The History of the Universe

[RpTheHotrod]

Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"

 

No, not examples, no "probably"s, solid evolution that if stated on the news, so true and proven, that nearly every single person would agree that evolution is true.

[BCanr2d2]

Then as many as we have said, give us proof that the Bible is true as well - it is not enough to discredit evolution, therefore assume Creation is correct. For all we know, both sides of the argument may be wrong.

It's like me saying 1+1= 3 and you saying 1+1=1, neither of us are right, but if you say my answer is wrong, you assume yours is right, without ever proving that it is. Just because one answer is not correct, does not necessarily mean that an alternate answer is correct by default, you must still prove that it is correct.

After all, most of the current line of thinking only stretches back 200 years, when the Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago knew just as much, or possibly more than man does now about many important things. Do not simply assume this technological age is the be all and end all of human knowledge....

 

At this moment, neither side can definitively say that either method is true or untrue. We can continue to disprove each other, but how do you refute someone who only quotes the Bible as their source, and not back it up with any other evidence.....

 

RptheHotrod, you are assuming that you are remaining still for a day or night to be lengthened by the Earth slowing down. I question your logic of how you make this assumption. After all, if it is written from God's perspective, then what is his interpretation of a night and day BEFORE the Earth was created? You do not know that, nor can you ever know that.

Cjais has already shown that the world, at its longest interpretation, was created in 3 years....

A complete literal interpretation of the Bible states that Joseph and Mary lived both in Nazareth and Bethlehem simultaneously, coming from the books of Luke and Matthew. As they state different things about what happened in the time leading up to Jesus' birth. The text was written originally in Greek, with the most highly accepted translation being that of King James, still in itself a quite old translation. You want to talk about out of context, it is here that I believe many Greek words to be placed out of context, or misinterpreted, since many languages have double meanings for the same words, depending where they are used.

You also take subjective choices, and try to pass them off as being objective. Taste, smell, amongst other things is subjective, it is up to each person to decide if they like what they are eating or smelling. You can't just go out there and say brown haired males aged 15, weighing 60 kgs, like Coca Cola over Pepsi, and state that this is the Creators choice...

 

 

As for those that refute that there is life in the Arctic, and extreme cold, then do a search on Lake Vostok in Russia and you might be surprised about what may exist in a lake that is constantly 4 km's under ice.....

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true.

 

The fact that virus evolve(through survival of the fittest)to combat immune systems,or vice-versa?

[Master_Keralys]

Cjais, you ask in essence, "If we have a perfect Creator, why aren't we perfect?"

 

Now to go a bit theological here (don't quote me as being just a Bible-thumping wacko, okay, I'll get to science in a minute) - go read Genesis. It's our fault we're screwed up, not God's. He created us, and we were "good". And then the woman listened to a temptation, and did what God forbade her to do. The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

 

Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone - if you looked at your tailbone and the muscles attached to it, you'd see the same thing. Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily. What they actually are is the means for blood to pass through the lungs and pick up oxygen! Any resemblance, however superficial, to anything that might be our evolutionary ancestor, is pointed at as "proof" that we evolved.

 

If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

 

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."

 

Just because things are designed similarly doesn't mean that they "evolved" from one another. A perfect example is sharks and dolphins. They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc. So why do they look so similar? Because they were designed in a way that made them suitable for their environment.

 

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution. It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

 

Anyone who says the Bible contradicts itself about Jesus' birth is wrong. When it gives differing geneologies - those are the geneologies of different people: Mary and Joseph. Careful examination shows that They could not have been in both places at the same time according to the Biblical record; they were required by Roman law to report to Bethlehem for the census. And they did.

 

Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws. But I haven't seen a massive group of them just take over the human population because they're better fit to survive. for the most part, it is only select groups that have that problem - not all. A lot of which comes down to eating habits and differences in location.

 

Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed. And they actually have the ability to smell. Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water. Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too? Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

 

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

 

That's the problem with evolution.

[ShadowTemplar]

I promised myself (again) not to get into this... But I guess that I'll have another go:

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution.

 

Whatever you classify a virus, it'll be a forced fit. It falls inbetween.

 

And natural selection is evolution.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

 

Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

 

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

 

Again your beloved Irreducible Complexity. Which is just as silly as Irreducible Simplicity (of course anything can be divided by zero, its just those stupid mathmaticians who claim otherwise, against their own better judgement).

 

In this particular case you need to check up on the Galapagos biosphere, and particularily the reptiles living both in and out of the water. Or your local pond, where you will se numerous frogs. Over to C'Jais (and this time I hope to stay out).

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it.

 

No. HE called them cavemen.

