oh yeah! Lets burst that little bubble of delusion right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWatrus_wmc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6luYV55QkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rCkFLq3uts
Printable View
oh yeah! Lets burst that little bubble of delusion right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWatrus_wmc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6luYV55QkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rCkFLq3uts
DeanStar, thanx
I Googled "The Atlas of Creation" talked about in those Youtubes. And Wow! I can read the whole book online for free, here:
★★★
Harun Yahya
★★★
I have just read the Introduction and
chapter1 - What is a fossil
I was taught that if a plant or animal's "niche" is undisturbered then there is no pressure on it to evolve. That's why many plants and animals remain unchanged for millions of years.
The polar bear has black hide. It was once a dark fured bear. But as ice advanced, dark fured bears starved, because prey animals could see them coming. But the "very rare" light fured bear, being more camouflaged, could merge with the white snow and catch something to eat.
Isn't that a living example of an animal evolving?
Oh dear...
I admit to having been deluded concerning my eventual having reached through to you a tiny little bit with my information. Ahm - nope - shame that. Are you going to put your announced rebuttal of my last before last post in kadie's god thread into this one?
http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...god-you-5.html
But good of you to transfer the matter into a thread of it's own - I guess, she is thankful for that!
Concerning that first video: Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These are the relevant numbers - not that the Muslim world happily jumps on the Creation bandwagon and not that school children can be deceived with something impressive looking like that Atlas. That's why it's so important to teach them about reality, not phantasms, they're impressionable. Do you really believe that you are more intelligent and informed than 97% of US scientists incl. 72 US Nobel Prize winners? If you'd ask outside of the US - the numbers are even more devastating for Creationism - problem is the uninformed and badly lied to public.Quote:
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23]
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23]
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[36][37][38][39] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[40][41]
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42]
Mr. Star, I would advise you to watch this entire video series from start to finish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D
This and plenty more reasons is why I do not even bother engaging in debates with creationists unless if they are genuinely interested in alternative points of view.
The inferential gap is usually too large to bridge without effort from both parties and most people are comfortable with sticking to their beliefs.
Yepp Mr. Thinker - that would be a mighty good idea, if he watched them all!
But lo and behold - one of Thunderf00t's series is a direct rebuttal of video two of the opening post - how practical! :wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM
The worst is really how Wells says that all of the major animals would have appeared in the form they currently present in the Cambrian explosion and then showing some small critters, who were all water-dwelling and are all of them extinct today.
I mean WTF?? How can he say that with a straight face? Not one land animal was there back then and what he shows has died out!? :facepalm:
Besides - how does he time all this? His version does not even concur with Creationist doctrine of the earth being only 6000 years of age...
StepL I don't see nobel prizes as any sort of measure of how true something is. You realize there is a known prejudice against women in these prizes? Obama also got the nobel peace prize before he even did anything. This shows how reliable 'prizes' are in the 21st century. I see a court case that rejects intelligent design as a mistrial, not something neutral. There is documentaries that look further into that. I did agree with an admin that I would no longer post in the other religious section. I'm sticking to a scientific position, without even preaching the gospel here. But you will still have problems because what you claim is science, isn't really science.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLwVQ9nU3-o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7wByW3I6oI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxVYiMtrngc
There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread.
I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
Well seeing that in Britain it is now illegal to teach creationism in publically funded schools and evolution is now in the primary school curriculum, the evidence is not supporting that statement, just like much of what you say. America will likely follow suit or be left in the dust in terms of scientific accomplishments by other countries. Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them.Quote:
It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
If you want to convince people, rather than calling them fraudsters and cultists (a label that is woefully ironic for a fundamentalist Christian to use), why not debunk us directly. Don't post videos to us. If you are not bothered to view ours, then don't expect us to reciprocate.
Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are and not some vague rhetoric about brainwashing and agendas.
Give us specific points on why creationism is more empirically valid over evolution and please don't use the bible as your only source.
Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God and the bible points towards a creationist world view, is there any empirical pointers towards that in the natural world?
These 72 laureates give credibility, something for common sense to chew on. Most people would agree, that this "demographic" is over-proportionally intelligent and highly educated, whatever else they might be - or not be. They also tend to be male, and have a high percentage of Jews among them, but neither lessens the impact of the above mentioned criteria in any way. That's why it's okay that they probably didn't only count science laureate's signatures. And of course you didn't address the number of 97% of scientists, nor the list of scientific institutions having petitioned. Who do you think does the actual scientific discovering and technology inventing - the actual work? If you want to know about science and it's body of knowledge - ask scientists. Did you read the numbers? Which institutions have all partitioned? The scientific community has intervened by the millions in America alone - and the law decided in their favour. How can 97% of scientists be a cult?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
It's about trying to get it into one or the other Creationist head, be that you or somebody reading, that evolution has been proven zig thousand times already, and that zig different scientific disciplines are doing it!Quote:
It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple....
There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread.
Once you start with the 6000 years you're so absolutely out of touch with this technological age you invoke - it's baffling. And yes - what is proven, that's the relevant thing. If you want me to simply "accept" something, because you and other Creationists say so and the bible says so, then you got the wrong person, I'm afraid. What I can do is provide you with the information, you claim would be missing, and rebut what your article says, as I already begun. That was up to now the one source of yours worthy of consideration and step by step rebuttal, because at least it sounds scientific and intelligent. So it's to be considered potentially harmful to impressionable minds. Being exasperated by the first two videos of this thread, I spare myself the rest. As Deviant says - I'd like to hear back from you on your source and my replies.
But if you're not willing to consider evidence - you should stop to invoke science. That's completely the wrong playing field for you then. You could instead just say, god or Satan tried to lure people into falling from grace by making it all look and work as if evolution has been and is taking place. One of them buried the fossils, manipulated radioactive decay, made it snow in special divine/evil magic ways etc., but in truth, it's all only façade, you are supposed to witness evolution being actually and really proven, but decide to believe in Creation anyway. Funny how it could have been either one of these trying to test people's faith by Christian logic...
Like this you would be all done with the pesky truth determination and could in peace say goodbye to scientific thinking and logic altogether. It's all about being afraid of hell and wanting to go to heaven in the end right? You're so deeply indoctrinated that you believe a little doubt, a little critical, skeptic thinking directed at your own faith will bring you damnation.
Oh - fine. It wasn't me leaving kadie's thread - I'll transfer what I had already written on that article in here and I'll go on to go through it - as said before - in my own time!Quote:
I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
According to this logic, gay marriage is wrong because it's illegal in Australia. So this means you no longer support gay marriage? That's fine because I don't support it either haha. I do support intelligent design in schools because then we might actually get some intelligent education. Just because some laws change, that's not what determines truth. I hope you realize this atleast. I hope you realize that man made laws as the result of culture not science. Science does not deal in morality. Laws deal with morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly.Quote:
Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them.
You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy.Quote:
why not debunk us directly
If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it.Quote:
Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are
So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic.Quote:
Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God
I checked. It's still on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I never made any such claim. You said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I gave an example of where such lobbying in fact was successful. If you are unable to counter my real points, don't create fictitious ones to counter instead.Quote:
It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.
Hmmm, let's see. StephL showed widespread consensus among scientists of all fields supporting the validity of evolution including nobel prize winners and you decided to nitpick by giving an example of Obama, who won a nobel prize for peace because hey, surely all nobel prize winners have equivilent scientific credibility. It could not be that Ms L was pointing out that most scientists, including the most acclaimed of our times support evolution, which may suggest that there is good reason to believe it once you have been educated to that level. No! It must be that to her, it's the shiny prize that is important. I'm sure that with those "hours of work and research" that you put in, you had unearthed countless examples of nobel laureates with unsavory deeds including Fritz Haber who won one in chemistry and had been instrumental in the development and proliferation of chemical warfare during World War 1. It was only once you were done with all that meticulous research that you decided that the most relevent prize would be that in the field of politics and who would be more deserving of being singled out than that bastard Obama. Henry Kissinger? Meh, he's a small fry!Quote:
Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly.
You are a highly dishonest debator who likes to use emotional manipulation and misdirection. I do not see any evidence of genuine research or response in your posts. You just rattle on and on like a broken recorder. The rare times you have a point that can in fact be falsified (as in a substantial one), it always turns out to be wrong and when we point that out, you seem to ignore it altogether or dismiss the rebuttal as "brainwashed" or fruadulent.
Yeah, the fact that you can beat me at online chess would somehow counteract your demonstrably huge ignorance of biology, physics, geology, maths (yes, I was reading that thread) and total lack of intellectual honesty. I never made a single insinuation about your intellect or lack of in a post before but if you are going to go there, I'm not going to feign humility for the sake of appeasing your huge ego.Quote:
You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy.
