Theism

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Let me put it this way: a pit bull cannot breed with a saint Bernard (although i doubt it's ever been tried). But they're still dogs and not some other animal.

A pit bull can breed with a st bernard. They are both dogs. A fox, however, can not breed with a dachshund, because they are different species. Yet, a fox shares a common ancestor with the dachshund.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Now, I have a question for you. It's all very well for you to say that 'evolution takes time'. But humans haven't changed much more in the last 100000 years than they have in the last 100. In fact, I have a sneaking suspiscion that if I took Mr. Neandrethal, cleaned him up, and sent him out into the world, he wouldn't be particularly easy to distinguish.

Another problem with your time arguement is that fossils of seemignly modern humans have been found, and 'dated' at older than neandrethal. I'm going to go kill myself now for my inability to remember citations, but I hope you'll forgive me. My clone should be educated and ready to continue this arguement by the end of the week.

Firstly, if you put neander out onto the streets, he WOULD stand out, because of his funny shaped head. His head is lower and flatter, whereas ours is higher, and rounder. Not to mention, his eyebrow ridges.

Secondly, Neanders co-existed with sapiens. Neanders in Europe. Sapiens in Africa, and the Middle East. Sapiens are OLDER than neanders (at least according to the Out of Africa theory).

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
That is a form of evolution, you --- not gonna call names ----

You know what, noone's arguing that you...

Emplynx, khadrane, and myself all understand that.

The problem is that we're looking at things very differently.

We say that lizards change, and dogs change, but lizards do not change into dogs.

You say that 'lizards' change into 'dogs'... albiet it's much more complicated than that.

Hence the use of terms micro and macro evolution. People tend to confuse what are in fact rather different things.

Before you go into the whole microX100000 = macro deal, think about this.

It's possible to breed dogs in many different ways. We can make them big or small, etc. But tell me, is it concevieble that we could breed dogs to have horns? How would you even begin?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
We say that lizards change, and dogs change, but lizards do not change into dogs.

You say that 'lizards' change into 'dogs'... albiet it's much more complicated than that.

Hence the use of terms micro and macro evolution. People tend to confuse what are in fact rather different things.

Before you go into the whole microX100000 = macro deal, think about this.

It's possible to breed dogs in many different ways. We can make them big or small, etc. But tell me, is it concevieble that we could breed dogs to have horns? How would you even begin?

I'm not saying we can turn lizards into dogs. I'm saying we share a common ancestor. There is no way that evolution can turn a lizard into a dog. I agree with that! That's just silly. What I AM saying is that somewhere along the line, we share a 'primitive' ancestor, if you will.

A dog will only select for horns, if a mutation has occured, and the species will gain some advantage from it. But, since this mutation has not occured, it is rather moot to discuss it.

[Twilight]

I am not really buying into all of this common ansestor stuff. What you seem to be saying is that the dog didn't come from the lizard, but they both came from some common ansestor. How is that common ansestor any differant from it coming from a lizard? There is still no proof of a dog ever coming from something that isn't a dog.

[afro-elf]

You can also Imagine life as a bunch of trees. At the bottom you have original, created man. Moving up you see different varieties and flavours of man, some of which die off. Eventually, at the top, you come to present day humanity

some of these varieties pre date homo sapien sapien ( i think we are double

Yeah. I get it. Now explain to my how this is supposed to convince us of birds evolving from non-birds? I don't see anything here that would support that conclusion.

one word

archaeopteryx



[

It's all very well for you to say that. However, you still haven't attempted to convince me that these specimens are any more than different races of human, or species of primate.

she has attempted

dude there are 7 or so scientific names

with a certain group you can mate

i do also recall something about a co-temperal neanaderthals and us

however your tale of caveman in mordern close is a little strange he would just be a Neander in a suit but a neander just the same

in the same article the discussion off of us mating with neanderthals was mentioned but i don't recall anything about what it said about that


for you were adam and eve homo sapien sapien ?

[afro-elf]

maybe an analogy for the common ancestor would be this




take an electric and a synthesior


two very different instruments


however

the lyre is is a common ancestor

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
A pit bull can breed with a st bernard. They are both dogs. A fox, however, can not breed with a dachshund, because they are different species. Yet, a fox shares a common ancestor with the dachshund.

I'm sure there would be some mechanical difficulty in that liason. I was under the assumption that either mechanical or genetic difficulty counted. Thank you for correcting me.

They only have a common ancestor under your system. Under my system they're on completely different trees.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Firstly, if you put neander out onto the streets, he WOULD stand out, because of his funny shaped head. His head is lower and flatter, whereas ours is higher, and rounder. Not to mention, his eyebrow ridges.

Secondly, Neanders co-existed with sapiens. Neanders in Europe. Sapiens in Africa, and the Middle East. Sapiens are OLDER than neanders (at least according to the Out of Africa theory).

Point taken. Mistake on my part.

However, H.S an N.N. coexisting works at least as well, if not better, in my system.

