the number of atoms multiplied by the number of seconds look infinitely small. wink
I know. However, your external manipulator seems to be just an ad hoc explanation. External manipulator wont fit together with the 2nd law either. Remember the isolated system?
I also explained why it's not correct to talk about chance and why that small probability (expressed with a huge number) is completely irrelevant. Remember what I told about statistics and unique events?
emannigol: Of course not!
Entropy of an isolated system just tends to increase over time. That's what the second law of thermodynamics is about after all. Did you forgot it already?
I know. However, your external manipulator seems to be just an ad hoc explanation. External manipulator wont fit together with the 2nd law either. Remember the isolated system?
I also explained why it's not correct to talk about chance and why that small probability (expressed with a huge number) is completely irrelevant. Remember what I told about statistics and unique events?
Entropy of an isolated system just tends to increase over time. That's what the second law of thermodynamics is about after all. Did you forgot it already?
I know. However, your external manipulator seems to be just an ad hoc explanation. External manipulator wont fit together with the 2nd law either. Remember the isolated system?
I also explained why it's not correct to talk about chance and why that small probability (expressed with a huge number) is completely irrelevant. Remember what I told about statistics and unique events?
I agree
This is making me have tired head as well.
mmmmmmm.....not my kind of women
This article loses credibility when it compares itself to Lucy.
Lucy was found by Donald Johanson in 1974. He became very famous because of this find and is still a very famous individual in the anthropology realm. And yet Lucy was only three feet tall. It was obviously a chimpanzee.
Now, when National Geographic put the picture of Lucy’s knee in there, the knee joint that they used was not from the same skeleton. Now, they labeled it Lucy. But the National Geographic had the wrong knee. It was found a mile and a half away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. There’s been a lot of controversy about Lucy’s knee joint. The big thing that made Donald think Lucy was becoming a human was because this knee joint had, the top bone of the leg, the femur as it’s called, had an angle to it. It went off at a slant. Well, human femurs angle because your hips are wider than your knees and so the femur angles out to the side. An ape that walks on the ground all of his life has a straight femur. If you look at the leg of an ape, the lower bones and upper bones are in a straight line. And the leg of a human, the upper bones and lower bones, have an angle to them at the knee joint. And this creature that he found–he nicknamed it Lucy after the Beatles’ song, "Lucy in the Sky With Diamond" which had the initials L.S.D. on purpose by the way. He called it Lucy because he said it was becoming a human. He said the knee joint has got an angle to it. Well, the fact of the matter is, any monkey that climbs trees has an angled femur. It’s only ground-dwelling monkeys that have a straight femur. So to say that that’s evidence that it’s changing to a human is simply not true.
His other evidence that he used was the fact that the femur is slightly larger, a little bit bigger than the average ape–which is true. What he found was a little bit bigger than the average ape. But it doesn’t prove it’s a missing link. Bones of a Clydesdale are slightly bigger than a regular horse and it doesn’t prove it’s evolving into a truck or something like that. The people who have really studied Lucy will say, "Look, it’s not a missing link. It’s just an unusual creature." The St. Louis Zoo and many other places around the country have displays set up with a Lucy there. The purpose is to indoctrinate the kids, to brainwash them into believing that they had an ape-like ancestor.
For instance, at the St. Louis Zoo, in their display–they have a wax figure of Lucy–they gave it human feet and human hands. Not one foot bone or hand bone was found. Not one. This was done for propaganda purposes, not for education purposes. Actually, Lucy was just an unusual monkey and the experts understand that. Oxnard, probably the world’s expert on Lucy, spent many, many years studying it and all the bones and analyzing them. He said, "The australopithecans are indeed more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Lucy is not a missing link, folks. It’s just an unusual monkey. That’s all.
MikeHD: This article loses credibility when it compares itself to Lucy.
Lucy was found by Donald Johanson in 1974. He became very famous because of this find and is still a very famous individual in the anthropology realm. And yet Lucy was only three feet tall. It was obviously a chimpanzee.
