[q]
EDIT: There are inconsitancies and such that discredit Evolution, or that tend to suggest it is flawd or wrong\inconclusive. Such as incomplete fossil records. Not finding tranisitional species or fossils or w\e (or not enough of them). Big gaps in fossil records (maby). This is just one of the flaws. How can you say man evolved from ape\monkey? And that from a tiny simple cell at the creation of the universe. How did nonlife create life? How did matter come from nonmatter? How did the universe begin? You say a beleif, sorry, FACT, that we evolved, is so certian cause it is the best way to explain things, is true? Well, what about all the inprobabilities, all of the inconsitancies, the missing info. You fail to answer these questions yourself. For all of these i can tell you what us christians beleive. Some of it you probably heard before, yes, but still. We beleive, because of our faith. How did the world begin? God created it. We have answers, and some explinations, but yes they are based on faith or the bible. It gives us a basis, and a answer to fill the void. It makes sence to us. You cirticise our beleifs with an answer, yet you fail to answer the same questions of your own.[/q]
Ok, this is another inherent misunderstanding. Firstly, the incomplete fossil record does not discredit evolution; it is both expected and predicted by geology and is a known restriction that evolutionary research takes into account. In actualiy, a complete fossil record would be evidence for some sort of miraculous cause, given the incredibly high odds on having one. Moreso, what evidence we have - and it is a lot, both from fossil record and lab experiments on macroevolution - is all supportive. This a tired and nonsensical arguement to make, because it applies to every scientific theory ever made if you invoke the principle of an infinitely complex universe; i.e. the untestability of string theory or the lack (as of yet) of discovery of the Higgs Boson could be used to declare physics wrong.
Now, firstly, I'd note for the 3rd or 4th time that abiogensesis - the development of first life - isn't actually covered by evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is an incredibly difficult subject, and it'll take us a long time to tie down the mechanics, although we have already done some work (such as showing that amino acids, with an electrical input such as lightning, can self-assemble in an atmosphere akin to that predicted for early earth). And sofoth. But I'm not going to argue about abiogenesis because it's irrelevant.
Also, the origins of the universe are again not related to evolution but are a matter of physics. So you've failed to understand evolution in a basic enough way to understand the scope of it, let alone the content.
So let me explain it. Evolution is not about the origin of the universe or life, but how life developed once it begin. It may be, of course, that something akin to evolutionary principles helped in the development of things like amino acids, but that is really outside the scope of evolutionary theory itself. So your key arguements here are actually arguements to be used against abiogenesis.
Except for 'man evolved from ape'. So, how can we say that? 2 things immediately spring to mind
-Physical similarities documented across the known fossil record (you can see a link to a bbc article a few pages or so back to the discovery of a transitional form in an area with other transitional forms that further supports the evolutionary path)
-Genetic similarities (actually, we can extend this and also note the commonalities in both DNA and the use of same amino acids, etc, are evidence of descent from a single common ancestor organism, i.e. that single cell).
It's worth noting human evolution itself is still something under scrutiny and being strongly debated. I have no doubt you or someone else would try and take that as some problem with the theory; the truth is that it's the
strength; the creationist arguement would and is to say x is true, back it up with some poorly researched bollocks, and discourage any conversation or work about the validity of x.
Is it the best way to explain certain things? YES. That's the whole bloody point! It has more supporting evidence than any other theory ever made, that's why it's the dominant and accepted one. Define what questions evolution fails to answer, because all the ones you've proposed here have been fuelled by your own inherent misunderstanding of the theory. Moreso, unlike faith based explanations, not only evolution (science) dictated by evidence before a theory is formed, that theory is always open to contradiction and thus revisal should reliable scientific evidence exist. Whereas you've consistently shown here an unwillingness to even acknowledge, let alone address, the disproof offered to everyone of your own quasi-scientific justifications and rolled back here onto accusing people - which would include the last 2 Popes and the Archbishop of Canterbury - of religious bias against you.
[q]Aprox. 10,000 years. The Bible depicts the world being created in 6 days. God developed it not at the absolute beginning of age, nor as a old planet, but as a sort of middleaged one, IIRC. From earliest records, is like what, 6000 BC (iirc), and its 2000ad now right? That would be 8000 years, give or take some more. There are some ppl to claim to have facts supporting this theory. It is late and i have no time to research that now. But i do recall a segment in a book of the related subject matter, claiming some proof to this. If anyone has time, they can look it up in place of me; to keep this going, and shed light on both sides.