Well if your idea of being direct with information is directing it at someone's behind, that would explain a great deal.Quote:
If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it.
No, I just said that so we will leave theology out of this and discuss purely what the empirical observations suggest, as in not in a book but rather in nature. We are not discussing God here, just the natural world or rather we were.Quote:
So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic.
Now, I'm not so interested. I tried to give you a chance but I don't think you are really interested in a debate. You just want to toot your own horn. Well toot away but don't expect us to move that caravan forward.
Deviant I don't even know where to begin. Your post is so out of this world and ridiculiously wasteful that if I replied to such rhetoric I would become part of the nonsense. I think I'll just go back and consider StephL's post and work through those misconceptions when I get more time.
*facepalm, don't you understand that lobbying is not based on science, it's a financial political practice that should be illegal.Quote:
where such lobbying in fact was successful
This is his modus operandi, it's not going to change. It's literally the only way he can argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Deanstar, seeing as how you posted all videos and actually stated nothing about evolution itself, and you failed to cite any kind of corroborating evidence (read: empirical data, specific examples, etc.) supporting your argument, this debate pretty much isn't even a thing. In order for a debate to work, you must present your side of the argument and give supporting evidence and references for your claims. Then the other side does the same. Then you rebuttal, then they rebuttal, etc. If you can't even do more than post a few videos of monologues and call evolution a delusion, then you do not have an argument. Simple as.
I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Attachment 7624 Made my day!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Going to do the transferring tomorrow...
Edit upon seeing posts: Yes we do have an ongoing conversation, Deanstar - but how about quoting my last before last post in the above linked through thread as an opening post? Or a compilation from that thread, say. That would have made it crystal clear, where we are coming from.
As announced above - I'll do that in some way or another, so that it can be found by potential wavering Creationists in here.
I watched the first 15 minutes of the DNA video and I've got to say I don't know if I've seen anybody use as many logical fallacies and misinformation to try and prove something ever. This guy truly takes the cake, I seriously couldn't force myself to watch the rest of the video because I felt like I was watching a satire. You're telling me and expecting me to believe, Deanstar, that you truly believe everything this man says? You don't disagree with a single point? If this is the case just go back to church with the rest of your people and get back to circle jerking. Leave the debating to the people who have sensible, rational, and credible arguments. Unless you really are a troll, you're just embarrassing yourself and discrediting the words of creationists capable of real debate everywhere. It's people like you and the DNA video guy that ruin it for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
DeanStar
I'mnearly 55 and from infancy I have yearned ... umm ... well I have searched and researched for truth. NOT just intellectually.
I have several belief systems.
And since I am a fully diagnosed "multiple personality".
(Discociative Disorder with imaginative reconstructive and boarderline personality) is my full diagnosis. I'm on the disability pension because of it.
And, because of my many personalities I can easily believe all my different belief systems without discomfort.
The best arguement for Creationism has not been mentioned in your links.
So
I spect U R saving that one for later (hahaha)
Oh!!! I just caught up with this thread iust now when I came here to post the above.
DeanStare please link your paper in this thread ... Maybe that argumemt I was refering too is in the paper you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That first video is flat out lying propaganda. They are not even misrepresenting facts or misunderstanding the subject, they are flat out lying. There is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and none that supports creationism. No real scientist doubt evolution, and creationism is dropping in popularity all across the world because it is a stupid nonsensical belief.
Believing in creationism instead of evolution is like believing the the earth is flat. You are totally wrong and the only way you could believe such a thing is if you ignore all the evidence all around you.
Call me ignorant for not watching the aforementioned youtube videos, but I've got to side with Alric and other posters in this thread. Basically, science is the best way of testing and observing our world, and that includes evolution. And meaning "science" in a non-theological sense. To believe that evolution is false requires ignorance of the progression of nature.
Animals have changed over time and have adopted traits (consciously and unconsciously) that best suite their adaptability to their environment and their success for reproduction. How can this be debated in a serious, academic setting? It's one thing to say that you believe evolution is some kind of delusion but there is no solid evidence against evolution. Anything that seems like it is again, logical fallacies and talking in circles. Probably brainwashing too, albeit largely unintentional I think, and I say this in the most non-offensive way I can. I don't think the Earth and all its life could get to this point without things like evolution. This is all a huge dynamic system and science is our go-to tool for making sense of it all. And science says evolution is part of the game. I don't know how else clear this can be.
Brilliant (!!!) BLUELINE
I have bookmarked QualiaSoup
There have been brilliant Bible believers even a couple of Saints from 400 years ago who agree (basically) will that Youtube
400 years a go a couple of Saints and hundreds of others said that there is a big gap between creation one and creation two in Genesis.
They said that each created animal could change slightly over many generations. The many cats in the world came from just one originally created cat. The same with wolf, horse, dear, etc.
I might not be able to find those two Saints but l will try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Evolution obviously happens. If animals didn't change over time, we wouldn't have dogs and farm animals like we do today. All dogs would look like wolves. They obviously don't. We know why they don't, because we selectively bred them to look different and for different purposes. Traits are clearly passed down from parents to child. I am not sure how anyone could deny this.
Only fundamentalist ideology can make people so blind.
Great video BLUELINE!!
Here's another one, which does a fine job of explaining matters in some detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
This is the multiply mentioned article:
And this is me transfer-quoting myself - I posted so much today - I'm exhausted and hope I don't need to edit too much - it's a hassle to transfer all the quoting/pics manually:Spoiler for Creationist article:
Here a review of a Nature paper, which was a multi-national effort in order to show, how evolution/natural selection having it's way leads to better adapted micro-organisms Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold -- ScienceDailyQuote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
These E. coli gained new features while evolving over 20.000+ generations - this number gives you a hint, why you can't see it happening from your armchair - a lot of reproduction usually has to go down before something significantly changes.
Then I have a really excellent source - bit more to read and preferably with switching on these grey cells: Observed Instances of Speciation
One more: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd
By the way - is “micro-evolution” a Creationist term? I only heard it in that context and not in university. Anyway - seems my link on bacteria was convincing - I thought, that's what's meant with the term?Spoiler for Evolution is with us today - it's really happening and under our eyes!:
The problem is one of perspective. As I described before, speciation happens primarily in bottle-neck situations or in other circumstances, where creatures are confronted with novel environments - not out of the blue. And it usually takes a lot of generations, when it happens. But it happens all the time - evolution is not "over" - it's an ongoing process. And I so happen to have something really interesting in terms of dogs and Creationism - Ken Ham had claimed, that the biblical story with Noah's flood would make for trees of biological variation just like science would find them to be the case for dogs. Not so – this video is very enlightening, I would say, for demonstrating, that Ken Ham wasn't shying back from complete quackery in order to make the myths seemingly reconcilable with evidence. But not only that - it explains genetic bottlenecks etc. very nicely - explains what the diagram Ham flashed on the screen actually says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7i-dtMaWk
It has – see above, and evolution has a tree-like structure, with the “basic kinds” coming first and then it`s diversification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Well – this "recently" has meanwhile become the past and evolution is out of “historical science” times today. Besides this mentioned fruit-fly, which I didn't yet look up – there’s more - see spoiler and of course in the fast enough replicating micro-organisms. But even if it were only possible to show it once in multi-cellular organisms - like with that fly - it would be proof of watchability already!Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
There are transitional life forms and more and more are being found. The feathered dinosaurs are not controversial, neither the fact, that birds evolved from dinosaurs - you've been belittling that idea - but please re-check the National Geographic link on feather evolution, I provided - you find transitional stages of dinosaurs with "almost-feathers" in that matter as well. Feather Evolution - National Geographic MagazineQuote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Creationists had for ages been clamouring, why we wouldn't find a fish with feet - the "Darwin Fish". Well - we did find dozens of them. And not only that - evolutionary theory lead to scientists predicting, where exactly they might find it - and they did:
Your Inner Fish: Book and PBS documentary on Tiktaalik and Neil Shubin.
I really recommend giving it due consideration:
Yeah - well - I guess, this does speak for itself, esp. what I fattened. That you need not evolve a new toolkit for making limbs instead of fins is also interesting, you see, it's easier to evolve "new features", when you can build them from pre-existing mechanisms. That such things pre-exist also confines evolution to a degree - it doesn't start all over again from scratch, but further differentiates, what was there already in a more primitive form. Why not as many transitional forms as other fossils? Well - look back to that video which fact-checked Ken Ham. What you learn, is that speciation is usually happening in a bottleneck situation, when population sizes are thinned out, and then later the new species stabilizes and gets bigger and bigger. There simply were not as many of those there, also not "needed", which is logical, if you consider, how it comes to pass. There's development for so and so long, and then stability for much, much longer - equals more fossils - until the next major environmental upheavals.Quote:
We all know the Darwin fish, the car-bumper send-up of the Christian ichthys symbol, or Jesus fish. Unlike the Christian symbol, the Darwin fish has, you know, legs.
