Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message? by chrisisall

its not that, but clearly God DIDNT initiate it that way, or we'd have more intermediate forms running around. instead, we have clearly defined catagories of animals, clear back to the Cambrian period. its not beyond Gods ability, but it didnt happen that way, because there is hardly a shred of evidence

primates have always been primates, just as the felidea have always been cats and so on. mammals didnt share a common ancestor, just as they didnt spawn, through some random mutation, from a reptile or amphibian. there arent any current missing links, and the fossil record is nearly deviod of what would be millions of variations to account for all the different life forms on planet earth. it seems like common sense to me..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
according to your logic, there is no difference between birds or reptiles or amphibians.. yet clearly their is. its almost mind numbing

The mid-species mutation would be amazingly quick, in evolutionary terms; to expect extensive fossil records of each event is mind-numbingly simplistic.
How many early 20th Century transistors can you lay your hands on easily?
No my friend Anti, your logic is fallacious, and you dellusions are deep.
Go to bed, and have a good sleep.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Since I could dig up the entire fossil record we do have and you wouldn't be convinced, I'll try a different track. Why do you suppose the different archetypes have similarities?

is the insinuation a common ancestor? mostly because we share a common designer.. i know that will not be sufficient for you, but to be more frank then most evolutionary biologists, who knows?

Quote:
Why are fish a chordate and have brains and a digestive track and opposite end mouth/anus layouts, same as all the other clades you mention?

is that a common enough thread to presume this shared trait lead to the transformation of the first amphibian? isnt that to marginalize the complexity DNA?

Quote:
Why do all animals manufacture similar proteins (often used for similar purposes)?

Why do dogs, cats, ungulates (hooved animals), primates, reptiles, and birds all have four major limbs, a head with eyes, lungs, hearts, blood, etc.?

is it because theres a common ancestor, or a common designer? id argue the latter

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
the fossil record is nearly deviod of what would be millions of variations to account for all the different life forms on planet earth. it seems like common sense to me..

Uncommon senselessness is more like it.

Yo, dirt, volcanic activity, water, erosion, pressure... any of these factors enter into your equation of how millions of tiny bits of evidence should be preserved for your personal pleasure & enlightenment?

BTW, where are the bones of Jesus Christ to prove that he lived, genius?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The mid-species mutation would be amazingly quick, in evolutionary terms; to expect extensive fossil records of each event is mind-numbingly simplistic.

punctuated equilibrium right? to presume a reptile became a bird overnight, now thats mind-numbingly simplistic.. and not very scientific either, given the lack of 'hard evidence'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
BTW, where are the bones of Jesus Christ to prove that he lived, genius?

actually we have eye witness testimony and historical accounts of Jesus. i could prove Jesus existed easier then you could prove a cat was ever a fish

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
to presume a reptile became a bird overnight,

Flock you.

For every thousand mutations, only one might be viable. You want every reptile born with an inverted pelvis to be set at your doorstep for examination? Then you'd better ask God.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:28 PM

You didn't answer really answer any of my questions. You claim an intelligent designer without presenting a theory that counters evolution on it's key points. We know you believe there's an intelligent designer. But evolutionists don't answer every question with "because there's evolution."

Why do you think there are similarities? In other words, why would an intelligent designer make those similarities? And how and why would the intelligent designer make the archetype lifeforms?

Evolution explains hows and whys. So explain your hows and whys. You don't have to have address EVERY point evolution makes or counter EVERY bit of evidence in evolution's favour, but for goodness sakes, if you're going to present this as a counter theory, give us something more than "because it is how it is and that's how the creator made it."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

actually we have eye witness testimony and historical accounts of Jesus.

Like the eye witness accounts of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on record? Hmmm... most convincing.
Look, I think Jesus was a cool, progressive & socially Liberal guy, but calling him the son of an all-powerful God is like future generations calling Bruce Lee a Chinese martial elemental in human form.