Evolutionists beleive the universe is 100's of billions of years old. The earth several billion, IIRC. Im choosing not to go into detail; lest i offend some of the 'you are a disgrase if you do not know 100% of the facts and nacks about evolution concerning this matter' people. (Kara, i beleive. Maby it was Aldo. Not sure.) And jsut to be clear, i ahve nothing agienst any of you for what you beleive or say. As kara said, all are intitled to their own beleifs.[/q]
Actually, scientologists believe the universe is hundreds of billions of years old.
The age of the universe according to science is 13.7bn years, give or take a few hundred; this was determined by the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe (a satellite) in 2003, using the Hubble constant (the constant rate of movement of galaxies in the expanding universe IIRC) to measure the distance of the galaxies around us. The earths' age is 4,550m years old, defined by Clair Patterson by measuring the age of meteorites (plate tectonics make it hard to find ancient earth rocks, so instead Patterson used - uncontaminated only - these as they are leftovers from the accretion of the planets and have a fairly pristine condition) using a mass spectrograph.
I note that you have to twist the bible into your own personal interpretation rather than the literal words to even begin to account for this. Unfortunately, carbo dating does reliably go back about 60,000 years (based on constants of decay and accounting for the documented dating skew by using tree rings, as I mentioned earlier), so we can disprove the age of the earth being 8,000 years rather comprehensively by both that angle and also sediment layers (i.e. we have older human remains than 8,000 years - 195,000 being the oldest modern human remains found -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo_2.html)
If you don't know the facts - and you clearly don't - then you have to ask yourself why you're participating in a debate when you don't have the understanding of the basic subject that debate is about. IN this page I've seen the use of the wrong age of the universe, wrong definition of the scope of evolutionary theory, not understanding the mechanics of understanding human descent, and admitting you don't know the 2nd law of thermodynamics arguement (fair enough, it's a stupid arguement) before citing a (biased) page that makes the thoroughly discredited arguement of irreducible complexity.
It's not a belief, though; it's an established, documented, and well proven scientific theory. That's like saying that knowing things fall down due to the force of gravity is a 'belief'. That's the whole point, really; creationism is belief. Evolution is science. One is neutral and revised to fit the known facts, one exists solely to bulk upon support for a social code of morality. One is supported by both the Vatican and Church of England, alongside every biologist in the world, as the right answer to fit everything we know. Guess which?
Oh yeah, and as Bob said there are a lot of transitional fossils. Lots. Equines are well documented in the fossil record (that's horses). Archeoptyrx is a famous example. The very first page has an example of a transitional fish-land animal fossil (others include Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega). We have human transitional fossils (to be precise,
homo genus fossils). Fossils depicting the evolution of sea-living mammals like whales (Sinonyx, Rodhocetus, etc). And actually quite a lot more on top of that.
[q]
*Breath* Evolution is the evolving of past species (to make new ones) over (millions or thousands of years) a long period of time. They evolve due to adapting and overcomeing (or dieing and becomeing extinct by) natural disasters or other such phenomenon. A flood occurs, some die, some grow gills (over a period of time), tho it may be a drastic example, nonetheless it is an example. Maby a better example is, if they lived by
of water, such as marshes or bogs.[/q]
Complete tosh, and you've already been corrected for it way back. Evolution is
not, I repeat
not caused by natural disaster, and it doesn't require millions of years. That's quite simply mindnumbingly stupid; evolution is not a reactive action in the way you depict it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Evolution - the selection of features caused by random mutation - is dependent on that mutated feature being advantageous either in the sense of aiding survival or reproductive chances. This is the most basic part of evolutionary theory, and you've got it wrong despite me correcting you earlier.
Example;
We have a gazelle. This gazelle, thanks to some mutation, has 5% better peripheral vision. Does that mutation aid the gazelles ability to survive? Yes. Does it require 'natural disasters or other such phenomenon'?
Absolutely not.
I feel like banging my head against the wall here.
[q]Common ancestroy, yeah, that is what i meant. Some Evolutionists do say man came from ape, and we have all heard that, so why am i being blaimed for repeating it?[/q]
You're being blamed for your failure to understand the supporting evidence.
[q]Guess i struck a funny bone.
Fossilation, the process and creating of oil.