But the Darwin fish isn't merely a clever joke; in effect, it contains a testable scientific prediction. If evolution is true, and if life on Earth originated in water, then there must have once been fish species possessing primitive limbs, which enabled them to spend some part of their lives on land. And these species, in turn, must be the ancestors of four-limbed, land-living vertebrates like us.
Sure enough, in 2004, scientists found one of those transitional species: Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues. Tiktaalik, explains Shubin on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, is an "anatomical mix between fish and a land-living animal."
"It has a neck," says Shubin, a professor at the University of Chicago. "No fish has a neck. And you know what? When you look inside the fin, and you take off those fin rays, you find an upper arm bone, a forearm, and a wrist." Tiktaalik, Shubin has observed, was a fish capable of doing a push-up. It had both lungs and gills. In sum, it's quite the transitional form.
Shubin's best-selling book about his discovery, Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, uses the example of Tiktaalik and other evolutionary evidence to trace how our own bodies share similar structures not only with close relatives like chimpanzees or orangutans, but indeed, with far more distant relatives like fish. Think of it as an extensive unpacking of a famous line by Charles Darwin from his book The Descent of Man: "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
"Many of the muscles and nerves and bones I'm using to talk to you with right now, and many of the muscles and nerves and bones you're using to hear me with right now, correspond to gill structures in fish," explained Shubin on Inquiring Minds. Indeed, despite having diverged from fish several hundred million of years ago, we still share more than half of our DNA with them.
"The genetic toolkit that builds their fins is very similar to the genetic toolkit that builds our limbs," Shubin says. "And much of the evolution, we think, from fins to limbs, didn't involve a whole lot of new genes."
Now, of course, none of this sits well with the young-Earth creationist crowd, who are continually trying to undermine science education and U.S. science literacy. What do creationists say about Shubin's research, and especially Tiktaalik? Turns out that creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has his answer ready to go: "There are no transitional forms that support evolution," he confidently declares in a minute-long audio track dedicated to debunking the Tiktaalik finding. Why? Because "the Bible says God made fish and land animals during the same week, not millions of years apart." That's just the beginning of the attempted takedowns that creationists have leveled against Shubin's work.
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...l-original.jpg
Pictured near where it was found is a Tiktaalik roseae fossil — one of the most complete of the dozens of specimens discovered to date.
Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues.
Photo courtesy PBS
Creationists snipe, raise doubt, and deny almost everything that we know, but the reason that Tiktaalik is such a momentous find appears to be beyond them: Evolutionary theory (complemented by an extensive knowledge of geology) predicted not only that this fish would have existed, but also that its fossilized remains would probably be found within a specific part of the world, in geological layers of a particular age. Hence, Shubin's many trips with his team to the Canadian Arctic, where those rock layers could be found. "We designed this expedition with the goal of finding this exact fossil," explains Shubin. "And we used the tools of evolution and geology as discovery tools to make a prediction about where to look. And the prediction was confirmed." Tiktaalik isn't just proof of evolution; it's also proof that the scientific process works.
Nevertheless, following the announcement of Tiktaalik's discovery in 2006, the creationists pounced. "My inbox is filled with some interesting emails," says Shubin. Over time, as the idea for Your Inner Fish began to gel, Shubin decided to seek out creationists, or less-than-evolution-friendly audiences, in person to try to explain the fossil and what it means. "I decided at that point, I'm going to go give talks in Alabama, in South Carolina, in Oklahoma, in Texas, and elsewhere, where I'll bring Tiktaalik with me, or the cast of Tiktaalik," says Shubin. "And I've done this every year."
Having the fossil to show, says Shubin, changes the entire nature of the discussion. "It's about the data, it's about the evidence, it's about the discovery," he says. "It's about, 'How do you date those rocks, how do you compare that creature to another creature?' Well, if we do that, we kind of win, because what it means is it changes the conversation in a way where it's now about evidence," he continues. "You're not going to change everybody's mind, but you're going to affect a few, most definitely. And that's kind of my passion. That's what I think I can bring to the table."
Here is a classical misconception. As I said before, the emergence of life from non-living chemistry is called abiogenesis, and has got nothing to do with evolution. Whatsoever. Evolution only starts, once you have a single-celled organism, but it does tell you nothing, not even hypotheses, as to how that life came into existence. We do have good hypotheses for that as well - but it's a different topic, and it gets always conflated with evolution by Creationists, because abiogenesis is indeed one of the phenomena, we're not able to definitively explain - we don't yet know enough. But seriously - it's just trying to distract people, if you throw that in under evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
I didn't yet look that up - but the fact, that we can't properly reconstruct every single sequence of happenings just means that - we can't yet explain every single aspect of it - but with time more and more of these "mysteries" get resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Ah - but now I did look it up - and tadaa - the respective transitional form is called "Pikaia" - not a mystery at all (any more). This article practically has ten "missing links" with text and pictures - so it makes for a fine reply to this segment of the Morris article: 10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution
So that should suffice to debunk this myth of missing links - they're all out there and abound - and they can all be googled individually.Quote:
10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution
As useful as it is, the phrase "missing link" is misleading in at least two ways. First, most of the transitional forms in vertebrate evolution aren't missing, but in fact have been conclusively identified in the fossil record. Second, it's impossible to pick out a single, definitive "missing link" from the broad continuum of evolution; for example, first there were theropod dinosaurs, then a large array of bird-like theropods, and only then what we consider true birds. With that said, here are 10 so-called missing links that help fill in the story of vertebrate evolution.
1. The Vertebrate Missing Link - Pikaia
http://0.tqn.com/d/dinosaurs/1/L/W/J/-/-/pikaiaNT.jpg
One of the most important events in the history of life was when vertebrates--animals with protected nerve cords running down the lengths of their backs--evolved from their invertebrate ancestors. The tiny, translucent, 500-million-year-old Pikaia possessed some crucial vertebrate characteristics: not only that essential spinal cord, but also bilateral symmetry, V-shaped muscles, and a head distinct from its tail, complete with forward-facing eyes. (Two other proto-fish of the Cambrian period, Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia, also deserve "missing link" status, but Pikaia is the best-known representative of this group.)
2. The Tetrapod Missing Link - Tiktaalik - see above
The 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik is what some paleontologists call a "fishapod," a transitional form perched midway between the prehistoric fish that preceded it and the first true tetrapods of the late Devonian period. Tiktaalik spent most, if not all, of its life in the water, but it boasted a wrist-like structure under its front fins, a flexible neck and primitive lungs, which may have allowed it to climb occasionally onto semi-dry land. Essentially, Tiktaalik blazed the prehistoric trail for its better-known tetrapod descendant of 10 million years later, Acanthostega.
3. The Amphibian Missing Link - Eucritta
Not one of the better-known transitional forms in the fossil record, the full name of this "missing link"--Eucritta melanolimnetes--underlines its special status; it's Greek for "creature from the black lagoon." Eucritta, which lived about 350 million years ago, possessed a weird blend of tetrapod-like, amphibian-like and reptile-like characteristics, especially with regard to its head, eyes and palate. No one has yet identified what the direct successor of Eucritta was, though whatever the identity of this genuine missing link, it probably counted as one of the first true amphibians.
4. The Reptile Missing Link - Hylonomus
About 320 million years ago, give or take a few million years, a population of prehistoric amphibians evolved into the first true reptiles--which, of course, themselves went on to spawn a mighty race of dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs and sleek, marine predators. To date, the North American Hylonomus is the best candidate for the first true reptile on earth, a tiny (about one foot long and one pound), skittering, insect-eating critter that laid its eggs on dry land rather than in the water. (The relative harmlessness of Hylonomus is best summed up by its name, Greek for "forest mouse.").
...
9. The Mammal Missing Link - Megazostrodon
http://0.tqn.com/d/dinosaurs/1/L/C/6...azostrodon.jpg
More so than with other such evolutionary transitions, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when the most advanced therapsids, or "mammal-like reptiles," spawned the first true mammals--since the mouse-sized furballs of the late Triassic period are represented mainly by fossilized teeth! Even still, the African Megazostrodon is as good a candidate as any for a missing link: this tiny creature didn't possess a true mammalian placenta, but it still seems to have suckled its young after they hatched, a level of parental care that put it well toward the mammalian end of the evolutionary spectrum.