 

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

 

What I called (and still do call) SPAM is mindless restatements of things that have already been refuted countless times, without coming up with anything new to counter the refuttal. That's just a cheap way to overburden the pitifully understaffed Evolution side. Oh, and he (and I) actually have proven evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Does away with God, you say? Well, so what. When I look at the Universe I see no absolute values of good or evil. I only see a blind, pitiless indifference, as devoid of malice as it is of compassion. If you can't handle that, then by all means imagine a God whatching over you. But don't tell that lie to your children, or your pupils.

 

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.

 

Polar Bears? Evolved for the environment, you say? Ohh, gee.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"

 

Nature isn't that simple, but I can name some pretty good evidence that can only be explained by the evolution theory.

 

Pseudogenes, for one.

 

Pseudogenes (junk DNA) are remains of genes that no longer function, but continue to be carried along in the DNA as extra luggage that does nothing at all. Pseudogenes change as they're passed on from ancestors, and they're a powerful tool to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. As the common ancestor between two organisms, the more different their pseudogenes will be from each other.

 

When these genes are compared between, let's say, a human and a dog, their differences are relatively few, compared to human pseudogenes and those of wheat.

 

Humans have about 100 genes for odour receptors, yet only 30 of those are functional. In other mammals they're all functional, indicating we're losing our sense of smell because it's no longer dead important to survive.

 

In fact, DNA can also be used to eerily predict discoveries based completely on the evolutionary theory. Strange. It's works, it predicts, it saves lives and it has so far only served to increase our understanding of genetics... but it's not true. Ah well, I'd rather go with something that's actually functional and can predict things even if it's blatantly false.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.

 

Wrong!!! If I move from New York City out to the farmlands in Georgia somewhere with pigs and cows and where it is hotter, I am going to have to adapt to my environment. Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

 

Where does it say exactly this?

 

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

 

Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone

 

No. They are clearly tails. If they were "early formations" of the tailbone, they wouldn't be as huge as they are. They are tails, but gradually shrink back to the tailbone since that's a leftover from our ancestry with other species.

 

It's also almost remarkably peculiar that almost every mammal look exactly the same during the first stages of the pregnancy, complete with gills and tails. Every mammal, I stress again. Common ancestry? Nah - just God's curious sense of humour.

 

Oh, and it's gill slits.

 

Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily.

 

You are joking, right?

 

Gills slits in lungs? What are you smoking? Sorry. It's just not true. It is gill slits we see on embryos. They disappear as the pregnancy goes along, but it is indeniably (non-functional) gills.

 

I'd like to see you point out where exactly these gills should reside in our lungs. They're nowhere to be found, as far as I'm concerned.

 

If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

 

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."

 

That analogy is about as relevant as true as me saying: "We are all built from the same elemental compounds. Thus, we're all related."

 

They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc.

 

Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Dolphins share many more genes with us than with sharks. Related to us? Nah, probably not by a long shot.

 

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same.

 

Virus are made of the same basic proteins and nucleic acids as we. They as have DNA/RNA, as we. They can reproduce, as we. They can parasitize other creatures and gain from it (as we, heh).

 

They're neither alive nor dead according to biological conventions.

 

It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

 

Tell me the difference between evolving and adapting. Tell me where the defining line between the two is.

 

Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws.

 

Clearly, wisdom teeth are a bigger problem than you've realized.

 

Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed.

 

No. No. No.

 

They have no noses. You're confusing "noses" with snouts.

 

And they actually have the ability to smell.

 

Haha. You made a funny.

 

No, they cannot smell. At all. I'm staking a lot on this fact.

 

Now, isn't it curious that dolphins have genes that once coded for odour receptors? Related to us? Nah, God just felt like including all this junk DNA to puzzle us.

 

Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water.

 

Finally a place where you have your facts straight. Yes, sharks can smell. And yes, they do have noses.

 

Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too?

 

Nope. Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Whales are mammals. Both whales and sharks have a ton of traits in common with us. They have five "finger" bones in their fins. Sharks do not. I'm also betting, predicting, that whales have non-functional genes that code for odour receptors as well. Notice I'm predicting a discovery based on the evolutionary theory.

 

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land.

 

Amphibious creatures. No, they wouldn't be "vulnerable" on land. They'd be gradually better swimmers, and thus inclined to stay more in the water.

 

Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

 

Argh. This is just false.

 

You assume that evolution works on a sequential basis, right? Wrong - it works simultaneusly since the rate of mutations is constant. The death of one individual carrying the changed gene is not going to stop the rest of those who also carry it. 60 millions years is not going them.

