Large Scale Central

Record temperatures

General Discussion
#321
mike omalley said:
Leaving religious questions aside, the evidence in support of the theory of evolution is overwhelming. Next time you go to the doctor with an infection, tell him you don't believe in the theory of evolution, and you want plain old penicillin, not the fancy new antibiotics that are effective against the penicillin-resistant bacteria that have evolved in the last 80 years.

The theory of evolution may indeed be wrong and flawed in some aspects, but it’s far and away the most objectively verifiable, scientifically sound explanation for change. ALL the scientific evidence supports the idea. It corresponds beautifully to the evidence of the natural world. Doubting evolution is like doubting the laws of thermodynamics. We might indeed find that the laws of thermodynamics are not what we think they are someday–who knows, maybe we’ll have warp drive. But in this world, now, the theory of evolution is the most credible, provable explanation for change in living creatures.

If someone wants to argue that God has created disease resistant bacteria since the discovery of penicillin in 1928, not natural selection, then the terms of the discussion shift to questions of faith, and I’d put them in a different thread.


You are confusing adaptation with evolution. The bacterium do not morph into tadpoles.

You are wrong, not ALL scientific evidence supports the idea. Much scientific evidence points to " so called “punctuated evolution” which sounds more like Creation. There are no transitional forms evident in the billions of fossils found, nor none evident today. If evolution was a fact, we should still be seeing evidence of transitional forms like rat-bats or dog-horses in the 21st century.

#322
David Hill said:
I will grant you the to our modern "logical" understanding (programmed biases) the Creation account in the Bible is pretty far fetched. What I am asking is for is both theories to be presented in school with equal emphasis and to allow students to understand that evolution is not "undisputed" as you and I have proven here.

.


David,
Do you live in Dover,PA?

#323

No sir. The Lehigh Valley, PA.

#324
mike omalley said:
...................

If someone wants to argue that God has created disease resistant bacteria since the discovery of penicillin in 1928, not natural selection, then the terms of the discussion shift to questions of faith, and I’d put them in a different thread.


Yes Mike and best start that thread with a prayer! :wink: :slight_smile:

#325

For generations scientists theorised over the existence of the smallest particle in the universe and called it an atom. At the time no one had a means of actually verifying its existence, but the theory fitted all the criteria to explain the way in which matter behaved. Of course one proven, even smaller particles were detected.

If anyone was to doubt the existence of the atom, then remember that the smallest particle in the world, had the capacity to destroy the largest object in our immediate environment, our earth.

Many scientific studies began with a theory. Look to the early studies by Galileo. He took on the idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe, as stated in Genesis. Several scientists of the day had already been executed for heresy for not recanting their views on the sun. Galileo recanted but was held under house arrest for the rest of his life. Look to Newton’s Laws. These started with a theory as to how an apple could fall from a tree. The actual tree, although damaged, quickly regrew and is still living outside his residence. Look to the theories that started the studies into bacteria, infection and sterilisation/pasturisation. Look to the studies in atomic radiation and even flight. At some point in time, man had to theorise what may be possible.

Is it any doubt that a rational man would theorise as to his very beginning and the birth of his universe. To a scientist, the bible is not a text book. Taken one step further, the bible is only a theory, as a fact requires proof of evidence. Simply saying that religion requires faith of the individual does not mean that the ‘theory of religion’ is a fact. Taken as a cold hard fact, there is no evidence that a god exists, but most of the inhabitants of our world, accept the existence of a god, a supreme being who created all around us, simply on faith. Similarly, the Theory of Evolution , the ‘Origin of Species’, was Darwin’s attempt to understand the world around him. God could have been there the entire path of creation/evolution and I doubt that many scientists doubt the existence of God. Many of our emminent scientists, over the years, have actually been ministers of religion. I cannot see the how a rational person could simply accept a fundamental belief, totally devoid of fact and yet deny a theory that attempts to explain our existence. My theory is that evolution shakes the core of their beliefs and they fear the possible outcome that their belief system may be a hoax.

#326

Mike,
penicillin spore was noted in 1928, but it was not until the early 1940’s, that penicillin, itself was ‘discovered’. The Nobel Peace prize was co-awarded to the 1928 ‘accidental discoverer’ of penicillin spore and the actual person/team, who isolated the drug and is really the true discoverer. By a trick of deception, the 1928 ‘discoverer’ was the first to administer the drug in the 1940’s, even though he did not develop the drug or have any part in the manufacture of the drug.