10. The Bird Missing Link - Archaeopteryx
http://0.tqn.com/d/dinosaurs/1/L/u/C/-/-/archaeoEW.png
Not only does Archaeopteryx count as "a" missing link, but for many years in the 19th century it was "the" missing link, since its spectacularly preserved fossils were discovered only two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Even today, paleontologists disagree about whether Archaeopteryx was mostly dinosaur or mostly bird, or whether it represented a "dead end" in evolution (it's possible that prehistoric birds evolved more than once during the Mesozoic Era, and that modern birds descend from the small, feathered dinosaurs of the late Cretaceous period rather than the Jurassic Archaeopteryx).
Ah - but there's nothing wrong with what he says, even if it's misleading to quote this snippet and then cut him off midsentence! I'm sure it would be interesting, what the content of the ". . . ." section is. Besides that - I checked my dictionary for "virtually" to be sure, it means "almost" and not "entirely". And I've also checked "biota":Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
So it's important to know, what he actually meant. The way he put it, these biota have a "duration" - so I guess, he meant the term spatially, but it doesn't matter - what he said goes perfectly well with evolution. In stable conditions almost all critters in a geographic region/timescale will remain basically the same over the duration of this environment's stability. Changes up to actual speciation happen, when the environment changes. And if it stays stable - nothing much happens, "almost" nothing. I hope you can see how bringing along this crippled quote, not even bothering to quote the sentence as a whole, looks really weak from Morris. He wants to sell this mangled citation as a leading biologist disagreeing with evolution, which obviously it is not. Biologist Eldredge talks about punctuated equilibrium here - a classical evolutionary concept - and Morris claims it would contradict evolution. Morris must have known, must have, that he is wildly mis-representing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
What does that say about the validity of what he has to say? Nothing good.
Can't you see the dishonesty with which these quotes are made?
Anyway - without bothering to better this stuff - I throw it out, exhaustedly. Again - we could share take on the rest of the article in some organized fashion - or I'll go on in my own time.
I'm all too aware, how I could have done better - but this must suffice now for today.
Ah - but why not throw in this as well - the debate, where Ham brought his fraudulent claims about dogs etc.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Nye did a great job in my eyes - even Creationists agreed on it not having gone well for Ham (I could search for that - I read them lamenting about it somewhere).
Someone finally posted the Nye vs Ham debate, nice. Knowledge bombs were dropped during their face off. This is one of those threads where I really want to look away, but can't help reading it.
As StephL pointed out, there's the fossil record and biology that back up evolution. Yay fossils!
Someone probably already said this here, but I see a flaw in the way creationists (or people who disregard evolution because of their beliefs) try to claim that their religion predicted certain observable natural processes. So these people are calling dibs on how things work, when really they are borrowing/referencing research and work done by scientists over the course of history. I mean, if someone has to reference and gather data outside of their religion or belief system, then doesn't it show that it isn't complete and that these concepts didn't originate there? In my mind you just can't reference something after the fact and claim it to be yours. If something is already referenced than it may have been taken from a different source or discipline. If evolution really isn't true, then I'd want someone to show me how their particular religion or ideology says so, along with their own individual research and data. I think something like that, if taken seriously and empirically, would be nothing short of climbing Mt Everest on Naked and Afraid. Probably isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Why do you always make apeals to authority, institutions, jews, whatever it is....that's not how you verify a theory. We are talking about evolution. Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer. It astounds me the time wasted on trying to back this theory. So I'll say what others have said, since there is this unwillingness to even address anyone's work that I reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
More apeals to authority, this shows desperation I think. You in no way need to be an evolutionist to be a scientist. Otherwise I wouldn't be allowed my degree! lol.Quote:
Who do you think does the actual scientific discovering and technology inventing - the actual work? If you want to know about science and it's body of knowledge - ask scientists. Did you read the numbers? Which institutions have all partitioned?
You mean, like a scientologist, just brainwash and harass them until they say yes?Quote:
It's about trying to get it into one or the other Creationist head, be that you or somebody reading, that evolution has been proven zig thousand times already, and that zig different scientific disciplines are doing it!
No, what is out of touch, is the dating methods used to assume the earth is "billions of years" it sounds so ridiculious, like something out of an Austin powers movie. What's even worse is that you assume the sensible conclusion is the backwards thing. It makes a lot of sense to me the earth is around 6000 years old. And you know what makes even more sense to me? That others wouldn't believe it, just like they use to refuse to believe the earth was round. All through history man has been decieved by pseudo science for political agendas (mostly world government!) and this is not a new accasion.Quote:
Once you start with the 6000 years you're so absolutely out of touch with this technological age you invoke - it's baffling.
You were the one that refused to debate the actual theory itself. You had to resort to things like "science says, and scientists say" without engaging the material, which by the way you have posted none other than dust clouds, bits and parts from different animals, and assumptions about how they must have 'evolved' including dinosaur feathers. It's not that I don't understand the theory, it's that the theory makes absolutely no sense. I know it's a long held tradition in school systems, I know it is essential for all the tradgey in human history, and I just don't care to support it, because I am for humanity, not against humanity. Humans do have purpose and meaning from a designer, a creator which is God. I have a very real connection to Jesus Christ, the son of God. He fights all my battles and his spirit teaches and instructs me to live, and because of that you will never convince someone like me, that evolution is real. I am well and truly beyond childish notions about chance, and I think you should be too, or you are in significant danger. I care that you come to the right conclusion, but I can't force you.Quote:
And yes - what is proven, that's the relevant thing. If you want me to simply "accept" something, because you and other Creationists say so and the bible says so, then you got the wrong person, I'm afraid.
I'll keep looking into what you say about it, because I care. Just let me catch up in between breaks when I get the chance.Quote:
What I can do is provide you with the information, you claim would be missing, and rebut what your article says, as I already begun. That was up to now the one source of yours worthy of consideration and step by step rebuttal, because at least it sounds scientific and intelligent. So it's to be considered potentially harmful to impressionable minds. Being exasperated by the first two videos of this thread, I spare myself the rest. As Deviant says - I'd like to hear back from you on your source and my replies.
Isn't this the same thing as disproving evolution? Watched the "Evidence for Evolution fraud", but it seems to me is that a lot of assumptions are made, as well as pointing out plain old mistakes. The brontosaurus fossil for example, was a mistake made because of incorrectly classifying what was a apatosaurus. There was no conspiracy or intent to lie, and this revelation of the mistake was pronounced throughout the scientific community. However since the name "brontosaurus" had already been in use for some time, the name just stuck to it in popular culture. Plus it sounds more cool than saying apatosaurus lol. Anyway, this wasn't an attempt at fraud, but a mistake made based on the fossil remains at the time. The news article "Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed" by NPR summarizes what happens nicely. Also keep in mind this mix-up happened in 1877, so it is a very dated event to be pointing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
So again, how is evolution a lie and illusion? How is it wrong? I have to wonder why evolution sounds so threatening to people unless it is because it will unravel their religious or ideological framework. I would think things like the age of the Earth, red shifts from stars and galaxies, and things like M-theory would do more damage than evolution. Maybe since evolution is a simpler concept to grasp so it gets attacked more? In relation to Christianity specifically, I'm not sure what the big deal is. It has no mention of God, so maybe that's the kicker, but it seems like it leaves a lot of room for Christianity in terms of its conceptualization. I'm just wondering what the big fuss is about and why evolution is such a dangerous subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
There it is, you've finally come to the truth of how you really feel! This has got nothing to do with the science of evolution making no sense to you. At the end of the day the reason why creationists such as yourself battle against evolution is because you have somehow convinced yourself evolution takes God out of your life. So now you are fighting a holy war! The holy war against evolution!
But at the end of the day, the problem here isn't the science behind evolution, the problem is YOUR view of God doesn't allow for evolution. You have LIMITED your own God to a being that must be fundamentally separate from nature. You have LIMITED God to a being that cannot use a natural process, such as evolution. You have LIMITED God to only using "magic" that must be outside of nature and unexplained. That Gods work is in the "unexplained" which becomes problematic when that "unexplained" becomes the explained. Now what?
What an internal struggle.
But its all in your head. You're the one telling yourself that God can't use evolution to create life. You're the one telling yourself that evolution means your life has no deeper meaning. But if you really believe in an omnipresent and all powerful God *the fundamental Christian God*, then who are you, a mere human, to LIMIT how that God can or can't create life?
Do you not realize there are literally millions of people that believe in God and evolution at the same time? AT THE SAME TIME? Do you even fit these millions of people in your world view or ask how can they do this?
As a christian, you must be familiar with the concept of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a part of the trinity right? Therefore, a fundamental form of God. And arguably, the most IGNORED in Christianity. Where is the Holy Spirit found in christianity? In a book? NO. The bible is clear, the Holy Spirit is only found in LIVING beings. The belief literally translates the Holy Spirit as: The Spirit of God inhabiting a Living Being.
The bible is also very clear that not a damn human has the right to tell the Holy Spirit whom to inhabit, what to say, or what to do.
