![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
|
![]() Dr. Ted Robinson on the Starchild Skull here is a real wrench thrown into the gear box |
|
Quoted: That was a terrible video. We absolutely can simulate genetics with selective pressures and genetic drift. You can even do it in your browser.... http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/ If you start 2 different sessions you will even see different strategies emerge from the different populations, then after hundreds of generations you may see them start to converge as the selective pressures even out because of the inherently random terrain generation. We have even observed evolution in less complex organisms and smaller changes in more complex organisms such as humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment 1. Blue eyes didn't exist till about 6-10,000 years ago 2. humans are becoming more disease resistant (not just because of medical science) as it is an increasing selective pressure. 3. We are losing our wisdom teeth because of cranial changes of the last 30,000 years 4. Also because of those cranial changes our average brain volume has shrunk. View Quote |
|
|
|
In looking at info on the historical record, or by simply
looking up in a clear night sky, it should be readily evident that the universe is millions or billions of years old. But none of that mattered until the first being was created that had an intellect. Before that, who would care about creation or any aspect of our universe. No one. Because without intellect, it all means nothing. What does a dog care if he is alive? He operates on instinct, so it means nothing. So the same can be said for a rock. Without intellect, it still means nothing. When God breathed life into Adam, then our world or universe became real to us. Not before. But it still existed before that. Kind of like when a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one to hear it, does it make noise? Of course it does, but no one cares. I believe God created time for us. Without time, the human intellect as we know would not exist, so we could not exist. Also the scientists by their nature are searching for the why of our universe. They see & recognize that a higher being has created life where it should not exist, but here we are. We have to accept on faith that God created us & this universe, for his purposes. When the last being with an intellect dies, time will end. How does all of that fit in with the Bible? I take it on faith that I don't understand all that I might read there, but that doesn't invalidate it. Great discussion. God Bless. John |
|
Quoted:
Apparently religion has given man the ability to dodge uncomfortable questions. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
View Quote ![]() Argument From Irreducible Complexity - Debunked (Michael Behe Refuted) ![]() Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked |
|
Quoted:
Evolution can be observed in some instances. For example there is a Moth (in England I believe) that has gone from a grey mottled color to white or cream color. This was observed due to urban development making white a better color. I can't remember all the details or the exact moth. But this changed occurred in just a few years. View Quote |
|
View Quote |
|
It makes sense, but I still wonder....if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
|
|
Abiogenesis is a pretty far fetched theory that is required for a belief in molecules to man (macroevolution)
The first cell, would have needed RNA, a way to replicate, a membrane to separate it from its environment, transport proteins, complex amino acids, a method of acquiring and metabolizing energy. If you understand anything about cell structure and function (prokaryotic, of course) you can see that even our most simple examples today are filled with complex, interdependent systems, without which the cell cannot survive. My undergrad is in biology and organic chemistry, and the biggest flaw with molecules to man evolution is starting with life in the first place. a question that science has only been able to speculate at, at best. Abiogenesis is not measurable, observable or repeatable (despite efforts to recreate spontaneous life in the lab). there are other problems, such as the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (which darwin himself said must be abundant if his hypothesis were to be proven true) We see few examples of forks in the evolutionary tree in the fossil record. another problem is that we have never observed the creation of new genetic information. We see recombination through sexual reproduction and we see the incorporation of fragments of gentic material in plasmids in bacteria, for instance, but not new code that should be necessary for the formation of new species. We also don't see speciation today, that is, we don't see entirely new species of animals arising that did not exist previously. We do see natural selection and micro evolution (small changes in species over time, like changes in birds beaks that darwin observed ) New breeds of dogs are still dogs, they can still interbreed, which is what defines the boundries of a species. Dogs do not ever give rise to something that is a non-dog, to put it in simple terms. This fits with what we see in genetics. New information is not created. Information is recombined, resulting in a new breed of dog or a drug resistant bacteria, but the type of animal does not change to some other kind. the theory of evolution is unproven speculation and extrapolation that cannot be confirm by the scientific method, and is much a belief or tenet of faith in some scientific circles as creationism is in some religious ones. neither of these can be scientifically proven. My biggest issue would be that we are so indoctrinated with "science, falsely so called" is that we have been taught and are still being taught that all of this is fact and settled science, and we are being spoon fed it from an early age. When I was in school, the earth was 40 million years old. this was taught as fact. now it's over 4 billion. why? Because time is the evolutionists magic wand. when you ask them how it is possible for a single cell to ultimately become a man, their response is, given enough time, anything is possible. we don't see a progression of new species today, we don't see widespread transitional forms in the fossil record, we don't see the creation of new genetic information (unless you want to count mutation, which I would argue still doesn't lead to new species) Science still cannot explain how the first life happened. when you can answer those questions with something approaching real science, then feel free to teach it as truth. until then, lets teach real science (law of conservation of momentum) for instance, instead of passing off what amounts to a belief system as fact. |
|
Quoted:
This right here is how my wife, and I agreed to think about it. That way we don't have to argue about it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now, did God create us in a blink, then we started changing per the natural order? Or did we evolve over a long time from guppies? That is the hard question. But anyone who denies any kind of evolution with examples like in this video, is an idiot. It is obvious that plants and animals change over time into different forms. <div class="version-KJV result-text-style-normal text-html "><h1 class="passage-display"> 2 Peter 3:8King James Version (KJV)</h1> <sup class="versenum">8 [/sup]But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. |
|
|
The thing about science is, it does not depend on you believing or not.