Now, when National Geographic put the picture of Lucy’s knee in there, the knee joint that they used was not from the same skeleton. Now, they labeled it Lucy. But the National Geographic had the wrong knee. It was found a mile and a half away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. There’s been a lot of controversy about Lucy’s knee joint. The big thing that made Donald think Lucy was becoming a human was because this knee joint had, the top bone of the leg, the femur as it’s called, had an angle to it. It went off at a slant. Well, human femurs angle because your hips are wider than your knees and so the femur angles out to the side. An ape that walks on the ground all of his life has a straight femur. If you look at the leg of an ape, the lower bones and upper bones are in a straight line. And the leg of a human, the upper bones and lower bones, have an angle to them at the knee joint. And this creature that he found–he nicknamed it Lucy after the Beatles’ song, "Lucy in the Sky With Diamond" which had the initials L.S.D. on purpose by the way. He called it Lucy because he said it was becoming a human. He said the knee joint has got an angle to it. Well, the fact of the matter is, any monkey that climbs trees has an angled femur. It’s only ground-dwelling monkeys that have a straight femur. So to say that that’s evidence that it’s changing to a human is simply not true.
His other evidence that he used was the fact that the femur is slightly larger, a little bit bigger than the average ape–which is true. What he found was a little bit bigger than the average ape. But it doesn’t prove it’s a missing link. Bones of a Clydesdale are slightly bigger than a regular horse and it doesn’t prove it’s evolving into a truck or something like that. The people who have really studied Lucy will say, "Look, it’s not a missing link. It’s just an unusual creature." The St. Louis Zoo and many other places around the country have displays set up with a Lucy there. The purpose is to indoctrinate the kids, to brainwash them into believing that they had an ape-like ancestor.
For instance, at the St. Louis Zoo, in their display–they have a wax figure of Lucy–they gave it human feet and human hands. Not one foot bone or hand bone was found. Not one. This was done for propaganda purposes, not for education purposes. Actually, Lucy was just an unusual monkey and the experts understand that. Oxnard, probably the world’s expert on Lucy, spent many, many years studying it and all the bones and analyzing them. He said, "The australopithecans are indeed more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Lucy is not a missing link, folks. It’s just an unusual monkey. That’s all.
What's with that Red Herring?Lucy was found by Donald Johanson in 1974. He became very famous because of this find and is still a very famous individual in the anthropology realm. And yet Lucy was only three feet tall. It was obviously a chimpanzee.
Now, when National Geographic put the picture of Lucy’s knee in there, the knee joint that they used was not from the same skeleton. Now, they labeled it Lucy. But the National Geographic had the wrong knee. It was found a mile and a half away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. There’s been a lot of controversy about Lucy’s knee joint. The big thing that made Donald think Lucy was becoming a human was because this knee joint had, the top bone of the leg, the femur as it’s called, had an angle to it. It went off at a slant. Well, human femurs angle because your hips are wider than your knees and so the femur angles out to the side. An ape that walks on the ground all of his life has a straight femur. If you look at the leg of an ape, the lower bones and upper bones are in a straight line. And the leg of a human, the upper bones and lower bones, have an angle to them at the knee joint. And this creature that he found–he nicknamed it Lucy after the Beatles’ song, "Lucy in the Sky With Diamond" which had the initials L.S.D. on purpose by the way. He called it Lucy because he said it was becoming a human. He said the knee joint has got an angle to it. Well, the fact of the matter is, any monkey that climbs trees has an angled femur. It’s only ground-dwelling monkeys that have a straight femur. So to say that that’s evidence that it’s changing to a human is simply not true.
His other evidence that he used was the fact that the femur is slightly larger, a little bit bigger than the average ape–which is true. What he found was a little bit bigger than the average ape. But it doesn’t prove it’s a missing link. Bones of a Clydesdale are slightly bigger than a regular horse and it doesn’t prove it’s evolving into a truck or something like that. The people who have really studied Lucy will say, "Look, it’s not a missing link. It’s just an unusual creature." The St. Louis Zoo and many other places around the country have displays set up with a Lucy there. The purpose is to indoctrinate the kids, to brainwash them into believing that they had an ape-like ancestor.