The burning bush is an example of the Holy Spirit inhabiting a bush. Thats GOD inhabiting a BUSH. Could the Holy Spirit have also inhabited the first fish-like thing to walk on land? Why not?
This is why the Catholic church has NO NEED to be against evolution. Evolution does not in any way diminish the Catholic God. I wish you could understand this view point, because this religious fight against evolution is silly and pointless. It doesn't have to take away your God, in any way.
If you want to discuss further, evolution can easily co-exist with spirituality. The theory of evolution literally states that all life on earth has ONE origin. We are all related. And we all come from the same source. This is both a spiritual and a scientific truth. And that's a really really nice union.
We do, in fact there has experiments done to show just this very thing. One well known one is with fruit flies that were split into two groups, and they were fed slightly different diets. After many generations they were put back together and it was found that the vast majority of the flies would only mate with other flies that were in the same subgroup as they were. Seeing how the thing that separates one species from another is the ability to mate and produce offspring, this would be the first step in two separate species branching off from each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
There are other animals in the wild that have shown to be very closely related, yet also split off into different species over time. The classic example is with the finches that Darwin found and now thanks to modern technology we can even take DNA from the birds and compare them, and it backs up evolution even further.
Also there are fossil records showing gradual changes among some animals, and even today you can find things like vestigial organs that are remains from our ancestors. There are also weird animals like fish that walk on land and stuff, which would be some transit point from a fish going into an amphibian.
We know for a fact the earth isn't 6000 years old. The entire field of science of astronomy and geology proves that, but we also have human made tools that also date older than that, and archaeological evidence showing human settlements prior to that time period. Then of course we have fossil evidence as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
So basically you are going to believe what you want, regardless of the evidence presented? Hmm I wonder why someone wouldn't want to debate you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Deanstar?
Why are you are not answering to my last post in here and do as if it wouldn't exist?
I went to the hassle of transferring this endlessly long thing into this thread, coming from the other thread, where you already didn't answer to it. So please look on page one in here, last post on the bottom, where I go through the first few paragraphs of your article, which I also quoted in whole.
I showed you evidence how evolution is happening today and not only in micro-organisms, how it happened in the past and what the transitional life-forms are, how your article wilfully misquotes biologists by for example claiming the concept of punctuated equilibrium would contradict evolution etc., etc., etc..
With links and quotes and pictures and whatnot.
Do you try to make the impression, this post would not exist, because it unfortunately is on the prior page in here?
Or have you really not seen it yet?
Please go back one page - you find my extended reply there - full of actual content - I wait for an answer to that.
Besides - if somebody like you claims that the scientific authorities would disagree with something, then showing that they do instead agree in overwhelming majority is an adequate argument and not a fallacy. But we dealt with that, get at my biological content!
Look here - in my last post there are among other things these links:
Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold -- ScienceDaily
Observed Instances of Speciation
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd
Your Inner Fish: Book and PBS documentary on Tiktaalik and Neil Shubin.
10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution
I will go through it line by line, but no time this evening, just wrote a quick response to something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Now that's a word!
Deanstar, I don't have the patience to sit through several hours of misinformed videos, so please tell me one specific argument against evolution that you find the most convincing, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it. Then you'll just be left with a bunch of arguments which are by your own admission less convincing than one which wasn't even valid. That'll do the job well enough and save us all some time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
Well, there you go. Address away.Quote:
Originally Posted by deanstar
I'd love to but I don't even understand what you mean at the moment. It looks you are saying that animals can't ever reproduce? Of course, animals can reproduce, we observe them doing it all the time. Please clarify.
I think he is referring to incidents of hybrid species which are commonly sterile. For example the mule is the offspring of a donkey and horse and a liger is a cross between a tiger and lion. Both are sterile. I'm assuming he has never heard of the cama (llama and camel) or the grizzly polar bear (rather self-explanatory) which are both examples of fertile hybrids. There are also numerous examples of asymmetrically fertile hybrids with the males usually being the infertile ones.
It's all rather irrelevant to how speciation actually occurs with natural selection but that's what I think he is referring to.
Edit: Actually, there have been a female liger that have successfully bred with a male lion so ligers are at least asymmetrically fertile.
Oh sorry, I confused you with the original poster. I'll let him speak for himself.
I thought to you, God is the only authority in the universe, and you constantly make appeals to his direct word (the Bible) as evidence for his existence and for evolution's impossibility. I guess by your own logic, you cannot, therefore, be verifying your theory that God truly exists and is the authority of the universe and evolution is impossible, then? Lol, do you ever think about what you say or is throwing eggs at your own face something you just enjoy doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I think we all need a break from this conversation:
http://youtu.be/oBDZtt0vWD8
That eclipse was pretty derp, would we immediately experience daylight again that suddenly? I think the responses on this page are getting to the core issues, though.
So I take it nobody bothered with all three videos at the start?
OP, you made it easy for the first video, since you said apeals to authority are invalid and the first video is a huge appeal to authority where the authority is the very group of people promoting themselves. Not to mention, the increase in islamic faith is from immigrants and not from converting french people onto it; in fact they (The french) hate these immigrants now because they are very violent. Also from 2007 to 2014 the number of religious people has gone down, not up according to a quick google search and the studies down by the french government (Except for islam and their increasing number from 1m to 4m mostly from immigrants).
The second video talks about Darwinism and the evolution Darwin proposed; I'm sorry to inform that Darwins theory of evolution is no longer in use. Much like Newton fails when it comes to the workings of gravity beyond our little planet/system, yet people don't say gravity is false based off this fact; Darwin was also of another era and his teachings have become rudimentary. Don't get me wrong, both of them have done amazing things and were great for their time but we have new concepts and a better understanding of the world now. So pretty much the second video is arguing against a rock and not evolution.
The third video kills itself, it says that without fundation the "theory" becomes useless. He says this after saying that Materialism is the fundation of both Atheism and Evolution which is not true. The one who described it was actually a man of faith; Charles Darwin and his wife (also cousin?) were people of Judeo-Christian faith, so while he didn't go with the local "everything was created as is" he also believed that evolution may have started from the Eden or "Creation Spot" so its fundation was not materialistic at all.
Atheism is also "without god" this says nothing about other beliefs in the supernatural/occult. Isn't one of the many Buddhism (or is it the original?) branches a form of atheism? So yeah, since his fundation was wrong then it becomes useless "and we still got 40 minutes to go".
That is for the three initial videos; so I think it would be better to stick to the discussion that was going on with StephL instead of the videos. You know, in case the rest of the videos/sources you have Deanstar are like the first three then yeah the initial talk/quote with StephL is much better to use since it got articles, rather than weird videos that kill themselves.
The creationist philosophical argument:
Nothing can exist without a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
That cause must be an invisible man with magical powers and a lot of bizarre rules.
The invisible man with magical powers has no cause.
In summary:
Everything must has a cause, therefore there is something with no cause.
The premise applies to everything but the conclusion based on it.
DeanStar
You have made quite a splash in the Dreamviews pool. On this thread you have attracted 12 contributers (StephL, snoop, Alric, Neo Neo, BLUELINE976, Darkmatters, juroara, Denziloe, Hukif, Universal Mind and me) among them are some of DV's renowned philosopher's.
I like your exciting and deep Dream Journal. (Seven Dreams so far) A dream entry is worth a whopping 10 community points. You also get one point for each tag for upto ten tags per dream. So that's potentially 20 Community points per dream entry.
Any way
I share about The Gap Theory in the comments of one of your dreams. The Gap Theory is why most Christians believe that evolution is true
but
from Adam and Evev the Earth is only six thousand years old.
Many believe The Gap Theory was started nearly a thousand years ago.
The day I'm considered a philosopher is the day philosophy as an academic field dies a slow, painful death.
So, I guess domesticated dogs and cats aren't a thing anymore? Last time I checked, dogs are not the same things as wolves, nor are cats lions or tigers. Humans caused this domestication and without us they would not exist. They are clearly different animals, as well. Mind explaining this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I think it's a fair assumption that he has never heard of those fruit fly experiments where they created new species in the lab simply through breeding. As in simply through reproduction, strains of fruit flies emerged that could not breed with each other. Creationism debunked without even a stupid doubt.
Here's a good article on speciation in general.
Evidence for speciation
I heard a Creationist claim, that the craters on the moon come from some sort of divine waterjets in connection with Noah's flood - forgot the exact non-reasoning about that...:D
Oh - and if we once make it to the moons of the gas planets - that's going to give us some fabulous planet-rising in the sky! Nice vid!
