Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
The Neutral Zone
Welcome To The Neutral Zone:
The place to discuss topics that may cause debates on other boards without getting yelled at or banned!

"It is not so much our friends' help that helps us, as the confidence of their help." - Epicurus


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 11  12  13 

 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 504
Karma: -2 (+21/-23)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


Oh wow, that's some crazy superstitious beliefs! There's a lot of that in human history.

But the key words are "looks like" and as we learn more, it becomes evident that all is not as it seems. It may look like a tail at a certain point, yet as it develops we see that it is really part of the spine.

Those born with "tails" do not have bones in them, according to the site I referenced. I have not heard too much about people being born with tails. I think it's a rare deformity.


---

Do you not know? Have you not heard? He gives strength to the weary. To those who hope in Him, they will soar like eagles. -RSJ

9/25/2009, 12:54 pm Link to this post Send PM to
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 504
Karma: -2 (+21/-23)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


And here's some info on "gill slits" in humans embryos.

These "gill slits" are in appearance only, as the throat has grooves and pouches that develop into the lower jaw, glands, tongue and middle ear canal.

This link gives a nice diagram that shows what these "gill slits" actually turn into in later development.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/14/fishy-gill-slits
quote:

One reason for assigning names to all these parts is the fact that each fold shapes itself into specific structures, none of which are ever used for breathing. The outer and middle ear as well as the bones, muscles, nerves, and glands of the neck develop from these folds. Only superficially do these important folds ever resemble gills; the pharyngeal arches are no more related to gills than stars are to streetlights.


Here are a couple of other links:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html
http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/creation-evolution-debate/human-embryo-gill-slits-white-paper-and-gill-slits


---

Do you not know? Have you not heard? He gives strength to the weary. To those who hope in Him, they will soar like eagles. -RSJ

9/25/2009, 1:15 pm Link to this post Send PM to
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


Doing a "quote set" to provide context:
quote:

Lesigner Girl wrote:
quote:

Pastor Rick wrote:
Charles Darwin's gradual evolution theory just doesn't survive the evidence anymore than Bishop Ushers timeline of Biblical events does and that's just simple truth.

Evolution does happen gradually...


I am in disagreement here based on the evidence provided by the two "evolutionary" explosive events I already mentioned plus the discovery of a third such event termed The Avalon Explosion.

According to science life began about 3.6 billion years ago. That is a huge number so lets get it down to something we can understand and I think you will agree that Darwin's basic idea is not supported. a hour is made up of 60 minutes so if you divide the time given by science by 60 you have 60 million years per minute and 1 million years per second (pretty nice how that works out btw).

Now, looking at the clock the Avalon Explosion takes 33 seconds, the Cambrian Explosion takes 7 minutes (max), and the Ordovician Explosion takes 6 minutes. This accounts for all but 6 phyla that have ever existed (to our knowledge) and covers a total of 13 minutes and 33 seconds in our Life Hour meaning that for 46 minutes and 27 seconds there was pretty much zero evolution (that is 2 billion 787 million years of nothing) while Darwin's model of gradual evolution should resemble a inverted cone with new phyla being introduced at a even and pretty much steady rate.

The clock doesn't fib, the evidence is that the phyla suddenly appear (relatively speaking) and then that type of evolution, if you wish to call it that, stopped!
Image

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/26/2009, 12:20 am Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


quote:

Mel wrote:

The whole "vestigial organs" thing isn't really any proof of evolution at all. If it were true, it might suggest de-evolution.


This statement comes from a misunderstanding about evolution. There is no such thing as de-evolution, even in instances where that might appear to be the case. One example off the top of my head: There are actually some cave-dwelling fish species that are completely blind, when their ancestors were able to see. This is simply because their ancestors used to live where there was light, but eventually moved to the caves where even sighted creatures can't see. Since eyesight was no longer required for them to survive and reproduce, natural selection didn't play a part in the eyesight of the cave-dwelling fish.

quote:

quote:

Why do whales share more DNA with hippos than with anything else that lives in the water?
For that matter, why are whales considered mammals instead of fish?