For instance, at the St. Louis Zoo, in their display–they have a wax figure of Lucy–they gave it human feet and human hands. Not one foot bone or hand bone was found. Not one. This was done for propaganda purposes, not for education purposes. Actually, Lucy was just an unusual monkey and the experts understand that. Oxnard, probably the world’s expert on Lucy, spent many, many years studying it and all the bones and analyzing them. He said, "The australopithecans are indeed more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Lucy is not a missing link, folks. It’s just an unusual monkey. That’s all.
Who said anything about the (a) Missing Link?
Conrad73: What's with that Red Herring?
Who said anything about the (a) Missing Link?
Who said anything about the (a) Missing Link?
Herring?
"Cut down a tree with a herring? It can't be done." King Arthur
MikeHD: This article loses credibility when it compares itself to Lucy.
Lucy was found by Donald Johanson in 1974. He became very famous because of this find and is still a very famous individual in the anthropology realm. And yet Lucy was only three feet tall. It was obviously a chimpanzee.
Now, when National Geographic put the picture of Lucy’s knee in there, the knee joint that they used was not from the same skeleton. Now, they labeled it Lucy. But the National Geographic had the wrong knee. It was found a mile and a half away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. There’s been a lot of controversy about Lucy’s knee joint. The big thing that made Donald think Lucy was becoming a human was because this knee joint had, the top bone of the leg, the femur as it’s called, had an angle to it. It went off at a slant. Well, human femurs angle because your hips are wider than your knees and so the femur angles out to the side. An ape that walks on the ground all of his life has a straight femur. If you look at the leg of an ape, the lower bones and upper bones are in a straight line. And the leg of a human, the upper bones and lower bones, have an angle to them at the knee joint. And this creature that he found–he nicknamed it Lucy after the Beatles’ song, "Lucy in the Sky With Diamond" which had the initials L.S.D. on purpose by the way. He called it Lucy because he said it was becoming a human. He said the knee joint has got an angle to it. Well, the fact of the matter is, any monkey that climbs trees has an angled femur. It’s only ground-dwelling monkeys that have a straight femur. So to say that that’s evidence that it’s changing to a human is simply not true.
His other evidence that he used was the fact that the femur is slightly larger, a little bit bigger than the average ape–which is true. What he found was a little bit bigger than the average ape. But it doesn’t prove it’s a missing link. Bones of a Clydesdale are slightly bigger than a regular horse and it doesn’t prove it’s evolving into a truck or something like that. The people who have really studied Lucy will say, "Look, it’s not a missing link. It’s just an unusual creature." The St. Louis Zoo and many other places around the country have displays set up with a Lucy there. The purpose is to indoctrinate the kids, to brainwash them into believing that they had an ape-like ancestor.
For instance, at the St. Louis Zoo, in their display–they have a wax figure of Lucy–they gave it human feet and human hands. Not one foot bone or hand bone was found. Not one. This was done for propaganda purposes, not for education purposes. Actually, Lucy was just an unusual monkey and the experts understand that. Oxnard, probably the world’s expert on Lucy, spent many, many years studying it and all the bones and analyzing them. He said, "The australopithecans are indeed more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Lucy is not a missing link, folks. It’s just an unusual monkey. That’s all.
Lucy was found by Donald Johanson in 1974. He became very famous because of this find and is still a very famous individual in the anthropology realm. And yet Lucy was only three feet tall. It was obviously a chimpanzee.