The E. coli is a form of bacteria. Now 20,000 generations of bacteria is a lot, and the reason it's possible to observe that many 'generations' and more in a lab is because it has absolutely no validty to things like full reproducing animals. Out of these small genetic variations of bacteria, I don't see anything significant to come out of this. All this experiment really proves is you can manipulate bacteria in a lab a little bit from some defects. But what would happen if you took that bacteria in it's natural conditions? Not much it would just act as it is, as it has for thousands of years. You could also observe bacteria growing on some food when it gets old and that's a natural process and it does not indicate the bateria is 'evolving'. Any small changes in forced conditions over so even 50,000 generations, is basically insignificant. For those reasons I don't think this experiment has any relevance to evolution theory, and you couldn't apply it to animals. It's bacteria!Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
You can't conclude what you see as "basic kinds" having any order whatsoever. You could definitely seperate kinds of animals. Elephants in one group. Crocodiles in another. Girafees, bears, birds, etc. But you can't take these groups and conclude that they all come from one source. None of these diverse animals can even mate with each other and there is no evidence that they once could, or that they branced off from the same animal. Evolutionist want to say that some bacteria in the sea grew into fish, and then dinosaurs and land animals. This is a massive leap and conclusion where there is nothing that suggest this other than their imaginations.Quote:
It has – see above, and evolution has a tree-like structure, with the “basic kinds” coming first and then it`s diversification.
A fruit fly could never be considered an animal, if you mutated a fruit fly, that wouldn't even count as a different kind. Species and kind are two different terms. Species is not a definition that I even use cause any genetic variation can be a 'species'. Blue and brown eyes or different races could even be a 'species' of humans. But that's not how I measure different kinds. There is a huge different between humans and say, chimps.Quote:
Besides this mentioned fruit-fly
The reason I am skeptical that feathers came from dinosaurs, is that no animal without feathers, has been able to grow feathers, and it's difficult to imagine even after thousands of generations, that something like a cow or a lizard, would ever begin to grow feathers. They do not have the genetics for it, lizards, cows, and other such animals have been reproducing since recorded history and we have never seen even one of these animals even begin to grow feathers, and there is no reason to suspect it is possible at all. Feathers are very different from crocodile skin, or scales, or even fur. It's just a fantasy.Quote:
There are transitional life forms and more and more are being found. The feathered dinosaurs are not controversial, neither the fact, that birds evolved from dinosaurs - you've been belittling that idea
Let me ask you a serious question about this. I'm not trolling or trying to be being funny. But give me an example and explain to me the origin of an elephant, and how it branches off and fits into the family tree relating to a girafee. In the family tree of evolution show the original animal, and how it branched off to eventually become the different things including the elephant, and giraffee. Then we can see the history and theory of these examples, and if it makes sense that a giraffe grew it's neck becoming spotted, while the elephant had another branch that grew it's nose, becoming grey skinned. These are two different animals. So I want to know from the family tree of evolution how they both evolved from the same animal somewhere in the past.Quote:
What you learn, is that speciation is usually happening in a bottleneck situation, when population sizes are thinned out, and then later the new species stabilizes and gets bigger and bigger.
So we can rule that out of the discussion, cause if it can't explain the origin of life, and has nothing to do with evolution, then evolutionist should never use it as an example for anything to try and prove evolution. Good.Quote:
the emergence of life from non-living chemistry is called abiogenesis, and has got nothing to do with evolution. Whatsoever. Evolution only starts, once you have a single-celled organism, but it does tell you nothing, not even hypotheses, as to how that life came into existence.
Since Darwin it was expected that the fossil record would resolve questions. But it didn't all the fossils observed contradicted the theory because of the explosion of life where all the fossils are just random and 'there' not in any linear or transitional sequence of evolution they just 'appear' as 'there' and there is no reason how they would have evolved according to the theory. Still today no fossils prove how we got all the animals, or how humans would have evolved. Darwin has been long disproven but still evolutionists continue to try and look for something. Along the way they have made up fake bones to try and support themself. They even used a pig tooth to create an entire animal to claim an evolutionary link to humans. This wild speculation and imagination is not scientific it's just deceptive.Quote:
the fact, that we can't properly reconstruct every single sequence of happenings just means that - we can't yet explain every single aspect of it - but with time more and more of these "mysteries" get resolved.
I could get say a knife, fork, and spoon. And say how I found the missing links to a fork, and how the fossil of the knife evolved into the fork. It's the same logic with bones in the ground. What a 'missing link' is, comes from whatever you imagination can make up with what you find. Even Lucy's hips were power sawed into a humans. So evolutionists have tried in the past to re-shape the bones, glue different bones together, even use different bones to make animals that didn't exist, all to fit their theory. Fossils are not a good way to try and prove evolution.Quote:
This article practically has ten "missing links" with text and pictures
I admit that the video's I posted in my original post of the thread, are far from perfect, but they each have some sort of piece to the puzzle about why I question the theory of evolution. I didn't reply directly to the videos and content of yours, because I think you will agree it's too much for us to reply to each others video's. It's easy to have a direct discussion, or I could post hours and hours of lecture's, and no-one would read it, and we couldn't discuss it on a forum in writing. So I suggest we just stick to our own words. It makes the discussion more straightfoward instead of just copy and pasting things from the internet. I mean if we are writing a paper, then yes the references will be in an essay format. But this is not an academic paper we just having a discussion about it.Quote:
I'm all too aware, how I could have done better - but this must suffice now for today.
Wow, I thought the sterotype of stupid creationists was a tad overblown by atheists and then I hear this tidbit coming from someone who considers his views on life to be more credible than the views of thousands of biologists.Quote:
A fruit fly could never be considered an animal
Guys, I think we are done here. We don't need to debunk this thread when he is doing a better job of debunking it than any of us. Sorry if that devalues your work (especially Ms L's) but face the facts people: we are way out of our league here.
That is very different, from my reasoning. As a philosophy that's complex to reason about it and I wouldn't have all the answers but I could conclude something like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(So basically, cause and effect, every law of nature, every kind of power material and invisible, created by the Lord)
Now you may ask, and how did God create himself who created God?
I would bring up something like this
Colossians 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
(so basically being omnipotent, he overcomes everything and can do anything, even questions about the seeming impossibility of his existence)
That is some of the creationist doctrine. As a philosophy I could reason about it in many different ways, but I would never go along the reasoning that you did. You made that reasoning up just to make a mockery of things.
There is a theory called "gap theory" in which some believe that in genesis, is a gap of a extremely long period of time, in which some try to fit 'evolution' into the bible.
I don't believe in this theory because The bible (KJV) makes it clear that it is refering to 7 days of creation. Not periods of billions of years. There is no reasoning which makes any sense to suggest there is millions of years between a verse in genesis. Most of the history of the earth is put together within the old testament. There is not massive gaps of time left where God tries to use 'evolution' and I would never subscribe to that for many reasons. I just wanted to put that out there for people that want to say that evolution is a possible tool God could use. I don't think it is, and in using evolution that would be admiting that creation needs constant 'improving'. But it states that from the beginning what he made was "good" in that you could not improve upon it. So this idea that he needed 'evolution' does not really make sense because otherwise he wouldn't have said after each day of creation, "and it was good", this is like a stamp of aproval that says, it's perfect, you can't improve it. As discussion here, The theory of evolution to me also makes no scientific sense, so not even any principalities support such a theory, let alone something God would want to use.
Okay dude, how about you read up on elementary school biology before you try to invalidate the cumulative work of thousands of PhDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Are you saying that you think a fruit fly is an animal? You do realize that people with phDs disagree with each other all the time....Science is mostly about challenging things, not blindly accepting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
Yes, it's so clear now - it has Fruit right in the name - how could I not see it before… :cackle:
Ok, if it's not an animal, then what the heck is it?
It must be a plant. Fruits are plants.
It is time to admit that you don't know what you are talking about. Of course a fruit fly is an animal. What the heck do you think it is, a plant? Fungus? A single cell organism? No it is an animal. Any one who says a fly isn't an animal has no clue what they are talking about.
This is silly, you can't just make up your own definitions of what words mean. You are also doing it with the word species and kinds. Kinds isn't a term to define anything. It is gibber, nonsense creationist made up to basically mean, "It looks kind of a like." It isn't even a clearly defined term. Mean while, in science species are clearly defined. They have an entire system of organizing life forms and species refer to the smallest subgroup of life, and refer to life forms that can interbreed and produce fertile life forms.
When you make up words like kinds of animals, you get very vague terms and no one knows what the heck your talking about. Creationist use that to confuse people.
As for the feather thing, you are basically describing what happened. The line of animals that produced feathers, all have feathers because some ancestor common to all of them had feathers. You wouldn't at all expect random animals like cows or even many lizards to have them. If you trace it back and a group branched off prior to the first feathered animal, then you would not expect them to ever have feathers. The only animals with feathers would be the one that branched off after the development of feathers.