That's the way that science has determined to classify them.


Science is a process by which we determine things, and it's the most accurate process we have. Biologists have classified whales as mammals because:

quote:

From wikipedia:

Like all mammals, whales breathe air into lungs, are warm-blooded, feed their young milk from mammary glands, and have hair, although very little.


They also have a 4-chambered heart like we do. How many fish do you know of that share those 5 attributes with us and other mammals?

Although you quoted my question about DNA, your response to the quote doesn't answer it. Did you mean to answer it and forget?

quote:

Why do moles and some cave-dwelling fish have eyes when they can't see?

They were created that way in order to differentiate between lightness and darkness, not for clear vision as we have.


I was talking about the ones that are completely blind. Yes, there are whole species that have eyes but can't even distinguish between lightness and darkness.

However, you do bring up a good point about other creatures that can distinguish light from dark, which completely topples Behe's "irreducibly complex" argument. That you for mentioning that.

quote:

quote:

Why do some creatures that require air to survive, live in the water?


That's the way they were created. Are you suggesting that they're evolving somehow? For what purpose?


I'm glad you said "they're evolving" rather than "they've evolved," because it shows that you understand evolution as being a continuous process that hasn't stopped.

That whole list of questions has to do with evolution, and you've given some very good answers to a lot of them. Just as the wings of a flightless ostrich show how "partial" wings can be beneficial, so do the eyes of a creature that can distinguish light from dark, but can't make out the shapes and colors of objects.

The reason a water-dwelling creature requires air is because they aren't completely adapted to changes in their environment, but have adapted enough to survive and reproduce. A species that lives in the water but requires air, is indicative of a transition from land-dwelling creatures to water-dwelling creatures or vice versa.

Whales evolved from land-dwelling creatures. These land-dwelling creatures and their descendents started spending more and more time in the water because (1) food may have been more plentiful there and/or (2) it may have been a good way to escape from other animals that preyed on them. I haven't read up on the exact theories for why they eventually moved to the water, but these are two reasons that would make sense.

While whales can spend up to 30 minutes or longer without coming up for air, they do need to come up for air, which they take in through their blow hole, while fish sift oxygen out of water through their gills. This need for whales to come up for air is also indicative of a transitional trait between (in their case) their land-dwelling ancestors and a species that is fully adapted for a water environment.

That doesn't mean that descendants of whales will no longer need to come up for air in the distant future, as there is no way for us to determine which traits will be most beneficial for them in the future. They could eventually evolve to become land-dwelling creatures again, they could become fully aquatic, or their lineage could split off into two or more directions. It has nothing to do with the "best traits" in general, but with how well-suited those traits are to their environment.

The following is a good read, although it's pretty long:
quote:

The evidence
The evidence that whales descended from terrestrial mammals is here divided into nine independent parts: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological. Although my summary of the evidence is not exhaustive, it shows that the current view of whale evolution is supported by scientific research in several distinct disciplines.



quote:

quote:

Why do all human embryos have tails before most of those tails disappear?


They don't. Haeckel's embryos were a nice artistic portrayal, but false. The spine is just longer at earlier development, it's not a "tail."
What about those "gill slits" in human embyos? Do you buy into that one, too?


Forget artistic portrayals. Here's an actual image. Why does this "longer spine" extend so far past its feet, and why does it look so much like this dolphin embryo?

I don't think anyone still believes that old 19th century theory about the gill slits. emoticon That would be like believing in a flat or hollow earth, both of which were disproven so long ago. emoticon

quote:

quote:

Why are some people born with tails?



Couldn't tell ya, I've never seen one.


Here you go. Granted, it's possible to Photoshop something like that, but there are ways to tell what's been Photoshopped and what hasn't, and there are actual case studies out there like this one and this one.

You're right about the rarity of humans being born with tails, but that's because it's rare to keep the tails we all have as embryos.

quote:

quote:

What about all those "vestigial organs"?


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Vestigial.pdf


You shouldn't trust anything AIG says. I've read some of their articles, and the straw men they set up are so preposterous, like apes giving birth to humans. emoticon That's not how it works, and nobody even claims it does, so of course they can disprove something that obviously doesn't happen.