Now, when National Geographic put the picture of Lucy’s knee in there, the knee joint that they used was not from the same skeleton. Now, they labeled it Lucy. But the National Geographic had the wrong knee. It was found a mile and a half away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. There’s been a lot of controversy about Lucy’s knee joint. The big thing that made Donald think Lucy was becoming a human was because this knee joint had, the top bone of the leg, the femur as it’s called, had an angle to it. It went off at a slant. Well, human femurs angle because your hips are wider than your knees and so the femur angles out to the side. An ape that walks on the ground all of his life has a straight femur. If you look at the leg of an ape, the lower bones and upper bones are in a straight line. And the leg of a human, the upper bones and lower bones, have an angle to them at the knee joint. And this creature that he found–he nicknamed it Lucy after the Beatles’ song, "Lucy in the Sky With Diamond" which had the initials L.S.D. on purpose by the way. He called it Lucy because he said it was becoming a human. He said the knee joint has got an angle to it. Well, the fact of the matter is, any monkey that climbs trees has an angled femur. It’s only ground-dwelling monkeys that have a straight femur. So to say that that’s evidence that it’s changing to a human is simply not true.
His other evidence that he used was the fact that the femur is slightly larger, a little bit bigger than the average ape–which is true. What he found was a little bit bigger than the average ape. But it doesn’t prove it’s a missing link. Bones of a Clydesdale are slightly bigger than a regular horse and it doesn’t prove it’s evolving into a truck or something like that. The people who have really studied Lucy will say, "Look, it’s not a missing link. It’s just an unusual creature." The St. Louis Zoo and many other places around the country have displays set up with a Lucy there. The purpose is to indoctrinate the kids, to brainwash them into believing that they had an ape-like ancestor.
For instance, at the St. Louis Zoo, in their display–they have a wax figure of Lucy–they gave it human feet and human hands. Not one foot bone or hand bone was found. Not one. This was done for propaganda purposes, not for education purposes. Actually, Lucy was just an unusual monkey and the experts understand that. Oxnard, probably the world’s expert on Lucy, spent many, many years studying it and all the bones and analyzing them. He said, "The australopithecans are indeed more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Lucy is not a missing link, folks. It’s just an unusual monkey. That’s all.
Lucy's fossile doesn't have intact knee, so the story of Lucy's knee can't be true.
Besides her valgus knee Lucy's pelvic girdle, spine and femur are showing clearly that she was walking upright. Fossils have same wall thickness as bones and humans as upright walkers have distinctive variations in femur's wall thickness.
Charles Oxnard's study has been criticized more than accepted. Most studies are contradicting his work, even when some have been made with same methods.
emannigol: Lucy's fossile doesn't have intact knee, so the story of Lucy's knee can't be true.
Besides her valgus knee Lucy's pelvic girdle, spine and femur are showing clearly that she was walking upright. Fossils have same wall thickness as bones and humans as upright walkers have distinctive variations in femur's wall thickness.
Charles Oxnard's study has been criticized more than accepted. Most studies are contradicting his work, even when some have been made with same methods.
Besides her valgus knee Lucy's pelvic girdle, spine and femur are showing clearly that she was walking upright. Fossils have same wall thickness as bones and humans as upright walkers have distinctive variations in femur's wall thickness.
Charles Oxnard's study has been criticized more than accepted. Most studies are contradicting his work, even when some have been made with same methods.
Unfortunately you are mistaken on this subject. Dr. Oxnard is not the only scientist that knows Lucy is a fraud, but each source I site will only be refuted. Refuted on the basis of personal attacks, and not based on the facts of the argument.
It is very similar to the argument about the origin of life. Everyone agrees that the situation of life "seems" to be an incredibly complex design, but Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick say you must ignore that. Why? Because to believe in evolution you must rule out creation before you start to look at the evidence. If you do not, you might be susceptible to the overwhelming proof that it is evolution is the fairy tale, not creation.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or to put is another way, which came first, DNA or protein. Science still haven’t figured this one out. They work as hard as they can, but they simply cannot create life. They so want to create just one DNA or a protein molecule. And then they want to stake claims for discoveries that hope to pass for something. Like Miller’s and Urey’s experiments, shooting little sparks though organic gases in concentrations carefully picked to favor the formation of life’s building blocks. None of these so called discoveries are able to duplicate what is theorized to have happened in the beginning. None have produced DNA or protein that can reproduce.