As for the fossils you are just wrong. Fossils are found in layers which help date them, and we can see that fossils appear in order. As you go further back from recent geological history to longer ago, you can trace animals back to their common ancestors. The fossils do not show up randomly, but in ways that confirm evolution.
Yes, Scientists do contradict each other all the time when the topic on hand is disputed.
The question of whether a fruit fly is an animal or not is not one of those examples.
It is an animal, an insect to be specific just like all flies (yes, even butterflies).
It's multi-cellular, requires food to survive, is highly mobile, lacks a cell wall or any chloroplasts in it's cells.
Honestly, what part of a fruit fly do you think lacks the criteria to be an animal?!!
If anything, the question of whether dogs are examples of animals or not would be more reasonable to doubt!
After all, insects make up the vast majority of species of animals on earth and have been around for way longer.
I don't even think most creationists would be so ignorant to consider the fruit fly to not be an example of an animal.
You make Kent Hovind look like Francis Crick!
And this:
Yes, science often involves challenging things and not blindly accepting them (like blindly accepting the doctrines of the bible for example).Quote:
Science is mostly about challenging things, not blindly accepting them.
However, challenging things is not an end to itself in science. The goal of science is to form increasingly more accurate models of reality.
What that means is that when a theory gets overturned, the new theory predicts a narrower range of values for a particular phenomena.
I want you to read that sentence again and again until the implications sink in.
As science advances, successive theories have predictions that resemble each other more and more with only minor deviations. Newton's laws of gravitation went unchallenged for three hundred years and were overturned from an error margin in the 1000th's. That's because scientists have this arrogant idea that their models of reality should be true all the time instead of merely some of the time and what's more, they should be precise predictions that cannot have ambigious interpretations.
I know that's a difficult concept to understand for a creationist who's relationship with truth makes Tiger Woods look like the champion of fidelity but that's how it is.
But none of that matters to you since you believe the word of intellectual invalids that think their knowledge of an ancient text gives them more insight over the natural processes of the universe than the ones who actually bothered to get off their asses and observe it. What's more, you have the audacity to complain about the conclusions that they make using that approach on a device only made possible from their knowledge.
https://i.imgflip.com/bwevh.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
https://i.imgflip.com/bwf2y.jpg
The same question still applies - if insects aren't animals, what are they? And a sarcastic internet meme isn't an answer.
An animal is things like, a Kangaroo, a Dog, a Cat. a Lion. An insect is things like, a Fly, an Ant, a Spider, a Bee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Insects are very different to animals. I'm not trying to be mean, but you really need to get basic concepts right before you try and prove a theory that doesn't make any sense in the first place.
Well, I'm not trying to prove a theory. The theory is well established. You're the one trying to disprove it - or rather Creationists in general are, but unfortunately they just don't understand science well enough to even take a decent stab at it. But then thats not really true - actually it's not that they (the leaders of it anyway) really don't understand science - it's rather that they know if they spin enough emotionally satisfying half-truths and myths then the flock will just regurgitate those and never actually take a real look at science or truth.
A complex living thing - above the level of viruses, bacteria, and single-celled organisms, must either be an animal or a plant. Though someone who is more scientifically literate than I feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. (No Deanstar, that does not mean you!)
So now, insects don't exist? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Another example of a animal, is a Raccoon. It is in fact my favourite animal, I think it is the one with the most attitude, and the one I most relate to, always good to spice things up a bit :)
The fundemental difference between animal and insect
http://www.ilmoamal.org/bms/attachme...it9_image1.jpg
http://kinderkraftz.com/images/10-ANIMAL-2.jpg
Darkmatters, can you see the main difference in the creature that would effect evolution theory? If you compare a butterfly to say the evolution of tiger. You must see how you are dealing with a different set of creatures. Insects arn't in the same category.
This has gone beyond embarrassing, Deanstar. "Animal" does not mean the same thing as "mammal". Do us all a favour and spend two minutes on Wikipedia. Unless you've just decided to start trolling.
I don't care about the semantics, call it whatever you want. Call an insect a type of animal if you want! Fact remains they are a different category. Why use fruit fly species, to try and prove that different types of animals can evolve. I think that is embarassing to say that is science....Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
Insects because creepy. Animals because fluffy. Duh!
Well their argument is that an insect is still a type of animal, cause if they want to prove the ocean is where we came from, resort to things like tiny fruit flies and bacteria. If you go small enough you can say even a tiny mutation is relevant, and then jump to a massive conclusion about fish turning into dinosaurs, and then birds somehow. It doesn't have to make sense, they just have to claim that it does, then you not allowed to question it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ Dreamer ~
I look at all those creatures and think "that's an amazingly diverse set of creatures in both categories" but evolutionist look at it and think "how can I join them together and create a story about how they mated to morph into all that? Maybe use fruit flies or some bacteria will do" Someone for intelligent design is going to recognize that there is no theory capable of explaining or proving how all these different animals obtained their DNA seperately. An evolutionist starts lining up different bones, and making assumptions about how the bones changed. Someone for intelligent design will question if bones ever change, and recognize that the fossil record doesn't allow for these changes. An evolutionist will try and date the earth back billions of years. Someone for intelligent design is going to question how with any chemical you could use as a ruler, or any dating system you could make an assumption that goes back as far as a billion years. When you really start to question it, you realize that evolutionist do not rely on evidence or critical thinking, they rely on simply repeating themselves and then changing their theories when it fails, and then repeating themself again until it fails. They will never admit it's not a valid theory. Their agenda is to make it work even when it's not true and even when everything says different. Their message is that evolution must continue to exist in science. But the more we understand science the more we wan't to get rid of the theory of evolution.
I think one of the reasons a girafee has such a long neck, is probaly to try and get through to evolutionists that it didn't evolve it's neck longer than the other animals. That's Gods way of saying, "No evolutionist, Just, No" And then for extra measure create an animal with a massively long nose such as a elephant, just incase you think something like the giraffee is a fluke. Actually put spots on different animals, stripes. Make them have fur, feathers, scales. Even a tail or a massive pink ass. Make them completely different. Just incase someone tries to say they could come from each other. LOL. But no evolutionist still want to say they have a common link, that somehow goes back to bacteria in the sea :/
Well they didn't come from the sea, and we don't even fit into the animal kingdom altogether. We are completely different again! I can't imagine how this theory even manages to think it's proven. Just all of the ecology and life on earth is so ridiculiously organized and complex, and definite, that the mere thought of the evolutionary theory is like the ultimate joke you would tell someone.
If the theory of evolution wasnt invented, and I said to someone, hey lets imagine that all these animals, and us, that we all struggled to change our genetics over generations, and that we had success and now look at everyone, all different types of things, and we might be different again in the future, and just imagine if we did it all from the sea from bacteria. And some of our family went into elephants, some went into tigers, others went into humans, others went into fish and whales. That we are working on some angel wings to fly next. Would you not be on the ground dieing of laughter. Without the indocrintation from a young age, I can assure you it would be funny, as it is funny to me, and anyone that has truly thought about it. You can't pretend this is real, it's just foolish to continue on thinking that the theory is science.
it's getting to the point where I think you know it's false but would rather lie through your teeth, and just hope that people will be foolish enough. It has even being admitted here that evolutionists can't explain the origin of life, and that they have to start from a living organism, and then they make their stories up. They don't even bother to try to explain properly how the earth formed, and if they do, that sounds just as ridiculious as anything else. They can't jump from chemicals to life, they pretend they can jump from baterica to animals. They want to ignore the differences between animals and even say that small changes in insect variation prove about larger different kind of animals? It's just one fallacy after the other. But at the same time, if you question it. they project all their faults on to the sensible thing.
Awwww - what could be fluffier than this?
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/25/395...140_z.jpg?zz=1
And I suppose now these guys are demoted to insect status:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...c67198af4a.jpg
Wow, somebody better tell the biologists!! They're going to have to re-do all their taxonomies!
Taxonomy isn't semantics. It is exact and meaningful. You were simply ignorant about it. Fruit flies are animals. This is not a matter of semantics, this is just a fact. To claim that fruit flies are not animals is wrong. Your problem with using fruit flies as an example of animal evolution is, therefore, imaginary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Ok, I see what this is now. The Creationist argument that we can't witness evolution in progress was disproven by the fruit flies experiments, and so they did a quick re-think and decided that from now on, and of course retroactively, insects are no longer animals. Lol, it's so amusing to watch the counter-logic twist and turn in ever-more-intricate ways to help adherents ignore truth in all its insidious forms!
But of course, whatever you consider flies to be, they still demonstrate evolution in action. Plants aren't animals, and yet they evolve just as we do. Hell, so do viruses and bacteria and single-celled organisms!! Everything alive evolves, whatever you might classify it as. So really this doesn't even help the Creationist argument at all!