You could still breed H.S. to resemble N. Just cross the people with the flattest heads and heaviest bones. It wouldn't require macroevolution, just a reshuffling of genes that are already there.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I'm not saying we can turn lizards into dogs. I'm saying we share a common ancestor. There is no way that evolution can turn a lizard into a dog. I agree with that! That's just silly. What I AM saying is that somewhere along the line, we share a 'primitive' ancestor, if you will.

Same thing. As twilight said;

I am not really buying into all of this common ansestor stuff. What you seem to be saying is that the dog didn't come from the lizard, but they both came from some common ansestor. How is that common ansestor any differant from it coming from a lizard? There is still no proof of a dog ever coming from something that isn't a dog.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
A dog will only select for horns, if a mutation has occured, and the species will gain some advantage from it. But, since this mutation has not occured, it is rather moot to discuss it.

I was speaking of artificial selection. Human breeding.

Do you honestly think there is a mutation which will cause a dog to grow horns? I find it rather nonsensical. Mutation + time seems to be the black box for evolution. I don't find it very convincing.

Afro elf:

I said I was not convinced that all the species in question were on the same tree. It would be easy to see lucy as a branch of some other primate tree.

Archaeopterix fascinated me for the longest time. It does have features of birds and lizards. or it seems to.

However, there are things that don't make sense. It has teeth, for one, and breeding a creature with teeth to one with a beak is about as likely as a dog with horns.

There are other factors which lead me to think it's more likely a different animal altogether. It's very difficult to see how it could have evolved from 'lizards' into modern birds.

I think that in order to really understand how neandrethals relate to us would be to meet some live ones. Maybe we could clone one... ]: )

Adam and eve... no. I think they would have been Homo Original. They would have been the descendants of all humans, and so would be fairly centerline in thier traits.

"electric and a synthesior"

I'm not sure what those are.

But look at it in view of my system...

The lyre is the ancestor of all stringed instruments.
The gong may be the ancestor of precussion.
A horn is the ancestor of brass.
Et cetera.

See what I mean?

[afro-elf]

wayfarer

However, there are things that don't make sense. It has teeth, for one, and breeding a creature with teeth to one with a beak is about as likely as a dog with horns.

are you talking about breeding or natural selection

likely and impossible are the same

it existed and it had both features

before it were there feathered creatures?

There are other factors which lead me to think it's more likely a different animal altogether. It's very difficult to see how it could have evolved from 'lizards' into modern birds.

there were flying reptiles so why is it difficult to thing COULD mutate. being warm blooded and with feathers is a big advantage

Adam and eve... no. I think they would have been Homo Original. They would have been the descendants of all humans, and so would be fairly centerline in thier traits.

i need some clarity here when you say ALL HUMANS
do you mean all homo sapiens or do youn include cro-magnon, neanderthals, homo erectus etc...

electric and a synthesior"

I'm not sure what those are.

my bad

and 12string electric guitar and a synth

both are very differenct but can be traced to the lyre

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


I'm not saying we can turn lizards into dogs. I'm saying we share a common ancestor. There is no way that evolution can turn a lizard into a dog. I agree with that! That's just silly. What I AM saying is that somewhere along the line, we share a 'primitive' ancestor, if you will.

So it is silly for a lizard to be turned into a dog, but not silly for a *insert prehistoric being here* to be turned into a dog and lizard?

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Firstly, if you put neander out onto the streets, he WOULD stand out, because of his funny shaped head. His head is lower and flatter, whereas ours is higher, and rounder. Not to mention, his eyebrow ridges.

I bet you atleast 10 people in the world have bones identical to the bones found of "neander". Pleanty of people at my school look like him!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I'm sure there would be some mechanical difficulty in that liason. I was under the assumption that either mechanical or genetic difficulty counted. Thank you for correcting me.

Dogs will get it anyway that can.... Don't even let me tell you the story of my grandmother's mini dachshund, and a labrador...

[Nibs]

It would be silly to oppose the theory of evolution according to animals... it's been tested and proven among small guppy populations (really... someone funded this).

Anyway, I don't agree with the theory of human evolution. If you want to believe that your primogenitor was a single-celled organism on the surface of prehistoric pond-scum (or another base life-form), that's your business. However, I will maintain that I am a child of God. In no way do I mean to sway your opinion; merely state my own.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx

I bet you atleast 10 people in the world have bones identical to the bones found of "neander". Pleanty of people at my school look like him!

I sincerely doubt that. Neander is short, and very stocky, more stocky than the current genepool allows, with the exception of eskimos.

[FrodoFriend]

And I think that is a good question. I wonder why they havn't noticed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) completely disagrees with evolution and the Big Bang!

Because . . . it doesn't. The people who developed the Big Bang Theory are physicists. They know their stuff. I highly doubt that you, a high schooler, are qualified to disprove them on the basis of your interpretation of the 2nd Law. You don't know anything about the other variables or higher physics involved.

I bet you atleast 10 people in the world have bones identical to the bones found of "neander". Pleanty of people at my school look like him!

Are you sure we're talking about the same Neandertal here? Homo sapiens really does not look like Neander.

So it is silly for a lizard to be turned into a dog, but not silly for a *insert prehistoric being here* to be turned into a dog and lizard?