#327

Mike,
David apparently has no problem with a species ‘adapting’. It is the evolution part that has him worried. Adapting does not conflict with his beliefs.

#328

Deleted

#329
TonyWalsham said:
David Hill said:
You are mistaken Tony. I do not demand proof of evolution, because I know there is no proof. At least none has yet to be found.

I will grant you the to our modern “logical” understanding (programmed biases) the Creation account in the Bible is pretty far fetched. What I am asking is for is both theories to be presented in school with equal emphasis and to allow students to understand that evolution is not “undisputed” as you and I have proven here.

What is so difficult to believe that if two adults, male and female are isolated and have children, that those children interbreed and have children of their own creating a society? I thought that was your question about Cain’s wife.


So, at last you tell us you are a Creationist. Thank you. That explains an awful lot.

Please don’t assume I mean anything in my question.
The question is simple enough.

Where did the wife of Cain come from and who were her forbears?

As to your orginal answer many pages ago.
You do understand what happens when brothers and sisters interbreed?
Be they modern day humans, or even humans from 6.500 years ago when mankind was supposedly created.
I find it hard to believe that any rational human being would accept that it is genetically OK for that to happen.


The Bible states that God created Adam and Eve as perfect human beings. They would have no genetic deficiency. Medical science knows many environmental influences damage human genes and may cause deformities, e.g. nicotine and radiation may cause birth defects. With two perfect sets of genomes the possibility exists that the problems seen from interbreeding today would not have been a problem until much later in civilization. It wasn’t until after The Flood (IIRC) that it was forbidden for brothers and sisters to marry.

As a scientific proof for Man having a single ancestry, medical science has been able to examine mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondria are organelles in the cells of every human that carry a small amount of DNA. Mitochondria are inherited solely through the egg from the mother, allowing the identification of descendants from any female lineage. Variations in mitochondrial DNA between people have conclusively shown that all people have descended from one female, just as it is stated in Scripture.

The instability of the mitochondrial genome and computer simulations modeling mutation load in humans indicate that the human mitochondrial genome is very young, which fits within a biblical time frame.

Y chromosomes are passed on to sons from their father, and just as mitochondrial DNA shows that all have descended from one female, Y chromosome analysis suggests that all men have descended from one common ancestor.

#330

David,
we also share a large percentage of our DNA with apes. Could Adam and Eve have been apes??? Your mitochondrial DNA theory (proof?) sounds extremely vague, although you do say that the ‘y’ chromosome ‘may’ be traced to a single human. Therefore, as Genesis says that man and woman were created in chapter 1 and Adam and Eve created in chapter 2, then, one must conclude, with your ‘evidence’ that all the humans created in chapter 1 must have perished and not passed on their genes. What about the genes carried by the tribe from the land of Nod where Cain was sent after killing his brother. Using your same analogy, then the Nodians must also be descended from Adam and Eve as to disclaim otherwise, would imply that all of Cain’s descendants, as detailed in Genesis chapter 2, must have similarly perished, along with all the people from Genesis chapter 1. Do you see a flaw in your mitochondrial ‘evidence’. Cain could only have carried the ‘y’ chromosome from his ‘perfect’ parents. How did the mitochondrial DNA carry over to the tribe from Nod? Remember that Genesis lists Cain’s descendants, so unless he had it off with his mum then he must have mated with the tribe from Nod and thus the mitochondrial lineage would have been broken. Maybe your ‘proof’ is in fact a ‘theory’?

   Also,  you state that the bible states that god created Adam and Eve as 'perfect human beings'.  Off chance you would not have a reference for that,  as my reading of the real bible seems to have deleted any reference to them being perfect.  Of course,  there are numerous rewrites of the original bible,  so anything is possible.  There is reference to man being created in 'his own image and likeness'.  Is this your perfection theory????  God is perfect and thus any being created in 'his own image and likeness' must also be perfect.  Is this not the sin that Lucifer committed,  believing himself to be perfect and we all know where he finished up?  You are digging so many holes for yourself that I may liken you to a gopher.  Try some backfilling occasionally,  as your arguments are full of holes.  I do enjoy the reading,  though,  as it gives a sense of character and an insight into the person.
#331

Deleted

#332
Tim Brien said:
Mike, David apparently has no problem with a species 'adapting'. It is the evolution part that has him worried. Adapting does not conflict with his beliefs.
As a man of faith I feel that this argument is irrelevant to my belief. Not being sarcastic or taking sides, please note this voice is from a male of 38yrs with a 10th grade education.