Of course insects are animals - 'animal' refers to the kingdom Animalia, not a sub-group, which I'm 100% sure you already know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I was just having a chuckle to myself about this whole ridiculous argument (which I'm not getting sucked into, you can't make me!) :tonguewiggle:
Insects aren't animals??? No, no, don't go there. Just stop. STOP. STOP WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. STOP PANIC.
I call them insects because that's their category.....By your logic, tigers and bears can also be insects because they part of the same group of animals. I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
So your argument is that the Bible says it's true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Tigers and bears are MAMMALS. Thats why they look different from INSECTS.
Are dolphins FISHES?
Just stop. Your argument is shameful. All it does is broadcast to the whole of dreamviews that you fundamentally lack education. I don't know how old you are, I don't know where you live, what school you go to. And I'm not out to make you cry, because for all I know you could be 12. In that case, Id forgive you.
But if you are an adult. This is shameful. Inexcusably, abhorrently, shameful.
Why are insects in the ANIMAL kingdom? First off, they have animal cells. Animal cells are roundish. Compared to plants, which are rectangular. And we haven't even gotten into mushrooms which are neither animals or plants.
Insects are animals.
Insects have eyes. Insects have hearing. Insects have mouths and tongues. Insects have brains. Insects have organs. They eat, they drink, they shit, they piss. Insects have sex, as male and female. Insects lay eggs. Just like fish. Just like amphibians. Just like reptiles. Just like birds.
Insects exhibit complex social structures, like mammals. They are animals.
Your confusion stems from your misunderstanding that animals are divided largely into two classifications: Invertebrates and Vertebrates. We are vertebrates. That means we have a spine. Insects are invertebrates. That means they lack a spine. But both invertebrates and vertebrates are a part of the animal kingdom. Again, because of cellular biology.
This is not a debate.
**I am giving examples of what insects can exhibit, not that they all exhibit those characteristics.
Come on guys, this is actually entertaining!
The article that was posted by deanstar under "Who or what is God to you?" that falsified evolution talked about fruit flies and macro-evolution. I think it has been stablished that chaining these two together is nonsensical and makes it embarrassing to call you a scientist. Obviously the scientific case against evolution article is not scientific and is also embarrassing therefore deanstar has properly debunked another one of his sources.
Who was it that mentioned Llama/camel? Lets work with that, until animal actually means two-legged.
That was me. I think people should stop posting on this thread. Let this become his echo chamber. By spending time here, we are diverting attention and hits from more fruitful threads.
He is either trolling or hopelessly wilfully ignorant. Either way, engaging him in a scientific context is a waste of calories.
My argument is, how would an apple tree start growing out of the ground, without any genetic information of it's seed. Say there is no plantlife a seed is a very definite object that contains very specific complex DNA information. How does it grow out of the ground by itself. This argument goes for litrally every living thing, not just plants with seeds. Things that reproduce require certain genetic information. You can't make a leap from chemicals, to things like plants, bacteria, animals, humans. They are distinct categories of things with completely seperate DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I have faith in the bible, yes. But the topic is that evolution is a fraud based on what we know already in science.
You just proved my point. They are different from insects. Clearly you can't use fruit flies to prove something about mammals. Anything that lives in the sea such as whales and dolphins, they cannot survive on land can they? What does it make them? It doesn't make them something like a Lion, cause a lion can't live in the sea either. Amazing isn't it what happens to your brain when you want to believe in evolution after years of getting it thumped into youQuote:
Originally Posted by juroara
that's quite funny considering you have about the logic of a 12 year old in this argument.Quote:
Just stop. Your argument is shameful. All it does is broadcast to the whole of dreamviews that you fundamentally lack education. I don't know how old you are, I don't know where you live, what school you go to. And I'm not out to make you cry, because for all I know you could be 12. In that case, Id forgive you.
It depends what type of insect. What type of organs would an Ant have. What brain. A earthworm could be considered a type of insect and does it have eyes or a brain? Does a snail have brains, organs or tongue? What about a lady beetle. I mean if you are going to go through all the insects, we would be here for a long time.Quote:
Insects have eyes. Insects have hearing. Insects have mouths and tongues. Insects have brains. Insects have organs.
you are going on a massive rant about insects for no reason. Cause it's obvious how silly it is to try and say different groups of fruit flies prove about evolution.Quote:
Insects have sex, as male and female. Insects lay eggs. Just like fish. Just like amphibians. Just like reptiles. Just like birds.
It's a comedy.Quote:
This is not a debate.
o_O
yeah
I'm just gonna sail my boat over the edge now. Lucky for me my world is round!
Yep. We can't deny it anymore people. He's presented his evidence and the verdict is in. There's just no getting around the logic of it.
Its time to admitevolutionCreationism is a fraud :rockon:
All insects are animals, but not all animals are insects. Pretty basic logic there.
???
In Gods Creation all animals were vegetarian, 100%. I think the first creation, were god created His Heavenly Host was on this planet
but
none of the 7 catagories of angels had physical bodies (and still don't). But they were on this planet, in a non physical dimension.
I believe those totally vegetarian animals were part of of gods second creation and are in a similar, non physical dimention on Earth.
Quote:
Genesis Chapter 1
Verse 1) - In the beginning God created the*heaven*and the earth. (Big bang and Heavenly Host)
Verse 2) - And the earth was without form,
and void;
(War in Heaven and one third of angels fall out of original dimension)
and*darkness*was upon the face of the*deep.
And theSpirit*of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(...)
Verse 30) -
And to every*beast*of the earth,
and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
wherein there is life,
I have given every green*herb*for meat: and it was so.
Maybe through dreams and synchronicities god will walk us through the night to some place green.
♥♥♥
Jimmie Rodgers - Someplace Green: Jimmie Rodgers - Someplace Green - YouTube
♥♥♥
Lyrics
The good Lord made man, then he rested for a little while
Said look what I've done, ain't he pretty, then he cracked a smile
I'll watch him grow, I'll hear him talk, learn to love and fight
But when he's had his fill of these I'll walk him through the night
To someplace green (someplace green)
Someplace nice (someplace nice)
Someplace that I (ooh-ooh) call paradise
Growin' greener in the rain
Waitin' there for man to claim
The good Lord looked down on the earth one afternoon and frowned
Said man ain't learned an awful lot since I carved him out of ground
He's built a lot of steeples of clay and rocks and sand
But he hasn't learned to get along with his fellow man
And someplace green (someplace green)
Someplace nice (someplace nice)
Someplace that I (ooh-ooh) call paradise
Is growin' greener in the rain
Waitin' there for man to claim
The good Lord's been around a while, he'll turn a tee at least
And I guess he'll be around a while, when time and tide have ceased
Lookin' down from somewhere, tryin' hard to find
If man has earned his paradise the other side of time
And someplace green (someplace green)
Someplace nice (someplace nice)
Someplace that he calls paradise
Is growin' greener in the rain
Waitin' there for man to claim
Yes growin' green, green, green in the rai-ai-ain
Waitin' there for man to claim
http://i.imgur.com/KpPrmtl.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
What probably happened in this thread.
Uuups - okay guys and gals - I'll come back later today, I guess - caught myself some nastily evolved bug with fever and just crawled out of bed way past noon, still quite shook from all the super-intense dreaming that it brought me.
See ya later - sorry for that - I WILL BE BACK!! :sleepysteph:
Huh? Anyone know why he got banned? I mean he's a troll and all but he did keep most of it to his own threads unless if there are activities of his that I didn't pick up on.
Any moderators here to help clarify things?
He got banned for accumulating enough infraction points for a 1 month ban.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I guess I'm sort of surprised that I never got any infraction points considering the caustic tone of some of my messages to him, not that I'm complaining or anything.
I will not ask for further details since it is none of my business.
Just wanted to make sure that he was not banned by some disgruntled atheist mod for disgruntled atheist reasons.
My bad it was a perma ban, for the same reason of earning all the infraction points a member can earn.
And I don't mind folks asking, because I know it can appear on the outside that a member got banned for arguing with other members in a thread. That can look scary because then everyone is suddenly "oh shit am I next? I argued too!" But we're so not like that here. One has to be very dedicated and put significant effort into getting permanently banned from DV.
Talking about bans (Sorry, I don't have much time, I'm making pancakes again :cheeky:)
Secular triumph as government bans creationism from free schools and academies - Education
Remember like two weeks ago when all my posts towards deanstar sounded like this, some people liked them, others thought they were harsh for not giving him a chance......It only takes one experience with a troll to recognize them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
I will be sure to take into account your superior experience in the handling of trollkind in the future, Mr. Raptor.
Now I suggest that this thread be locked. It has run it's course and the last thing we need is for someone to necro it back to life.
Good idea
*locked