It's less silly than the idea that some clay turned into a human.

Come on, people, if you're going to argue against science, at least have some basic knowledge about what you're arguing against. There have been an awful lots of mistakes here.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Come on, people, if you're going to argue against science, at least have some basic knowledge about what you're arguing against. There have been an awful lots of mistakes here.

Hear hear! It is exhausting supplying all these arguments and facts, when the opposition just sit back and make up bullsh*t. Please at least try and think up some coherent arguments, otherwise we will just argue in circles.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx

So it is silly for a lizard to be turned into a dog, but not silly for a *insert prehistoric being here* to be turned into a dog and lizard?

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life&contgroup=

Here is a link. It is the family tree, so to speak. Not that I expect you to look at it. But, since I know you are not, I'll detail a little of it. It gives a good indication on the diversity of life that exists. Given the huge amount of 'families', it's not so hard for me to trace back species' to common ancestors.

[Andúril]

Nibs:

I added that I can attest to blessings that come from it.

I was hoping that you might divulge some of these blessings.

What is your aim in attempting to disprove someone else's statements, Anduril? It doesn't make anyone feel better, much less change their opinions.

I am not trying to make people feel better. Sorry about that. I am not trying to change people's opinions - although it may seem that way. I am merely looking at the way people respond to my commentary, hoping that my own thoughts and convictions may be challenged, and not negetively reinforced by stagnation. So as I challenge others, if I am correct in my assertions and my "oponent" realizes this, hopefully the barrier of this negatively reinforced belief system can be broken down, thus becoming easier for him to challenge himself, a newfound openmindedness, you might say. The same applies to me, of course.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Anduril
I was hoping that you might divulge some of these blessings.

Let's see... I've never felt so much guidance in my life since I began to adhere to unyielding moral values. Not that I hadn't before; they were always stringent in comparison to the general populace. Rather, I learned of the spirit behind these laws and the eternal rewards. This gives me an indescribable peace within me that helps me become more and more perfect. Now, I'm nowhere near that stage of perfection, but I definitely know I'm on the right path.

I could add, if you like. You need only inquire.

Originally posted by Anduril
I am not trying to make people feel better. Sorry about that. I am not trying to change people's opinions - although it may seem that way. I am merely looking at the way people respond to my commentary, hoping that my own thoughts and convictions may be challenged, and not negetively reinforced by stagnation. So as I challenge others, if I am correct in my assertions and my "oponent" realizes this, hopefully the barrier of this negatively reinforced belief system can be broken down, thus becoming easier for him to challenge himself, a newfound openmindedness, you might say. The same applies to me, of course.

I totally agree with your philosophy... it just seemed to me that you were merely highlighting inconsistincies in another's logic (which I have no problem with, really), but it seems a little blunt. I've always been taught (here I go again ) that it's most effective to be an example, not one who tries to degrade others' beliefs. We live in a very critical society, which makes it difficult to abstain from it, but it will profit you in the end.

I really appreciate your frankness. I hope you did not and do not find my replies offensive in any manner.

Does anyone else feel as though this thread has digressed? I see no near end in debating evolution further. I stick with my last post.

[Andúril]

...but it seems a little blunt

It can seem that way sometimes. But bluntness is often misconstrued as harshness, and I am definitely not trying to be harsh. Sometimes a blunt, concise answer is all that is needed; other times, elaboration is necessary to get a point across adequately. It depends on the recipient of the commentary though, in my opinion.

I really appreciate your frankness. I hope you did not and do not find my replies offensive in any manner.

I do not find the commentary from you or anyone here offensive.

Let's see... I've never felt so much guidance in my life since I began to adhere to unyielding moral values. Not that I hadn't before; they were always stringent in comparison to the general populace.

Are you perhaps implying that the existence of the Christian God is necessary for morals to exist? Or do you admit that it is possible that an individual may construct a moral value system, without the existence of a divine being, or without the knowledge of an existent divine being (or even the denial of belief in any possibly existent divine beings)? I submit that it is possible and highly probable for all these scenarios to be true.

Rather, I learned of the spirit behind these laws and the eternal rewards. This gives me an indescribable peace within me that helps me become more and more perfect. Now, I'm nowhere near that stage of perfection, but I definitely know I'm on the right path.

I am not sure if this "peace" that you feel can be directly attributed and limited to the Christian moral system. Could it not be perhaps the feeling of confidence or commitment or contentment in a chosen moral system that you are feeling, and if this is the case, you are feeling similar to those who have come to the point in their lives where they are happy and content with their chosen beliefs? People such as Muslims, Humanists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc? Then of course those who are in a constant state of searching for answers, those who can not accept any belief system for any number of reasons, they would probably lack this feeling. Am I making any sense here?

I have trouble in agreeing with your concept of perfection. Can we agree that morally perfect only applies within a certain moral system, and does not apply to others? In other words, the less you find yourself digressing from your set morals, the closer you find yourself to moral perfection, but that could mean that you are morally imperfect from the perspective of others.

I could add, if you like. You need only inquire.

I would like to inquire further of any additional blessings.