Please, get over your righteous infallibility.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
(...)is like future generations calling Bruce Lee a Chinese martial elemental in human form.

Please, get over your righteous infallibility.

...He's not?

Although, I like Jackie Chan better. I appreciate his humour and humility, and the way the simple enjoyable plots of his movies just flow without self-grandification. Jackie Chan is never some chosen one, he's the distant relative, or the friend of a friend, or the average Joe Schmoe who also somehow can just kick a lot of ass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:43 PM

Also, to the conversation about evolution, I respectfully add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_milk

What the HELL?

However animals came to be, they're just damned WEIRD.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 12:13 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
birds have hollow bones. the birds feather has literally NOTHING in common with a scale, it has interlocking barbs, it is designed for flight/insulation, it comes in many varieties.. it is nothing like a reptilian scale. also, birds have unique beaks designed to fill their specific niches.. reptiles dont have beaks, let alone genes capable of the varieties of beaks witnessed in nature. also, birds have lungs that constantly circulate air, so that they have a steady stream flowing through them at any given time. no reptile has a lung system even remotely comparable. i could go on, but its pointless

Dinosaurs aren't like most of the creatures that fall under the class Reptilia. Their bone structure, especially in the later species, is more like that of birds than reptiles. Aerosteon riocoloradensis has been found with hollow bones, the similarities between Bird and Dinosaur's skulls, which I believe are unique to the Avian and Dinosaur categories, is one of the reasons people started theorising that they could be related. Some Dinosaurs even had beaks, and far from your statement that reptiles don't, most reptiles have a beak like tooth to break through the egg, rather similar to the ones new born chicks have. Intermediate stages that have winged feathered dinosaurs, with teeth instead of beaks, have also been found, Archaeopteryx for instance.

In fact some species are so similar to birds that Sinosauropteryx was originally described as a bird when discovered in China, before it was realised that is was a Theropod.

In fact the evidence is that Theropods had lungs that were exactly like those of modern birds.

So, erm, you were saying?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 3:02 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

"Missing link" fossils seem to keep popping up. How about a common ancestor between bears and dogs?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/130511/prehistoric_beardog_fossil
_unearthed/

Anti makes it sound like fossils should be common. Have YOU ever fossilized anything? It's actually pretty rare for something to be preserved in such a way. How many fossilized humans have you seen? One? Two? Does that "prove" to you that there were only one or two people living in the past? Or does it just illustrate how rare it is to find fossilized specimens of anything at all? The fact that there ARE so many fossils is more a testament to how common and varied life has been, and how many directions it has evolved in (dead ends and all). Think about the fossils of things that are now extinct; those are all branches of the evolutionary tree that DIDN'T work out.

As for other "missing links", there are fish species that have either lungs or limbs. Or both. Lungfish come to mind. Or there's this guy:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish_2.htm
l

Be sure to post your fossils of "miracles". I'm sure they're even more rare than missing links between species. Guess that proves they don't exist, eh?

See? I can play the same game you're playing: Absence of proof = proof of absence. Except I can actually show proof, where all you've got is a book of contradictory fables.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 3:38 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
its quite a concept, that the undirected, chaotic EXPLOSION of the big bang, could create the incomprehensible ORDER and design of the universe. kind of like expecting the nuke dropped on hiroshima to result in a much more improved and ordered landscape

Consider the following possibility:

One day (keeping in mind, that the universe does not exist at this point 'in time', and thus any attempt to define time in a way meaningful to a human being is rather impossible) an entity, I'll call great one (GO) for the moment as a matter of convenience, groks that if he (sex is also meaningless, and 'he' is the indefinite pronoun of the English language, so I'll use that) 'twitches' like so, a thing (I'll call it a Universe) will come into being; this universe having such properties that small, self aware beings capable of free will -might- come into existence, at an approximate probability of one in 10 million.