Mr Walsham,
The answer your after cannot be answered! Is this the answer your searching?
It could have been his sister? There could be 5000 yrs time lapse in between verses, or she could have been sent from Hell? I have met a few women where that possibility could exist! The most important thing about Christianity is the teachings of Christ in the New Testament! You seem like a well read man, and it’s a good read if your up for it?
Either way this thread has been quite a learning experience for me . I’m a firm believer in the right’s of my country…freedom of voice,religion are some of those rights. You gentleman and a lady as well I believe, have respected this and others opinions to a degree. Please take your respect/knowledge and teach that to a child.
If this argument would have come up on the automotive repair board I moderate it would have been something like this. “I dunno cuz my rents say how it waz LMFAO ,TTYL” … Honestly the next generation and the school system needs to teach proper english before intelligent design or evolution!

If Santa and the Peanut M&M guys exists …I’m totally kicking Santa’s donkey for not getting me what I asked for! Oh and the M&M guys are all mine!

We had a “Record Temp” here this past Wednesday February the 11th 62 degrees is the new record temp for that date in my area!
:wink:

#333
Tim Brien said:
David, we also share a large percentage of our DNA with apes. Could Adam and Eve have been apes???? Your mitochondrial DNA theory (proof?) sounds extremely vague, although you do say that the 'y' chromosome 'may' be traced to a single human. Therefore, as Genesis says that man and woman were created in chapter 1 and Adam and Eve created in chapter 2, then, one must conclude, with your 'evidence' that all the humans created in chapter 1 must have perished and not passed on their genes. What about the genes carried by the tribe from the land of Nod where Cain was sent after killing his brother. Using your same analogy, then the Nodians must also be descended from Adam and Eve as to disclaim otherwise, would imply that all of Cain's descendants, as detailed in Genesis chapter 2, must have similarly perished, along with all the people from Genesis chapter 1. Do you see a flaw in your mitochondrial 'evidence'. Cain could only have carried the 'y' chromosome from his 'perfect' parents. How did the mitochondrial DNA carry over to the tribe from Nod? Remember that Genesis lists Cain's descendants, so unless he had it off with his mum then he must have mated with the tribe from Nod and thus the mitochondrial lineage would have been broken. Maybe your 'proof' is in fact a 'theory'? 
   Also,  you state that the bible states that god created Adam and Eve as 'perfect human beings'.  Off chance you would not have a reference for that,  as my reading of the real bible seems to have deleted any reference to them being perfect.  Of course,  there are numerous rewrites of the original bible,  so anything is possible.  There is reference to man being created in 'his own image and likeness'.  Is this your perfection theory????  God is perfect and thus any being created in 'his own image and likeness' must also be perfect.  Is this not the sin that Lucifer committed,  believing himself to be perfect and we all know where he finished up?  You are digging so many holes for yourself that I may liken you to a gopher.  Try some backfilling occasionally,  as your arguments are full of holes.  I do enjoy the reading,  though,  as it gives a sense of character and an insight into the person.</blockquote>

You may be correct about the shared portions of ape or dog or salamander DNA, but man and ape can not breed. That in itself should eliminate the possibility of a close species relationship. If man evolved from ape, then where is there some iota of evidence of that “fact”? At what point could man and ape not breed? Didn’t an ape then have to birth a male and a female at the same time so they could breed? If not what did the man breed with, Cain’s wife?

Man’s sin was eating fruit “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Lucifer’s sin was he believed himself equal with God.

Man was perfect because God doesn’t make junk.

#334

David,
you have once again been selective with your text. The serpent tempted Eve of the forbidden fruit, convincing her that she would be like her creator. Eve then tempted Adam (so the bible would have us believe). Adam and Eve disobeyed specific instructions from their god and were evicted from the garden of Eden. Is it possible that Adam and Eve are mere metaphors to explain to the relatively uneducated people to whom the prophets were lecturing, to explain their creation and their original sin. By creating original sin, god was able to give us the choice to become one of his flock through baptism. Without the act of betrayal then creation would have been different.