Fossils, created by organic material under
of pressure, as a landslide covering them, sinking in mud, (earthquake) ect e c t. Oil, created by lots of animals decay(ed)ing under the same pressure as when fossilized i beleive. You guys say its rare and barely happened. That were lucky to have as much oil and such as we have.
[/q]
You're getting it wrong again.
Firstly, only organisms not eaten are fossilized; out of that pool - about 0.1% - you have a small chance of being fossilized. You need to die in the right place - only about 15% of rocks can preserve fossils. In practical terms, you need to be in an area buried in sediment to leave an impression, and where there is no oxygen (this allows the molecules in bones and hard parts to be replaced by harder molecules, creating a mineral replacement of the original part/s). Then you need to be lucky enough for that fossil to remain intact over millions of years of geological changes shifting, pressing and folding the sediment that fossil remains in. And then you need to find it. It has been estimated that less than one species in 10,000 has made it into the fossil record - and that's a conservative estimate, and we'd still need to find these species.
Oil - or more correctly, petroleum - is believed to be caused by the decayed remains (
not fossils, which are mineralized remains) of plant and ancient (simple) marine life, whereby the remains are trapped under sedimentary layws of material. Heat and pressure cause the remains to metamorphose, eventually into 'oil', whereby it migrates through the rock layers until trapped in porous rocks (reservoirs).
So there is no relation whatsoever between oil and fossilisation.
[q]
Anyways. The flood explains this. The water from the firmament and the waters from under the earth came crashing down, and swept away and sank all the slower and bigger animals. Then the animals went twards the higher grounds. They eventually got sucked in too. All the dirt and Plants and such, the sediment, laid on the sunken animals and such, and you have your fossils. This isnt exactly from the bible, it merely pointed us in the right direction. This is logical. many fish died, cause of the water polution and sediment, but not all, so that explains why some fish lived ect.
"The original creation of oil or petroleum is not well understood. There are several theories, but the matter is still one of scientific controversy. It is generally accepted however that the origin of oil begins with plant fossils, just as with coal. The study of fossils is called paleontology. The creation of oil is part of geology." From:
http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/links/html/oil/oil_create.htmlA brief blurp. Anyways, you have your fossils, all being made at once, you have your large groups of plants all ready with the pressure to create oil (of corce, when the water went down; very heavy mudd possibly sped up the process).[/q]
Again, this is inconsistent by scientific knowledge (why the hell are you quoting a creationist webpage? We all know there's an agenda here, an inherent bias, and that source is also completely wrong). For example, if the flood happened - and
I've already said this - it would have killed of not just some fish, but all fish not suited to that particular slightly-salty water content (I think the term is brackish, not sure). That is, fish who lived in freshwater would die because of the salt content, fish who lived in the sea would die because of the freshwater infusion diluting the salt content, and the only survivors would be those who could live in the resulting global mix. So the flood in effect predicts we have no sea-life afterwards.
NB: you mean 'pointed us in the right way' as in the sense you need to liberally reinterpret the bible to account for accepted scientific knowledge?
[q]As for different species, god created various versions of some of the species. Several types of apes, thus, several similar types of ape skulls and skellitons. That dose Not mean its a 'tranistional fossil'. Just means its a different type. As for the man ones:
People of the world all look different, and have similar but slightly variated skull structures. That explains chinamens smallness and squinty eyes, as a normal. Yes, the skull structures changed alittle over the years, like, ones of 6000bc-2000ad. We beleive variations in species occurs, slightly, after god created them, as time passes, but not in evolutoin or a radical majior change. Skull structures may vary a little, as you have your men skulls there. That does not mean its a transistional fossil.[/q]
I see you still don't understand a transitional fossil, then. It's a fossil showing a distinct linking morphological change that fits between a predecessor and descendent fossil (dated as per the fossil record). Evolution explains all these morphological changes far better than God does - why would God want to create a non-uniform species? The only reason is if it gave those individual groupings an advantage. So in other words, God acts in the same way as natural selection. And these changes are accounted for by mutation. so really, your own example proves we don't need God here, unless God is making random changes for the hell of it, in which case it's most definately logically inconsistent with the far more rational act of selection.
[q]If man had same ancestors as apes, what species did man come from, if it was Not apes? Where are they today?[/q]
Oh my.... ahem. The ancestors...evolved. Evolution confers...
an advantage. That's what we call
selection. Therefore, the ancestors are outcompeted and die out. Guess what - modern apes also evolved from ancestors. Like everything else on the planet.