The next day (again, time doesn't mean much, I could simply say 'later', though that too is an over simplification), GO 'twitches' 1 billion times creating 1 billion universes, figuring that with any sort of luck 10 of these might happen to result in some of these self aware beings.

Consider that from our perception, we are sitting in one of these 'universes'. Our perceptions are limited to this universe due to the physical properties of the universe.

It is possible, in such a scenario, that the 'greatest praise' these self aware entities (in our case, human beings) might give the GO is to spend time and energy understanding.
a) The characteristics of this universe he created.
b) How such a universe like this might have given rise to the self aware creature.

In such a scenario, it is not necessary that GO would be 'obliged' to create a complete fossil record; this is not a game nor a 'complete' puzzle to be worked out. It is simply a fact that the universe exists; we exist in it; and we attempt to understand it.

In my opinion, I've seen sufficient evidence that more recent fossil records show an absence of creatures which existed in older fossil records. The reverse is true as well. There's a few explanations... one is that GO came along and added new species now and then... frankly, a being capable of invoking such a universe into existence should not need to 'meddle' as things are moving along in such a way. I believe, based on the theory of evolution and a 'sufficient' fossil record, that creatures did in fact evolve over time on planet which could come into existence based on the properties of the universe which GO caused to come into existence at what current conventional physics calls the 'big bang'.

In any case, the fossil record is still 'being read'. Holes continue to fill; but as observed previously, your reaction to that is to then ask for the fossil that fits before and after the filled hole; in essence, every time one hole gets filled, you 'create' one hole on either side and demand BOTH holes get filled. I doubt you will ever agree that sufficient evidence exists.

I will note that if the 'greatest praise' is improving the the understanding the physics of our universe, you may well displease GO a great deal by your expressed understanding. On the other hand, perhaps GO will be pleased that your arguments have spurred evolutionary scientist to re-double their efforts (pardon the pun), so might be pleased with your contribution from that perspective...so there is hope for you yet. Thanks for playing your part in our little play.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:10 AM

Or, to put it another way, Man's job on Earth isn't to worship God, but rather to invent God and then to BECOME God...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Although, I like Jackie Chan better.

He's funnier, and his use of his environment in fighting is truly inspired. Shanghai Noon RULES!!! & Forbidden Kingdom!!!

Back on topic, Anti seems to have given up due to lack-O-argument.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or, to put it another way, Man's job on Earth isn't to worship God, but rather to invent God and then to BECOME God...

I would accept that as an axiom.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 5:33 PM

We'll see, now that this has been bumped. I haven't seen what exactly he is FOR yet, only what he is AGAINST.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I haven't seen what exactly he is FOR yet, only what he is AGAINST.

Well, he IS "Anti".

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 5:43 PM

I'm reposting my request for antimason.

Quote:
You didn't answer really answer any of my questions. You claim an intelligent designer without presenting a theory that counters evolution on it's key points. We know you believe there's an intelligent designer. But evolutionists don't answer every question with "because there's evolution."

Why do you think there are similarities? In other words, why would an intelligent designer make those similarities? And how and why would the intelligent designer make the archetype lifeforms?

Evolution explains hows and whys. So explain your hows and whys. You don't have to have address EVERY point evolution makes or counter EVERY bit of evidence in evolution's favour, but for goodness sakes, if you're going to present this as a counter theory to evolution, give us something more than "because it is how it is and that's how the creator made it."

And use logos, not pathos or ethos. When you begin talking about how amazing the universe is and how there is no possible way it formed on it's own, that's philosophy, not science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 10:29 AM

Quote:
Bytemite-

Why do you think there are similarities?

this is going to come off as an over-simplification, but this is what i believe:

because of the conditions present on earth. that we are fortunate to even exist is a miracle. so many variables had to align to create an environment capable of sustaining life. you are likely more aware then i, but if our orbit/rotation/tilt/atmospheric composition were skewed just a little, life likely would not exist at all. you may as well be asking me how/why we're even here

but what i believe is just as God took from the dust of the earth, and breathed life into it, to create Man, he did so with the different animal varieties. its not very 'scientific', but IMO neither is the concept of non-living matter spawning all life forms in existence.

i know you will say, there are similarities because they share a common ancestor, but then to me, that still doesnt explain how a lung or a brain developed from a single celled organism.