I doubt even Pastor Rick would trust what that site says, since it's founded and run by a guy who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, and Rick knows that isn't true. emoticon

quote:

This link gives a nice diagram that shows what these "gill slits" actually turn into in later development.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/14/fishy-gill-slits


Another way to set up a straw man is to use an old theory that was disproven long ago, as though it were still an accepted theory today. There is no more reason for AIG to argue against human gill slits than there is for us to argue against spontaneous generation of maggots (or was that mice?) from food, or a flat earth. They were all theories once, but they were all disproven so long ago.

Concerning flat-earth beliefs, I use the term "theory" loosely there, because that belief wasn't arrived at by any scientific means. In fact, scientific-minded people actually reasoned that it was spherical, long before those who led the Inquisition would imprison, torture, and kill people for voicing the heretical notion of an earth that was anything but flat.

quote:

quote:

Why did the Bible classify bats as birds?

I threw that last one in for fun, but the rest are based on observation and documentation.



I guess it depends on where you look. There are answers, but would you accept them?
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/bat-bird
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/isnt-the-bible-full-of-errors
http://www.errancy.org/bats.html


carm.org is another one of those sites that get it completely wrong. For example, they use the same tired creationist argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, completely ignoring the fact that our sun supplies the energy that is necessary to create order.

As for your errancy.org link, Rick might be able to either confirm or disprove that claim by translating it himself from one of his Hebrew bibles. Either way, the only thing that would mean is that the translators got it wrong, which would further prove they weren't guided by God when they translated the word into "bats".

I'll read Rick's post now and keep my responses separate. Whew, this can be time consuming. emoticon

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/26/2009, 2:43 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


quote:

quote:

Evolution does happen gradually...


I am in disagreement here based on the evidence provided by the two "evolutionary" explosive events I already mentioned plus the discovery of a third such event termed The Avalon Explosion.


Rick, do you think "gradual" has to mean everything changes at the same rate, at all times? Well, it does not. All it means is that there are gradual transitions between one species to the next; ie, something that is fully ape does not give birth to something that is fully human.

These "explosions" you keep pointing out are only called "explosions" because evolution during those time frames occurred more rapidly than at other times. The main reason such relatively rapid evolution occurred during these periods is because the environment was changing rapidly at the time.

It's as simple as that.

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/26/2009, 3:10 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


The reason I keep bring up the "evolutionary explosions" Lesa is that they are the only time that new phyla appear yet there have been at least 6 "extinction" events which have opened the door for new phyla groups! This is why the published work of Charles Darwin devoted a whole chapter in an attempt to make his idea on how it should go (gradual evolution) fit with the evidence which says "not possible". Not even one new phyla has appeared in over 3/4 of the time life has been present on Earth! On the other hand over 140 phyla have gone into extinction. That isn't even close to gradual and it is why science cannot support Charles Darwin's original theories.

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/26/2009, 3:28 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


O yeah, the "bats" question emoticon

First, there is no word in the Hebrew that can be translated "birds" and be correct 100% of the time. The word being translated as "birds" in the modern Bibles is more correctly translated "fowls" in the KJV and Bishops Bible but even that is not 100% accurate when it comes to our understanding of the word today. The word used in Hebrew applies to all winged creatures where the wings act as a covering for the body when not in flight and which feed off of dead animals (this last bit is given in the contextual linguistics of the Hebrew language). As a result of these two items (the word plus the contextual implication) you will find the same word is also applied to some flying insects as well. There is not a error in the text, though as I said before, there are "modern" Bibles which create a misunderstanding in their attempt to make it "easier to read." As to why the KJV and Bishop's Bible come closer to getting it right my best guess is that they had some German scholars on their team and for them I think the word translates to them as "flying things" but I made a D+ in German so I could be wrong there...