It is ironic that scientist try though. A brilliant man can spend all his life, and use all of his intelligence, trying to create life out of nothing. Hoping to there by prove it took no intelligence to create life in the beginning.
Something to think about? No?
You're right. When defending evolution, thinking is overrated.
MikeHD:
It is very similar to the argument about the origin of life. Everyone agrees that the situation of life "seems" to be an incredibly complex design, but Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick say you must ignore that. Why? Because to believe in evolution you must rule out creation before you start to look at the evidence. If you do not, you might be susceptible to the overwhelming proof that it is evolution is the fairy tale, not creation.
It is very similar to the argument about the origin of life. Everyone agrees that the situation of life "seems" to be an incredibly complex design, but Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick say you must ignore that. Why? Because to believe in evolution you must rule out creation before you start to look at the evidence. If you do not, you might be susceptible to the overwhelming proof that it is evolution is the fairy tale, not creation.
Why is it evolution and creationism cant exist side by side exactly?
MikeHD: Unfortunately you are mistaken on this subject. Dr. Oxnard is not the only scientist that knows Lucy is a fraud, but each source I site will only be refuted. Refuted on the basis of personal attacks, and not based on the facts of the argument.
Where have you heard that Oxnard's thinking that Lucy is a fraud? Based on his study - same you referred - he claimed that she's not more closely related to humans than modern apes are. He also stated that she was an upright walker, but her walk wasn't identical to modern humans.
When have I made any personal attacks? I have always explained why some argument isn't working and what "facts" aren't right.
MikeHD: Everyone agrees that the situation of life "seems" to be an incredibly complex design,
Incredible doesn't mean impossible.
MikeHD: Because to believe in evolution you must rule out creation before you start to look at the evidence. If you do not, you might be susceptible to the overwhelming proof that it is evolution is the fairy tale, not creation.
What you are talking about? Even Catholic church has approved evidence of evolution. You're saying they don't believe in God?
MikeHD: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or to put is another way, which came first, DNA or protein. Science still haven’t figured this one out.
Do the creationists know it then?
There's no reason to think that one of just of those two came first. What if RNA came first?
MikeHD: None have produced DNA or protein that can reproduce.
DNA and proteins aren't reproducing. They're not lifeforms.
Something vaguely related under the link.
MikeHD: It is ironic that scientist try though. A brilliant man can spend all his life, and use all of his intelligence, trying to create life out of nothing. Hoping to there by prove it took no intelligence to create life in the beginning.
Out of nothing? Why anyone would try that?
Not related to evolution, but somebody seems to have created something out of nothing.
emannigol: Not related to evolution, but somebody seems to have created something out of nothing.
So Dr. Oxnard asserted that Lucy was some kind of mutant? Is that not unlike this Ardipithecus ramidus? Why are scientists touting this find as more than a single malformation. A poor unfortunate mutant. For if this was some sort of link between us and some sub human species, where is the evidence? Why with the hundreds of thousands of fossils recovered, don’t we have evidence that clearly bridges our species with what ever it is we are to have evolved from?
"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." Francis Crick (definitely not a creationists LOL)
I find it interesting how evolutionists has abandoned the idea of us evolving from chimpanzees and in doing so finding them selves with an even greater gap to bridge ourselves from. So what did re really come from? If it is our on special line, where is the evidence? Are evolutionists hanging all their hopes on one set of skeletal remains?
emannigol: Not related to evolution, but somebody seems to have created something out of nothing.
This is what creation is all about. God was here before anything was, and He created everything.
MikeHD: So Dr. Oxnard asserted that Lucy was some kind of mutant? Is that not unlike this Ardipithecus ramidus? Why are scientists touting this find as more than a single malformation. A poor unfortunate mutant.
Nope. There's no reason to think she was a mutant or deformed; not even for Dr. Oxnard. It's reasonable to think she was an average member of her population.