Quote:
In other words, why would an intelligent designer make those similarities? And how and why would the intelligent designer make the archetype lifeforms?

again, ill be accused of over-simplifying, but because they were good designs. the assumption is that purely un-directed processes are capable of resulting in complex biological functions. in my estimation, this generally should be mathamatically impossible, not just improbable. for example even a basic cell is incredibly complex, but it requires millions of functions to act in unison. its hard for me to assume that these processes, dependant on complete symbiosis, were able to form the right formula, strictly through time and chance. in my mind, its more likely they were designed that way

Quote:
Evolution explains hows and whys. So explain your hows and whys.

in my mind, evolution is a description of a process which occurs only after the basic information has been encoded into the DNA... as in the varieties of dogs. but it doesnt explain where the genetic codes came from. theres still no consensus how life originated to begin with; we rely entirely on mathematical chance. beginning with inanimate matter, natural selection or mutation cant explain how the first amino acids formed proteins, to form a cell, to create a living organism. its a guided process, thats hard to believe occurred randomly

Quote:
if you're going to present this as a counter theory to evolution, give us something more than "because it is how it is and that's how the creator made it."

im sorry, its a basic observation, things appear uniquely designed to function effectively. i think Solomon said it best

" He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end " Eccl 3:11

Quote:
When you begin talking about how amazing the universe is and how there is no possible way it formed on it's own, that's philosophy, not science.

believe me friend, there is plenty of philosophy in the speculation of the origins of life. if you are strictly looking for a material causation, you will limit yourself to only those possibilities that exist within that realm of thought. but take a look around some time, at the varieties of plants and trees and animals, the earth cycles, or even yourself in a mirror.. and just consider that this didnt happen by accident

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
believe me friend, there is plenty of philosophy in the speculation of the origins of life.

No I will not, my friend, because of things like THIS:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510276/Scientists-create-artif
icial-life-laboratory--bottles-chemicals.html

Quote:
The scientists took the natural bacterium and painstakingly replaced its genetic structure, or genome, with DNA stitched together from chemicals. Eventually they had recreated all the genes that had been in the natural bacterium, effectively turning it into an identical but artificial organism.

Other experiments are going as I type this.
Rating of your intellectual performance on this thread so far: FAIL.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 12:56 PM

Quote:
Other experiments are going as I type this.
Rating of your intellectual performance on this thread so far: FAIL.

lol.. am i the only one who caught that? you know it still took SCIENTISTS, with their INTELLIGENCE< to recreate those conditions.. its not gonna happen randomly. im just sayin...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:03 PM

also, going from a living cell, to even say a trilobyte, is a great leap.. its not just as easy as getting the ball rolling, and then just sitting back(over billions of years..) and letting it take off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
lol.. am i the only one who caught that?

What- an allergy to scientific reason? No, many have that.

Quote:
you know it still took SCIENTISTS, with their INTELLIGENCE< to recreate those conditions.. its not gonna happen randomly. im just sayin...

Yeah, well, realistically, scientists have to take some shortcuts since their lifespans aren't up to a million-year experiment, I grant you.

