Evolution is a Joke part XII

****Trees aren't much shelter from heavy rains. I think the apes actually have enough intelligence to put together a crude shelter if they wanted to. But they have thick bodies, tough skin and some body hair.

see my link to info on Cro-Magnon.

Add to that this index of subjects.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life32.htm

 

Uh, no, you specifically asked me a question that I had already answered in the post. This was basically the point of my post:

"Evolution is not defined as "one kind changing into another kind".

You then asked me in your reply to that post (paraphrasing):

"So evolution is not like one kind changing into another kind?"

Thank you.

What, why would they do that?

Huh? What do you mean "seemed to"? I know of no mentions of celestial bodies in the Gospels or subsequent books.

Gotcha

Yes, and they can live with those problems, if we let them, because they aren't being hunted down by prey. Animals in the wild don't have that type of protection, that is why we don't see them with genetic disorders... or really any type of defect.

Of course we are different, but so are tons of organisms on this planet. Our intellectual abilities may be something to glorify right now, but it isn't proven that it is a great evolutionary advantage that will allow us to survive for longer than other species.

That's because we've grown accustomed to living in them and wearing them. We basically have the ability to "bypass" natural selection... in some categories.

Why would that have happened if we could make clothes, shelters, and fires? Natural selection only works if a trait is desirable. Considering that we don't need hair to stay warm because of those things, why would we adapt with hair?

Well, obviously they don't have enough intelligence to do so or else we would have seen them do it.

 

So instead of a scientific source you cite a book by a cult leader. Wonderful.

 

You should learn to respond appropriately to people in a thread.

 

There is one problem--at least. There is no reason for refutation because genetic evidence does not explain how we--our complex bodies originated from the primordial ooze. That includes the Gene scheme which, I'm eager to remind you (all), is perpetuated by a reproduction process that can not be explained by the change mechanism of 'Evolution' (random genetic mutation).

Putting those two "monkey-wrenches" into the scheme (dream/nightmare) are the beginning of a long line of unexplainable organic complexities--all of which have a common theme.

There is no accounting for any of it by any rendition of 'Evolution' I've read.

Informed by the knowledge that there is no warranted change mechanism, with respect to the theory 'Evolution', we can state that "survival of the fittest" does not a Species make. (Please notice the absence of quotation marks of any kind around that capitalized word.)

After considering all this, one might as well have proclaimed: It happened to happen that way! It happens!

I don't believe any creation accounts. My position is that there is something we don't know: The Great Cosmic Duh. [Future thread: What is God enough?]

You've been scherado'd, thoroughly.

"Thank me."
​

I had a very bad day.

 

The one constant in the universe is change. Nothing stands still or stays the same. Mountains push up to the sky and then are eroded back into the Earth, rivers change course, continents slam together and break apart, the Earth moves, the Sun moves, the stars move, the galaxy moves, and the universe is expanding. Life changes too. You can see it everywhere and don't give me that micro vs macro crap. Enough small changes equal a large change. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Fossils, DNA, experiments, they all point to the fact that life has evolved.

You have a different theory? Fine, then please tell us how your theory explains fossils, genetic similarities between species and adaptation. Also, tell us what predictions your theory can make about life here on Earth. Finally, using your theory, explain why, despite being a deadly mutation, that Sickle Cell Anemia continues be prevalent in certain tropical and sub-tropical populations? Oh, and since any theory worth its salt should be able to stand on its own, don't try to disprove evolution, just prove your theory.

 

Some people may be happy to be blissfully ignorant with their various digits jammed into assorted orifices, but some of us want to know the truth. You may think that we don't know but we do. The reason you don't know is that you never took the time or made the effort to find out. If you would like to know, I suggest you start here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

Good luck with that one. They believe they are starting from the null hypothesis.

 

It is a philosophy of Atheism. They worship the creature, not the creator.

 

Sheesh I thought only creos talked about "proving a theory"

 

That makes sense like "the philosophy of Abatboyism."

Atheists dont worship anything.

We've noticed that creationists have nothing to say unless they make something up.

 

Not gonna happen; "been there done that".

I'm neither happy nor ignorant. If you dispute--assuming you understood my post--something in my post, then let me (us) know. I have no reason to believe that you understood my post. My suspicion is that you did not (understand).

You may start thus: Dearest scherado, you are quite wrong about the inefficacy of the change mechanism in our beloved theory of Evolution. Please read this about that. Thanks in advance.

There is nothing at your link that can support a change mechanism for 'Evolution'. If you disagree, then post that from the link.

You get 'C+' for effort.

 

So? Is that as far as you looked? Found something that tickled your ears and called it good? What have you found that is a compelling argument for the living God? Or are we going to circle back to blissful ignorence?

 

Everybody worships something. Who's we? You got a mouse in your pocket? Or are you making it up?

 

You're pretty clearly ignorant, because that's what it takes to reject evolution - ignorance. You have to not understand the evidence present, or not be aware of the evidence present. The theory of evolution and common descent is, at this point, essentially unshakable.