|
|
|
View Quote |
|
I believe in evolution, but I think there is a lot of it we do not know.
|
|
Quoted:
I believe in the Bible and I do think that the theory of evolution is sound. I don't understand why many people that believe in one don't believe ion the other because they're not necessarily mutually excludable. Just the fact that fossils have been found lends credence to evolution. Also, the Bible isn't necessarily literal, especially since it is inspired by God through man's imperfect and ancient mind at the time. Exodus states that the earth was created in 6 days. I don't think that means six 24 hour earth days that we have now. I think that means days as what one day means to God, which was before there was an earth that revolved around the sun in 24 hours. So, a day to God might be 100,000 million years to man. The point is, the Bible doesn't get down into the weeds about the creation of the earth because it was never intended to. Because the details are not important for God's purposes, those details are not given. So, there is nothing about the Bible that denies evolution. As another example, in Revelations in the end of times John describes the vision he received about the wars that will take place which included flying machines that looked like scorpions which sounds like an ancient man seeing an attack helicopter like a Bell Cobra or a Hughes AH 64 Apache, and describing it the only way he can from his ancient perspective. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
This drives me batty. I believe in God but realize that Genesis must be read metaphorically. But 99% of every other religious person feels they much bend reality to fit a literal interpretation. There is no way the mental gymnastics of that will win out over time. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Has science given man eternal life? WHY do some Christians get so hung up on this stuff? |
|
|
Evolution is not a sound theory.
Even Charles Darwin said so himself. Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. " Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of the human eye and other living structures immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How could an organ of such an intricate magnificence ever have a originated via random chance? Oller and Omdahl (CH) Page 274 It's like saying you could grab a box of parts to build a TV, or a car, or an airplane, and throw them into a tornado or hurricane, and then when the hurricane is over, all the parts have magically assembled themselves. We live as designed and created people. If I could get a box of AR parts together, put them on a blue angel's jet, and let the pilot do all the aerial acrobatics he wanted, and when he landed, a complete rifle was made, would you say that's possible? |
|
I began as a hard core evolutionist, but examining the theory reveals numerous holes and chicken and egg sort of problems. (did the selection pressure cause an animal to evolve, if so, how did it do so in time to keep from becoming extinct by the selection pressure. you can't explain all of those changes with mutation. I'm not talking about different colored moths, that's natural selection, that in no way explains a moth giving rise to something that is not a moth.)