On a more serious note, dude, ya gotta stop with the grand statements "not gonna happen...impossible...has to have a creator..."
Remember, these are opinions, based on facts like me & Mike, or philosophy like you, but neither are absolutes, okay?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but what i believe is just as God took from the dust of the earth, and breathed life into it, to create Man, he did so with the different animal varieties. its not very 'scientific', but IMO neither is the concept of non-living matter spawning all life forms in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:
Chrisisall- On a more serious note, dude, ya gotta stop with the grand statements "not gonna happen...impossible...has to have a creator..."
Remember, these are opinions

uh huh... its an opinion when i make a statement, because i believe in supernatural causation. but when you presuppose a natural causation, how is that any different? we are both presupposing a premise

this is why this debate will never be settled, because your side has determined the framework, anything outside of which cannot be considered 'factual'. if you will only accept a natural material cause to everything, then how can i persuade you to accept anything otherwise? now you will tell me 'its because we dont need one'.. which i would respond, that sure sounds like a grand statement to me

Quote:
based on facts like me & Mike, or philosophy like you, but neither are absolutes, okay?

my point exactly. your example still required a creator, to initiate life.. yet, that logic doesnt apply to the intitial hypothesis(of how life originated to begin with)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

"Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species. "

if this is true, then where are the intermediates? forget the fossils, where are the living examples? everything still falls into the catagories of invertebrates and vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if this is true, then where are the intermediates? forget the fossils, where are the living examples?

They're all over- just look at viruses to see them in living action!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:33 PM

give me something we can observe in nature, and not under a microscope

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
we are both presupposing a premise

Right- I'm presupposing that s**t can be explained, you're presupposing that it can't.
Who's more limited here?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
give me something we can observe in nature, and not under a microscope

Uhhh, stuff under microscopes comes from nature sometimes, yanno.

Okay, look, the intermedearies are FEW, get it? A changeover mutation is disinclined to turn back on itself. Once a mutation makes an extra-species jump, IT'S A NEW SPECIES!!!
Problem is that you're sort of asking for a car that was the first hybrid, but just a little bit hybrid, so you can see the hybrid car evolution.

Silly.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:50 PM

Quote:
chrisisall- Uhhh, stuff under microscopes comes from nature sometimes, yanno.

i do. but claiming for example that mammals and reptiles had a common ancestry, i think that requires a bit more evidence

Quote:
Okay, look, the intermedearies are FEW, get it? A changeover mutation is disinclined to turn back on itself. Once a mutation makes an extra-species jump, IT'S A NEW SPECIES!!!

hey, at least in theory right? sounds good on paper.

its like the fruit fly argument.. theyve done more tests on it then any other organism, trying to create a positive mutation that led to new genetic material. what did we learn? in the end, theyre still flys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Right- I'm presupposing that s**t can be explained, you're presupposing that it can't.
Who's more limited here?

no.. im presupposing things can be explained through intelligent causation, where as youre asserting a random, unintelligent cause

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:51 PM

LEADB

However, we can also assert 'intelligent causation', as I did above, which does not in fact contradict the evolutionary theories as mentioned in this thread. My assertion above is along those lines.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 3:15 PM

Now, please don't take this as an attack. You were able to answer my questions, and that's actually more thought than I've seen some people - on either side of the argument - give this debate.

There are a few things that factually I would disagree with you on.

Quote:
because of the conditions present on earth. that we are fortunate to even exist is a miracle. so many variables had to align to create an environment capable of sustaining life. you are likely more aware then i, but if our orbit/rotation/tilt/atmospheric composition were skewed just a little, life likely would not exist at all. you may as well be asking me how/why we're even here

Certain life forms on earth are known to be able to survive temperatures up to 251 degrees Fahrenheit and down to 32 degrees Fahrenheit (boundary when ice melts and water freezes). Furthermore, we have evidence of temperatures on earth varying wildly in the past, as well as chemical composition of the atmosphere and in the ol' primordial soup. It's believed that photosynthesizing organisms helped turn our early CO2 and hydrocarbon-rich atmosphere into the current 70% Nitrogen 20% Oxygen, 10% everything else.

I am one of those people who believe that we will find lifeforms on other planets, because I believe the conditions to form life are not as strict as previously believed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formations

Quote:
i know you will say, there are similarities because they share a common ancestor, but then to me, that still doesnt explain how a lung or a brain developed from a single celled organism.

Well, what evolution says happened is that single celled organisms began to form multi-celled colonies. The organisms were still separate at that time, but they were able to work together for their mutual survival.