Evolution is not meant to disprove God; the two are not in any way incompatible. The Vatican accepts evolution; as to many Christians.

Define worship.

 

The item linked is meant only as the broadest sweep on the topic. It does cover the basic mechanisms and considers the latest challenges in the field. Our current outlook on evolution is important because it answers one question that has puzzled us for hundreds of years. Why do certain organisms live in one place but not another. For example kangaroos live in Australia, well adapted for dry open conditions. They also live in New Guinean environments. But they have never lived in Borneo.

That was the question that began the search for knowledge that lead us to the theories we have now.

 

But the Force behind Change is what we call God, as the next frame of Reality unfolds and sires Truth in its wake.

It is this Truth which man has developed the power to image in his mind that lets him "see" this Reality which both traps him and nurtures him.
It is this Truth which has taught man that his survival (as species) depends upon adapting his every behavior to this God of Change.

It this Almighty Reality to which man must bow.
And it the Truth which Reality sires in its wake that is our messiah and savior:


John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the truth,…
… the way, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

The Bible is book that is telling the Truth,... NOT establishing it in science.

Our job has been to discover it is correct by using Science (and History and Sociology and Psychology)

 

Worship is a behavior.

It is behavior which can be identified as one of the common patterns to Human Behavior found continuously in all the last generations of mankind.
These behaviors are so typical of past behaviors that they are seen as immortal ways of acting that repeat themselves again and again in every future generation.

As an example, Homosexual worship Eros.

 

Uh huh. Are you familiar with Islamic apologists doing the exact same thing you are? Hell, I could take any text and do what you're doing to it; stretch it out to make it appear that there is some connection between the text and modern scientific discoveries (obviously in metaphorical form because apparently the writers wanted to hide the information until after we discovered the information).

You are no different from the people who interpreted the Bible to describe a geocentric cosmology one year, and a heliocentric cosmology the next year.

Do you think our understanding of our evolutionary history is done or something? Your hypothesis relies on the idea that modern science's discoveries are absolute and unalterable. Let me tell you a secret: they aren't. What are you going to do when our scientific understandings change? I'm sure I already know what you'll be doing, changing your interpretation of what the text says to match the new information. Just asinine. You already have to selectively edit out scientific data for your abysmal hypothesis to give it any sort of "merit" (I use that word VERY loosely in regard to your ideas, hence the quotes).

 

Are you recommending that we should read the bible and avoid correlating what it says to modern knowledge and there by demonstrating that it makes no sense at all?

There seems be many things specifically stated that could not be validated unless science had found out that is was true.

If not for the Big Bang discovery, Genesis 1:1 might have been falsified by evidence that the Universe has always been there.

Where it not for the evidence of Pangea, Genesis 1:10 would sound ridiculously false:

There WAS one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together around Pangaea.


Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):





1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Anartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate),...

...and it was so.

 

Yeah, I messed up on that. It was late and I was tired. I meant to say, "just show how your theory is valid". Thanks for calling me on that. Someone's got to keep me on my toes.

 

I'm saying that you should avoid assuming that the Bible speaks of modern knowledge. I noticed you didn't even both quoting my entire post, I wonder why that is?

No, there are many things that would seem like myth, which you apparently have a problem with accepting.

You have such a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor understanding of the science you try to invoke. The Big Bang theory doesn't state that the Universe was created out of nothing. Regardless of that distinction, most modern Biblical scholars are of the opinion that Genesis 1:1 isn't talking about God creating the Universe ex nihilo.

You're right, it would sound ridiculously absurd. Which is why you've come up with these cockamamie metaphorical links to modern scientific discoveries.

 

basic wiki

This article is about the Greek god Eros. For other topics, including the philosophical and psychological use of the word "eros", see Eros (disambiguation).

Eros ..The Eros Farnese, a Pompeiian marble thought to be a copy of the colossal Eros of Thespiae by Praxiteles[1]
God of desire and attraction
Abode Mount Olympus
Symbol Bow, Arrows, Candles, Hearts, Cupids, Wings and Kisses
Consort Psyche
Parents; Chaos or Aphrodite and Ares or Aphrodite and Hermes, or Iris and Zephyrus

Siblings; Harmonia, Anteros, Himeros, Phobos, Adrestia and Deimos
Children; Hedone
Roman equivalent; Cupid
Eros (/ˈɪərɒs/ or US /ˈɛrɒs/; Ancient Greek: Ἔρως, "Desire"), in Greek mythology, was the Greek god of love. His Roman counterpart was Cupid[2] ("desire"). Some myths make him a primordial god, while in other myths, he is the son of Aphrodite.


Are you gay?

Is that an evolution?

Or are non-procreating selfish, with the 'desire' of homosexual pursuits, purely a self-serving dead end?

Will non-procreating lives, eventually go extinct?

God (nature) itself, will share the eventuality, over time.

I tink, the forum has the story now!