MikeHD: For if this was some sort of link between us and some sub human species, where is the evidence? Why with the hundreds of thousands of fossils recovered, don’t we have evidence that clearly bridges our species with what ever it is we are to have evolved from?
Well, most scientists disagree with you.
Would you mind sharing what kind of fossil would be enough to convince you?
MikeHD: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." Francis Crick (definitely not a creationists LOL)
Origin of life, not evolution.
MikeHD: I find it interesting how evolutionists has abandoned the idea of us evolving from chimpanzees and in doing so finding them selves with an even greater gap to bridge ourselves from. So what did re really come from? If it is our on special line, where is the evidence? Are evolutionists hanging all their hopes on one set of skeletal remains?
Nobody had an idea of us evolving from chimpanzees in the begin with. Common ancestor you remember?
Scientist aren't anymore trying to find if we evolved, but how we evolved. That's why transitional fossils are so sought after.
Fossil record isn't the only evidence. There's DNA as well.
MikeHD: God was here before anything was
Isn't that a paradox?
emannigol: Nope. There's no reason to think she was a mutant or deformed; not even for Dr. Oxnard. It's reasonable to think she was an average member of her population.
Well, most scientists disagree with you.
Would you mind sharing what kind of fossil would be enough to convince you?
Origin of life, not evolution.
Nobody had an idea of us evolving from chimpanzees in the begin with. Common ancestor you remember?
Scientist aren't anymore trying to find if we evolved, but how we evolved. That's why transitional fossils are so sought after.
Fossil record isn't the only evidence. There's DNA as well.
Well, most scientists disagree with you.
Would you mind sharing what kind of fossil would be enough to convince you?
Origin of life, not evolution.
Nobody had an idea of us evolving from chimpanzees in the begin with. Common ancestor you remember?
Scientist aren't anymore trying to find if we evolved, but how we evolved. That's why transitional fossils are so sought after.
Fossil record isn't the only evidence. There's DNA as well.
OK, she was not deformed. There was just one of her.
Most scientist huh? Ok, name them.
ok, just joking.Didn't evolution have an origin? Dr. Crick understands how it is impossible to explain that, at the origin of life, this first simple one cell organism has DNA with enough information in it to fill 1000 encyclopedias. If I were to come into my kitchen and see "Hey dude, evolution rocks" spelled out from my Alphabits cereal box, and then try to convince you that it happened naturally, you would think I was a nut. But you want me to believe that enough information to fill 1000 encyclopedias, perfectly sequenced, just came into being?
Wow
More than just one fossil would be nice.
DNA is one of the greatest evidences for creation.
emannigol: Isn't that a paradox?
That's just God.
kev147: Having read the origin of species i now firlmy believe in evolution and no longer believe in god whatsoever,
and actually i feel quite angry i was forced into being a catholic for years,
just wondering on your thoughts
and actually i feel quite angry i was forced into being a catholic for years,
just wondering on your thoughts
Does it really matter...... life is hard enough as it is, without wondering why...... just accept it and live a good life, with or without a God !!
MikeHD: Most scientist huh? Ok, name them. ok, just joking.
Jørn Hurum, Mary Leakey, Richard Leakey, Zeresenay Alemseged, Donald Johanson, Michel Brunet, Raymond Dart, Alan Walker, Louis Leakey, Meave Leakey...
Just to name few of the most famous anthropologists.
MikeHD: Didn't evolution have an origin?
Most likely. However, evolution can't be unproven even if we don't know it's origin. That would be like saying American natives aren't existing because we're not sure about their origin.
MikeHD: Dr. Crick understands how it is impossible to explain that, at the origin of life, this first simple one cell organism has DNA with enough information in it to fill 1000 encyclopedias.
He seems to have some knowledge other people don't have.
It's not known what the first living cell was like. Where did he find it?By the way. Did you know that totally random sequence has more information than nonrandom sequence of same lenght?
MikeHD: More than just one fossil would be nice.
Here's listed few most notable ones.
MikeHD: DNA is one of the greatest evidences for creation.