Here is a similar, modern day example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvox

Notice the mention of flagella, that is, little protein "tails" on an individual cell that beat and allow movement of the colony as a whole, or which can be used to produce water currents.

Looking at the very most primitive animal, the sponge, what we see is really basically two layers of cells working together with their flagella to produce a water current to filter feed from.

The two layers of the sponge become important through-out all animals, because it is believed they are homologous with the ectoderm and endoderm in embryonic development. Later on, due to folding during embryonic development, some animals developed a third layer of cells called the mesoderm, which allowed those animals to be able to have a body cavity space (like us!) for certain organs.

Furthermore, the larva of a sponge is VERY similar to a multi-cellular colony of flagellated cells, before it settles on a stationary surface and begins to develop.

This in turn is similar to the larva of the cnidarian, such as the hydra. Cnidarians have differentiated cells, such as cells adapted to digesting food, stalk cells to cement the cnidarian to a rock surface, photosensitive cells, cnidaria (needle) cells on tentacles that deliver toxin to incapacitate food, and a nerve net that can control contraction of the tentacles.

I could try to explain how the cells may have started to become differentiated. But first I'd have to consult my books to refresh my memory, and second, I'm about to eat dinner.

Happy fourth of July!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 5:50 PM

Oh, look - I think I found your "intelligent designer":

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 5:56 PM

Anti,

I've got a question for you. Who designed your "designer"? After all, you're arguing that all of this is too complicated to have just happened, so it must have been "designed". But surely anything capable of designing such a complicated universe, and all the vastly complicated things IN that universe, would have necessarily have been a VERY complex design, in and of him/her/itself. Such a designer couldn't have just sprung into existence - it would have had to have been designed, yes? So who designed your god? And who designed his designer?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 6:03 PM

Quote:

i do. but claiming for example that mammals and reptiles had a common ancestry, i think that requires a bit more evidence

I agree. That's why I keep asking you for actual verifiable scientific evidence of your so-called "designer". Or your "common ancestor", as it were. After all, if one supernatural being designed everything, then aren't you admitting that mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 6:08 PM

Quote:

its like the fruit fly argument.. theyve done more tests on it then any other organism, trying to create a positive mutation that led to new genetic material. what did we learn? in the end, theyre still flys.

How many millions of years have these fruit fly experiments been going on? You're arguing that because you can't see evolutionary changes within your lifespan - or even within the short time you've looked at these things - then that is proof that it doesn't happen.

I can't actually watch the Grand Canyon being formed by erosion; does that mean it doesn't exist?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 4, 2009 8:14 PM

Sorry, other post got interrupted by hunger. If you want me to continue explaining anything there I'd be completely willing to.

Just wanted to address this in particular first.

Quote:

again, ill be accused of over-simplifying, but because they were good designs.

I actually think that a lot of organisms really aren't well developed for their environment and for environment stresses. In fact, I'd say that their form and function is really only just good enough that they don't die instantly or drive their species to extinction.

For example, plants. Like I was saying earlier, plants and photosynthesis actually began to appear (and we have the fossils) in a time that had a much higher CO2 level, which they require for photosynthesis. CO2 is greatly reduced in concentration now, and some of the photosynthesis chemicals in plants are poorly adapted for choosing CO2 (what plants need) over oxygen in the current chemical composition of the atmosphere. The chemicals are a hold over from when CO2 was higher, and Oxygen uptake wasn't a problem.

Quote:
Since carbon dioxide and oxygen compete at the active site of RuBisCO, carbon fixation by RuBisCO can be enhanced by increasing the carbon dioxide level in the compartment containing RuBisCO (chloroplast stroma). Several times during the evolution of plants, mechanisms have evolved for increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the stroma (see C4 carbon fixation). The use of oxygen as a substrate is an apparently-puzzling process, since it seems to throw away captured energy. However it may be a mechanism for preventing overload during periods of high light flux. This weakness in the enzyme is the cause of photorespiration, such that healthy leaves in bright light may have zero net carbon fixation when the ratio of O2 to CO2 reaches a threshold at which oxygen is fixed instead of carbon. ~Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO

The other immediate example I can think of is people. Our bipedal stance and narrow hips actually make our birth process much riskier than quadrupedal animals.

