[q]I think the last limit God set for man was ~ 120 years. We are just getting better health conditions and pills and **** to live around 100. Before we didnt have those and only lived to 55-60.[/q]
The worlds oldest (verified) person was 122 years old; Jeanne Calmert who died in 1997. There have of course been claims of older people (such as 128 in the Phillipines), but the lack of documentation makes it harder to verify.
[q]
Evolutionists beleive (some do) that God created the universe? That seems like irony right there.[/q]
Um, no, not irony. Irony would imply 'a contrast or an incongruity between what is stated and what is really meant', and evolution doesn't state anything about the creation of the universe (or creation of life for that matter).
There is no connection between how the universe was created and the theory of evolution. Both are disparate theories and actually in different fields; evolution is biology and (for example the big bang theory) the creation of the universe is more related to physics. i.e. evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.
It's worth noting. Evolution doesn't deny or even address the existence of (a) God; it just gives the best explanation fitting the observable world and evidence.
[q]Well, you missed what i said, apparently. I said on a smaller scale. Its 'changing' not really 'evolving\evolution'.[/q]
Evolution is change. you've made the mistake of confusing the cumulative action of evolution to being evolution itself; evolution is a process of gradual, selected very small steps that build up into larger morphological-type changes, speciation, etc. This is one of the reasons transitional evidence is so important.
EDIT; to be precise, evolution involves a process of continuous incremental changes. Selected by sexual or fitness advantage, etc.
[q]I have no reply other then: As you said youself, you need certian conditions to be perfect before thigns can fossilize. Peoples bones in graves is not the correct condition.[/q]
What makes you think the conditions for fossilization are not present? We have egyptian commoners from the time of Moses who were found in the correct conditions; we can measure the known date of their burial (approx date), correlate it with carbon dating (it's within the realms of that method to do so) and known history, and compare the progress of mineralization (remember how fossils are made?) in those remains.
I think Bob made a slight omission or mistake in the use of fossilization, because it might not be clear here; a fossil is a bone/hard tissue (or sometimes soft tissue - rapid burial is required for these) that has had its molecules completely replaced by minerals and thus become stone. This is by no means an instantaneous process, and as said above we can check the rate of progress in relatively 'modern' remains (modern in geological terms).
[q]Im not saying that.
The exact measurements of the Arc may be not completely correct due to imperfect transilation of measurements.[/q]
Um, even to have the minimal size of ark for the lowest possible estimate of animals, bearing in mind you'd need a survivable number of animals (which would contradict both by pairs or even in 7s, because you need about 20+ for any hope of survival of a species and predators need a high prey ratio for both to survive), you'd still be looking at a truly vast ship, probably larger than anything we can build today. You'd also need for even the specified size to have different building methods from that described in the bible (namely steel/iron reinforcements). But I think I've covered this anyways in the earlier pages.
[q]
There is more that goes into it then simply less radiation. There is a way less amount of nutrients in plants and the soil (the earth basicaly) nowadays, then there was back then. The canopy caused the rapid and large growth of animals humans and plants. The great amounts of nutrients is the factor that helped with prolonging life and maintianing ones body. Took longer to break the body down (age) ect.[/q]
Do you have any supporting evidence or a source for that? I've never heard anything like that suggested anywhere.
[q]Did you get what i said about the few beginning cells, when creating a baby? They have the 'blueprints' of what each cell they duplicate from that point- what they will do. They all have functions. Cant change them. So, how can they decide to become more complex or change from their planned purpose?[/q]
They don't 'decide'. They mutate. You'll have, on average, about 7 mutations within your genetic code. Most will be neutral, so they don't have any observable effect and don't propagate across the species. Sometimes, you will have some mutation that makes you live longer, more sexually attractive, etc. (this is more applicable to animals and small populations due to the effects of human society making it both quite easy to survive and people likely to be monogamous) You live longer or get more attractive, and thus can produce more children. They gain your advantage through genetic inheritance of the advantageous mutation, and live longer and have more kids, and over time that mutation spreads to the majority of the species. These mutations accumulate, until we get a new distinct species. At no point is there a 'decision' made.
Essentially, a mutation changes that blueprint. There is no conscious 'act' to mutate in a certain way; the mutation is chance. The selection, of course, isn't; it's based on an environmental or reproductive advantage. It's a bit like brainstorming ideas for a project, and reusing those that work for other projects.
EDIT; to be more specific.
Mutations generally happen as a result of copying DNA. The general rate is 10^-10 to 10^-12 per base pair (a base pair is either a Thymine-Adenine or Guanine-Cytosine pair - the TA / GC letters you'll see in DNA samples; T only maps to A and G to C, which is why DNA can so efficiently replicate by splitting). Mutations include insertion of base-pair strands, the changing of one of these 'letters' (i.e. T becomes A and we end up with AT instead of TA), or the deletion of strands.
These mutations can, for example, change the coding for a created protein. This in turn has a biochemical effect upon the formation of the body, neutral (i.e. we can't detect it unless doing a genetic level examination), negative or positive.
You'll note there's no control mechanism to weed out negative but recessive mutations, such as a propensity for cancer or similar. Essentially, a recessive mutation is one where the positive/normal characteristic is dominant over it; i.e. when you have 2 parents and one contributes the negative and the other the 'normal' chromosome, the normal will be asserted in the child. It takes 2 recessive parental contributions to actually cause the characteristic to crop up. This kind of emphasises that we have no control over this; it's really just down to chemistry, and we can't pick and choose what genes we get other than by excercising mate choice (which would lead us onto sexual selection and its implications on things like the peacocks tail or human mind, but that's something for later).
Also, it's worth noting that most positive mutations are generally lost due to things like dominance/recession; it's been estimated a mutation conferring a 1% increase in fitness is 2% likely to 'fix'; although recurring mutations obviously have an increased frequency. Also, neutral mutations can 'fix' too. What is key to remember here, is that natural selection means that organisms with a negative mutation as part of their DNA (i.e. affecting the organisms makeup) are more likely to die, and those with a positive mutation are more likely to live; so the relative constants of the chemical DNA action is mediated by the effects upon survival and that organism having the opportunity to reproduce.
(sorry, that might be a bit muddled sounding. Basically, the chemical likelihood of any mutation being propagated is the same, but the likelihood of that organism surviving and reproducing affects a likelihood effect upon that chemical likelihood).
[q]Just trying to understnad the different aspects of Evolution etc, as you repeditely claim i misunderstand.[/q]
To re-emphasise; the creation of the universe is not an aspect of evolution. It is an aspect of science, but not the specific biological theory of evolution.
The main reason, I think, that the creation of the universe has cropped in this thread as a topic is because it relates to the follies of reading the bible as a literal rather than allegorical or mythological history.