How about pseudogenes?
Example. All studied mammals besides primates and guinea pigs, have GLO aiding in the biosynthesis of vitamin C. Humans and other primates are sharing this similarly disabled gene. Guinea pigs have differently disabled gene.
How about endogenous retroviruses?
Take a guess with which family of animals we share most of them?
Yup, with hominids.
This among other things are evidence for a common ancestor.
MikeHD: That's just God.
Because I said so would have held as much weight in this argument
kev147: Having read the origin of species i now firlmy believe in evolution and no longer believe in god whatsoever,
and actually i feel quite angry i was forced into being a catholic for years,
just wondering on your thoughts
and actually i feel quite angry i was forced into being a catholic for years,
just wondering on your thoughts
who wrote the book that you ve read? was that book older than Bible? please read the book of paslm 14 vs 1 and 2
you answer are there
thanks
macdone: who wrote the book that you ve read? was that book older than Bible? please read the book of paslm 14 vs 1 and 2
you answer are there
thanks
you answer are there
thanks
So if he reads books on medicine he should use blood letting over new techniques because that was written in the older books?
emannigol: Jørn Hurum, Mary Leakey, Richard Leakey, Zeresenay Alemseged, Donald Johanson, Michel Brunet, Raymond Dart, Alan Walker, Louis Leakey, Meave Leakey...
Just to name few of the most famous anthropologists.
Just to name few of the most famous anthropologists.
OK, I counted 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. So, since you have named MOST of the scientist in the world (or perhaps history
), you are saying there are less than 20 scientist total? And why do almost half of them have the last name Leakey?
OK ok, just kidding with you. It us just tough to resist when someone makes a statement with "most" in it the way you did. I make that mistake myself from time to time. It is impossible to back it up because there is no way you could name half of the scientist in the world (not to mention history of mankind). And if you could, you would still have to prove each and everyone of them believed what you are talking about. I can't imagine how many scientists there are. 10 million? 100 million? Who knows.
“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” Tim White (evolutionist commenting on a hominoid collarbone exposed as a dolphin’s rib)
"Peleontologists have just discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likey to force science to revise, if not scap, current theories of human origin. LUCY may not even be a direct human ancestor after all." Tim Friend (USA Today 2001)
"Paleontologists in Africa have found a 3.5 million year old skull from what they say is an entirely new branch of the early human family tree, a discovery that threatens to overturn the prevailing view that a single line of descent stretched through the early stages of human ancestry. The discoveries and other scientists of human evolution say they are not necessarily surprised by the findings, but certainly confused. Now it seems that the fossil species Australopithecus afarensis, which lived from about four million to three million years ago and is best known from the celebrated LUCY skeleton, was not alone on the Afican plane. LUCY many not even be a direct human ancestor after all." John Noble Wilford (New York Times, 2001)
"The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that LUCY was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The 'evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing." Albert W. Mehlert (CRS Quarterly, Vol.22, No.3)
"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school...The missing link between man and the ape... is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures (bigfoot, lock ness monster, etc.) In the fossil record, missing links are the rule...The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated." Jerry Adler (Newsweek, 1980)
emannigol: He seems to have some knowledge other people don't have. It's not known what the first living cell was like. Where did he find it?
Are you saying scientist have no idea what the first living cell was like?
Then where are they trying to trace evolution back to?
emannigol: By the way. Did you know that totally random sequence has more information than nonrandom sequence of same lenght?
Are you saying there is no order to the universe?
That all things are made up of "nonrandom sequence"?
emannigol: How about pseudogenes?
Example. All studied mammals besides primates and guinea pigs, have GLO aiding in the biosynthesis of vitamin C. Humans and other primates are sharing this similarly disabled gene. Guinea pigs have differently disabled gene.How about endogenous retroviruses?
Take a guess with which family of animals we share most of them?
Yup, with hominids.This among other things are evidence for a common ancestor.