It's good enough to keep our species going and competitive, but I consider it a major flaw in our form.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 5, 2009 4:14 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
and where are the millions of intermediates which should litter the fossil records? thats right.. almost entirely absent. if thats the best you can do, i feel sufficiently vindicated

Antimason, you sultry minx. It only took two years for you to show up again spouting the same stuff. An example of "intermediates" was posted the last time we had an evolution discussion. Remember?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=29741

Check my post of Tuesday, August 07, 2007 - 19:41. Also, recall this:

Intermediates, wouldn't you say?

I don't expect a response. I know you're quite skilled at ignoring what you don't like to see.

Yeah folks, all this has been gone over before. Lists of fossils, explanation of methods and terms, philosophy. But antimason openly admitted that he's not interested in learning. To quote:

"you're right, i didn't check the sites... but i've had my share of the evolutionary theory throughout school, and theres not much new ground to be broken. i will likely always be skeptical and left with the same questions, because no one will ever know what happened 'in the beginning" [sic]

It really is a brilliant system he's got. "I refuse to try and figure it out, so I don't get it, so no one else must get it either, so it must be all lies, lies!"

Other highlights from that old thread:

I asked if antimason had ever seen fossils in museums and such, and how he explained their existence. Does he believe that scientist are all acting together in creating a big huge lie? Do we spend out nights building fake bones, burying them out in the desert, then going the next day to "discover" them?

He never responded.

Several times I clarified things that still haven't made it into anti's cranium. Evolution is not about "in the beginning", it's about what's happened since then. Also, humans do not come from monkeys. There was a whole different animal long ago that both humans and monkeys are descended from.

Antimason saw technical problems in ice cores and C14 dating. Though he makes no bones about avoiding learning about these methods, and refuses to read any links or learn the correct lingo, he manages to know about blatant blaring problems that trained scientists never figured out. Of course, when I explained how scientists do indeed account for the things he brought up, he never responded to me. I guess the creationist sites he parrots didn't tell him how to discuss this methods in any detail.

Anti kept referring to science as a philosophy, as something one chooses to believe out of nothing more than will. I think he really is incapable of separating evidence-based theories from belief systems.

On this thread, I see that he's still clinging to the idea that nature is completely random, chaotic, and unguided. It was already explained several times that forces of nature provide structure. ie Look out your window: solid, dense material is down, air is up. Gravity sorts and provides order. But he prefers to deny natural order.

Eventually, Anti did the predictable name-calling and disappeared from the thread. I found this to be some interesting hypocracy, that he couldn't handle our doubts. His claim that scientists are lying, coming up with a huge sham just so we can get some funding or something, well, that's not at all offensive. (For the record, I'm not offended because his arguments are too weak to make me anything but incredulous and, well, amused. I feel like River trying to look into his head: what in the world is going on in there?)

And now a word about conceit: the incredible conceit of insisting that only a superbeing who thinks and feels the way humans do could have created the universe. Pretty damned conceited to say that life can be made that way we would build a house of Tinkertoys. Pretty damned conceited to ignore the many ways that nature provides structure, simply because nature's method of creating doesn't fit the human-centered idea that We Are The Image of God and Our Daddy Can Be The Only Daddy.

Whatever.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 5, 2009 4:47 AM

Mal4:

You mean AntiMason is really AuRaptor? That would explain an awful lot...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 5, 2009 5:17 AM

MAL4PREZ

No, I think at some point I figured out the Antimason is really my mom. The emotion based debate style and fact avoidance give her away.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 5, 2009 5:19 AM