     As regards procreation with apes then no mention was made of that.  What distinguishes a species is the inability to interbreed.   Evolution believes that at one point in time man and ape had the same ancestor. Cats and dogs also share very similar DNA,  however,  they also are unable to breed.  Look to mammals,  we have mammals that are land based and mammals that are sea based and yet they also have a common biological basis.  Surely evolution inspires a belief in the almighty,  rather than refute his presence.
#335

David, I’m not sure I understand your argument about the difference between adaptation and evolution. Evolution is entirely based on the idea of adaptation. Organisms with advantageous adaptations survive. There is no difference between evolution and adaptation: the idea of useful adaptations is crucial to evolution.

There are lots of examples transitional animals–there are lungfish, which breathe air and “walk” on land; there are bacteria which are not clearly plant or animal: there are primates which are not very human like–lemurs, for example–and primates which are much more human-like, such as chimps. There are fossil records of human like creatures which are not quite us–Neanderthals. There are animals like the platypus, which aspects of several other phyla. There are mammals which are fish like–dolphins and whales–and which retain evidence that they were once land animals. There were bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds. There were mammal-like dinosaurs.

Punctuated equilibrium–you could chose to see it as "creation like, "and argue that there are periods of mass extinction when the climate changed radically. It has no bearing on the theory of evolution, and the man who invented “punctuated equilibrium,” Stephen Jay Gould, was as ardent a defender of evolution as you could find anywhere. If you want to argue that God caused a flood and then made a bunch of new animals, you can, but it’s a faith based argument and in that sense, it’s not subject to reason. I can understand why persons of faith find evolution offensive, but it seems to me the way to deal with that is not to ignore, refute, or distort the scientific evidence. I was raised as a Catholic, and the Catholic position has always been that the creation story is a metaphor, not the literal truth, and that evolution is nothing more than evidence of the incomprehensible mind of God. I’m not a religious man, but that position makes far more sense to me than trying to argue that there are dinosaurs in the Bible or the earth is only 4000 years old.

#336

The summary: This makes the discussions about LGB look like a Hallelujah session!

(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/teufel/devil-smiley-023.gif)

#337

HJ,
the LGB discussion was based on pure speculation, however, discussion on creation is unequivocal fact! They do however, have one similarity, in that we know the end result, but no one really knows how we got to the situation along the way.

#338

Tim,

"Some have evolved

AND

some have been created."

:wink: :slight_smile:

#339
Tim Brien said:
David, you have once again been selective with your text. The serpent tempted Eve of the forbidden fruit, convincing her that she would be like her creator. Eve then tempted Adam (so the bible would have us believe). Adam and Eve disobeyed specific instructions from their god and were evicted from the garden of Eden. Is it possible that Adam and Eve are mere metaphors to explain to the relatively uneducated people to whom the prophets were lecturing, to explain their creation and their original sin. By creating original sin, god was able to give us the choice to become one of his flock through baptism. Without the act of betrayal then creation would have been different. 
     As regards procreation with apes then no mention was made of that.  What distinguishes a species is the inability to interbreed.   Evolution believes that at one point in time man and ape had the same ancestor. Cats and dogs also share very similar DNA,  however,  they also are unable to breed.  Look to mammals,  we have mammals that are land based and mammals that are sea based and yet they also have a common biological basis.  Surely evolution inspires a belief in the almighty,  rather than refute his presence.</blockquote>

I am not certain of the specifics of your criticism.

The similarities in living cells may also account for a single Designer. Chevys and Fords both have disc brakes and steering wheels, but Chrysler and Dodge have identical power plants. See my point? All of the so called pre-Homo sapien skeletons discovered have been found to be either diseased malformed skeletal remains, Homo sapiens with features still evident today, apes and in at least on famous case, bits and pieces from a few different animals including a pig. (Maybe we have pigs as ancestors, which would explain a lot.)

#340

Simply and adaptability is certain traits dominate. The Inuit have adapted to their harsh environment by increased blood circulation to their extremities. Negroes have adapted to the harsher Sun’s rays. This can occur by the people born with lower melanin would not have survived as well in that environment.

Evolving into another life form, i.e. my rat-bat analogy isn’t possible. What would happen to the half-bat half rat creature. It can not run, and it can to fly. That would make it supper, not a evolutionary transitional form.