I'm sure I'll be ridiculed for this, and that's fine. Having tried as much as possible to examine the issue as dispassionately an as unbiased as possible. (I don't believe it is possible to be completely unbiased). I believe that neither position can be proven, both are accepted on no small amount of faith, and the two are exclusive of eachother. I say this as one who used to straddle the fence Again, trying to look at things as objectively as I can the evidence that we see around us, as a whole, seems to fit with the notion of a global flood better than abiogenisis and millions of years. there are millions of pounds of organic material (dead plants and animals) laid down in layers of sedimentary rock (rock that is deposited by water) all over the earth. Often with signs of rapid preservation. Polystratic fossils are another great contradiction to what is called the geologic column. fossilized mulloscs found at great altitudes. dinosaurs found with intact red blood cells, any many many more. If you look at the evidence to support a global flood, it's there in abundance. If you at the evidence without the flood, it's harder to make the pieces come together, and you end up with some pretty improbable explanations. If you took the brightest minds of the 1800s and put an atom bomb in front of them but told them it was established fact that atoms do not exist, they would come up with the best plausible, reasonable explanation they could about what they were observing, but it would be wrong, or at best incomplete. That's where we are with our understanding of our origins, and i believe teaching incomplete hypothesis that are unlikely at best as establish fact actually hampers the next generation of scientists. I'm not saying that we should teach creation either, there is plenty of real science to teach children. Then let them reach their own conclusions with sound facts, not science, falsely so called. Interestingly, the current denial of a global flood, or even the possibility of one, confirms the words found in second peter. "for this cause they were willfully ignorant, that the world, being overflowed with water, perished." I am a Christian, and a lover of science. It is possible to be both and I make no apology for either. More and more biologist are questioning this flawed theory from the 1800s. |
|
|
Quoted:
No, it's not required and it has nothing to do with evolution. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
you have to start with something living at some point. so please enlighten me. you do understand that abiogensis means life from non-life, correct? that means that at some point in earth's history there was nothing living, and at some point later the first life form / simple cell, something was formed? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abiogenesis is a pretty far fetched theory that is required for a belief in molecules to man (macroevolution) |
|
|
It is not sound. First, their is no real evidence that one specie changed into another. Second, it has not been repeated experimentally. Third, the missing link is missing, because it does not exist.
|
|
|
Quoted:
The theory is sound. We are able to affect it in fruits and veggies at a faster rate. It makes sense that things change over time. Humans are even different from what they were several hundred years ago. Size and whatnot. Now, did God create us in a blink, then we started changing per the natural order? Or did we evolve over a long time from guppies? That is the hard question. But anyone who denies any kind of evolution with examples like in this video, is an idiot. It is obvious that plants and animals change over time into different forms. ![]() View Quote |
|
|
For a particular species changing some characteristics over time - yes.
For one species changing into another - no. |
|
|
View Quote Ultimately, the first "designer" has to EVOLVE from a lesser being, as it is ludicrous in the ultimate extreme to suggest that a fully capable "intelligent designer" could simply self-create out of nothing. The origin of god....what was god like as a kid and what were his parents like? Well, keep following the chain of successive gods and you will eventually have to encounter the Original Originator, which, lacking a god in his past, must therefor have been the product of EVOLUTION since there's no third option. And if evolution could evolve a god X million years ago, then it's no challenge for evolution to create something less than a god NOW. Intelligent design is an outright lie. Myth. Fabrication. Take your pick. All facts and all evidence point to evolution and IN NO OTHER DIRECTION. Those who think otherwise are lacking in some aspects of their education and/or critical reasoning skills. |
|
Quoted:
Actually, life increases complexity to minimize energy required to survive. Following the second law. View Quote The argument is that more complex life is against the second law of thermo. Generally because they have no idea what entropy is and what a closed system is. |
|
Quoted:
A litmus test for scientific literacy. View Quote Which Theory of Evolution are you referring to? |
|
Hell no. I was created by the god of the desert right after he created light.
![]() |
|
Quoted: No, he didn't. And since he didn't yet have genetic science as we do, even if he had, his opinion would have been hampered by lack of the data we now have. Please stop being disingenuous. View Quote I will stand by statement, because I am a firm believer that we are created in the image of the Trinity, and there are many reasons why I don't believe evolution is sound. I think it requires more faith to believe in random changes which have led up to humanity as we know it than an intelligent designer and Creator. |
|
|
My belief is that we were created in God's image like in the Bible, and that God is the result of evolution as well. God could have at one time been a different type of being and metamorphized into what he is now.
Also while writing this on my phone I noticed Google refuses to put the word Bible with a capital B into their Swype interface. More proof of the moral decay of our society. |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
That's interpretation, not observation. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
That's interpretation, not observation. |
|
Quoted: Those are all examples of microevolution not macroevolution. Still human- same number of genes. Doesn't prove a thing with regards to people coming from apes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Those are all examples of microevolution not macroevolution. Still human- same number of genes. Doesn't prove a thing with regards to people coming from apes. Quoted:
So your saying we could have evolved from Bananas. That's Bananas! Quoted:
neither has religion. However it (religion) has given our souls eternal life. Quoted:
I am a fucking animal |
|
|
Quoted:
Of course not. Science makes no statement about god (even if some scientists do). A scientist I used to work with was one the most adamant Christians I have ever met. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.