Example. All studied mammals besides primates and guinea pigs, have GLO aiding in the biosynthesis of vitamin C. Humans and other primates are sharing this similarly disabled gene. Guinea pigs have differently disabled gene.How about endogenous retroviruses?
Take a guess with which family of animals we share most of them?
Yup, with hominids.This among other things are evidence for a common ancestor.
You kinda lost me here (really reaching aren't we?), but I think you are say that since our DNA is 50% similar to that of an orange, then we are related. Is that right?
CaySea: So if he reads books on medicine he should use blood letting over new techniques because that was written in the older books?
Ok, now I have no idea where this thread is going.
MikeHD: And why do almost half of them have the last name Leakey?
Leaky family is quite famous in anthropologist circles.
MikeHD: Ok, I will stop at 10. You named 10, I named 10.
Well, all of them aren't anthropologists, some of them aren't even scientists and most of your quotes weren't disproving evolution. Mostly they were just showing how science is working. With a critical discussions, comparing evidence and correcting mistakes. Most of those scientists aren't even trying to disprove evolution. Okay, there were couple of creationists as well.
MikeHD: Are you saying scientist have no idea what the first living cell was like?
They don't know it. How could they? At the moment they can just make educated guesses.
MikeHD: Then where are they trying to trace evolution back to?
If they would know it they wouldn't be trying.
MikeHD: Are you saying there is no order to the universe?
That all things are made up of "nonrandom sequence"?
That all things are made up of "nonrandom sequence"?
No, I'm not.
MikeHD: You kinda lost me here (really reaching aren't we?), but I think you are say that since our DNA is 50% similar to that of an orange, then we are related. Is that right?
Of course we are related. Reaching back far enough we are sharing a common ancestor with all known life, even with an orange tree. DNA is proving that. You don't seem to know so much about evolution after all.
emannigol: Leaky family is quite famous in anthropologist circles.
Well, all of them aren't anthropologists, some of them aren't even scientists and most of your quotes weren't disproving evolution.
Well, all of them aren't anthropologists, some of them aren't even scientists and most of your quotes weren't disproving evolution.
Are you wanting me to keep quoting until you are convinced? I have hundreds of quotes (many of them pointed squarely against evoluion using the words of evolutionists themselves like the ones I posted earlier).
I can keep posting and posting, but everyone complains that I am trying to keep the thread when I do that.
emannigol: Reaching back far enough we are sharing a common ancestor with all known life, even with an orange tree. DNA is proving that. You don't seem to know so much about evolution after all.
So the evidence couldn't possibly point to creation?
Do you realize to come to only this conclusion, "we are sharing a common ancestor", you must take a very important step, you must dismiss creation before you look at the evidence, and you had better darn sure dismiss it before you start to think about it too much.
More Threads
Sleepy Don!
Feel Good Music
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
wanting beyond need
men's perspective towards women
The Best of the GOP
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
the way you look
your personality
Common Issues with the BMW X1
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Point is that overall enthropy in the system is increasing. So, our tiny little biosphere hardly makes any difference. If you think our sun isn't radiating enough enthropy, think the Milky Way with it's hundreds of billions of stars radiating enthropy. If this isn't enough think billions of galaxies. You can clearly see how overall enthropy is increasing even if our fragile biosphere may temporarily decrease tiny amount of enthropy in tiny little part of the system.
You're forgetting your interpretation of the 2nd law. Your manipulators are also part of the system, so it doesn't make any thermodynamical difference.
We are clearly having two seperate debates. LOL
I am trying to understand your point (because I need to understand it if I want to oppose it), but I am just not getting that you are saying.
Enthropy is increasing? Does that mean you believe we are breaking down faster?
And I am talking about external intelligent manipulations, not one in a hundred million billion billion chance.
It is interesting that the universe is estimated to contain 10^78 atoms (thats a 1 followed by 78 zeros). And it is estimated that the universe is 10^17 (thats a 1 followed by 17 zeros) seconds old.
But the chances the whole universe just happened by chance is makes the number of atoms multiplied by the number of seconds look infinitely small.