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/26/2009, 4:12 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


Just so people have an idea of what a phylum is:

Wiki: Phylum
quote:

Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists. In fact, a phylum is perhaps best described as a statement of taxonomic ignorance.[2] Consequently the number of phyla varies from author to author. The relationship between different phyla is increasingly well known, and larger clades can be erected to contain many of the phyla.

quote:

The best known animal phyla are the Mollusca, Porifera, Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Annelida, Arthropoda, Echinodermata, and Chordata, the phylum to which humans belong. Although there are approximately 35 phyla, these nine include over 96% of animal species. Many phyla are exclusively marine, and only one phylum, the Onychophora (velvet worms) is entirely absent from the world's oceans–although ancestral onycophorans were marine.



Chordata

quote:

Definition

Chordates form a phylum — a grouping of animals with a shared body plan[1] — defined by having at some stage in their lives all of the following:[2]

    * a notochord, in other words a fairly stiff rod of cartilage that extends along the inside of the body. Among the vertebrate sub-group of chordates the notochord develops into the spine, and in wholly aquatic species this helps the animal to swim by flexing its tail.
    * a dorsal neural tube. In fish and other vertebrates this develops into the spinal cord, the main communications trunk of the nervous system.
    * pharyngeal slits. The pharynx is the part of the throat immediately behind the mouth. In fish the slits are modified to form gills, but in some other chordates they are part of a filter feeding system that extracts particles of food from the water in which the animals live.
    * a muscular tail that extends backwards behind the anus.
    * an endostyle. This is a groove in the ventral wall of the pharynx. In filter feeding species it produces mucus to gather food particles, which helps in transporting food to the esophagus.[3] It also stores iodine, and may be a precursor of the vertebrate thyroid gland.[2]



Let's see if I can keep this short and simple.

By the reasoning you set forth here, the fact that a split in kingdoms has occurred even less frequently and much earlier than splits in phyla have, should be further proof against evolution.

But that's not how it works. To understand the evolutionary tree of life, try to visualize an actual tree in its many stages of growth.

A tree has only one main trunk near its roots. At some point in a tree's development, it has a few small twigs growing out that trunk. Some of these twigs branch out early in the tree's development, while others branch out later.

These twigs can be equated with species.

At some point in this tree's development, some of these twigs grow into bigger limbs, some stay small, and others wither away.

The bigger limbs can be equated with families, while the smaller, twiggy limbs are species that belong to the family (bigger limb) they are attached to. The family is no longer a species in itself, but a whole group of species.

Are you with me so far?

At some point, some of these bigger limbs get even bigger, some of its twigs grow to "family" sized twigs, and there are even more twigs attached to those families.

Now, the biggest branches on the trees have been promoted to "orders", with each order having families (medium sized branches that used to be the largest), and those families having species (twigs).

The tree's growth continues, as these earliest twigs that used to be species are later promoted to classes, phyla, and finally kingdoms.

The different phyla represented in the fossils from those periods are merely descendants from earlier species that existed long before those "explosions", which evolved to form different characteristics like spines, tails, gills, mouths, eyes, etc. It is these characteristics that human now use to classify phyla within each kingdom.

The reason they appear so suddenly in the geological record during these "explosions" is because these "explosions" were times when the environment was more conducive to fossilization.

Imagine taking a picture of a tree when it looks more like a twig sticking out of the ground, then taking another picture when it's still small but contains hundreds of twiggy branches, and a 3rd and 4th picture picture 30 and 50 years later. These pictures are comparable to fossil finds, with each snapshot relating to a period of time when the environment was more conducive to fossilizing an organism's remains.

If you only have these 4 pictures of this tree, is this supposed to be proof that it isn't the same tree that has undergone some considerable change over time?

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/26/2009, 4:36 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


Thanks for that explanation of the bats question. It sounds like they should have said "flying things" or "winged creatures" instead of "birds," and just repeated that phrase instead of saying "bats."

If some magical, divine entity was guiding them in their translations and wanted to keep them accurate, I'm sure it could have done so. emoticon

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/26/2009, 4:43 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!


He did, in the Hebrew text... not my fault if scholars want to out think themselves when going from one language to the next emoticon

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/26/2009, 7:56 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 11  12  13 





You are not logged in (login)