 

Seriously, do you have any idea how long 4 billion years is? We're nothing compared to that stretch of time. Nothing. We're totally insignificant when viewed in the proper timescale.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.

 

Factor in 2 million years. You'll "adapt". You'll see.

 

The problem with you guys is that you seriously have no sense of scale. You expect immediate evolving if I'm gone on a vacation to Egypt. Not going to happen.

 

Now, both in the sense of "adaptation" and evolution it requires several generations and thousands of years for something noticable to happen.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Psydan

Well, if you look at any good anatomy book, you'll notice that there IS a purpose for these "non-functioning remains of tails". The "tailbone" has many important muscles attached to it

 

The point is that there are actually quite few muscles attached to this thing, and those that are attached to it could easily have been placed a more convenient place.

 

In fact, since it's so easy to break this bone, one must wonder why God implemented us with such ridiculously useless potential source of pain.

 

But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

 

That sounds plausible, and a lot more likely than God (I'm being sarcastic, so don't quote me on this!).

 

Haha.

 

Do I have to repeat myself more than necessary, on even the basic concepts of evolution?

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by C'jais

Where does it say exactly this?

 

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

 

And you need to read Genesis 2 before you speak:

 

Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."

 

Now before you say anything about the last 4 words of that verse, God spared them because he loved them but he harmed the serpent. (Devil).

 

Originally posted by C'jais

But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

 

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

[Pnut_Man]

I'm not sure where to continue from, and i'm not sure why i'm bothering with this hopeless thread yet again...

I might as well state my opinions:

 

God: So we're all just a result of random chemical reactions and chance? That's my comeback to people who do not believe in a Higher Power. The most important thing to understand while discussing God is that God is not human; he does not think like a human, his needs and motives are not human, therefore we cannot say that he was dumb to do this, or to think/plan this, etc. If what I have said is true, God does not plan or think, he always knows (which is beyond human comprehension for we live in a universe with beginnings and ends).

 

Evolution: I'm not really sure where in the Bible it says that Evolution is blasphemy and not true. Of course, you can interpret parts of the Bible to hint at this, but officially it was never written word for word. I find it quite simple to see that evolution could work.

-God creates the universe (possibly universes) and within it (them) he plants worlds for life to live upon (either planets were made for life to live on, or they're just random decorations that orbit around an energy efficent sun).

-God creates the first forms of life which are one day destined to become humans. Within these organisms God puts forth the will to survive and live on.

-God oversees the develop of life, possibly making sure that it goes on and succesfully evolves.

-The Ape finally reaches a milestone of its potential - Human.

-Humans reach the point where they can finally understand their surrondings and create complex thought.

-God comes down to Earth and tells his creations of his existence and of the rules by which they shall follow.

[RpTheHotrod]

I am still waiting for the one absolute proof. Not "evidence' Even the bible has Evidence it's true. Several things are proven true in the Bible. (For example, I think it was the Hittites? People said for years they never existed, ever. Just fiction in the Bible. Well, guess what, we found their civilization awhile back, and their tools)

 

I asked for proof... not "clues", not "evidence".

 

You keep giving us "well, look at this, it's true"

and we'll keep giving you "well, look at this, this is true too"

 

 

and to whoever posted the chair thing, heh, and that room full of chairs, lol...good one Gonna remember that one.

 

 

btw, viruses (virii? or is that only computer terms) require something to survive. They don't evolve. They may adapt, but everyone does that, even today.

 

where the frick did you get "polar bears" from?

 

and how exactly did we get fossils of sea creatures in the middle of the united stats buried in the ground? the flood.

 

Also, if we came from monkies... why are there still monkies....

 

and you're still missing the missing link

[Pnut_Man]

"Why are there still monkies...."

 

I thought this was obvious to pick up:

The so called "monkies" that we evolved from needed to evolve to survive to their surrondings. We can all agree that every monkey in the world does not exist in one exact location. Lets say the monkies from Africa needed to evolve so that they could use their hands for more purposes (using tools, throwing rocks, etc, etc). While this is going on, the monkies in the rainforest are having a swell ole time living in the trees, they have no need to evolve.

 

Basic Summary: You need evolution if you want your ancestors to survive. If one subject of a species evolves it does not mean that every subject of that specie will evolve as well.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Pnut_Master

God: So we're all just a result of random chemical reactions and chance?

 

Not random. Selection points are not random. If our ape ancestors needed a bigger brain to survive, nature will damn well give them that, through selection pressure.

 

Consider a carton of milk. How does it get from the cow to the shelf? Without the farmer, the truckdriver, the grocer and the banker, that carton of milk would not arrive. Does this mean that there's a "Milk commisar" that oversees every part of this operation and makes sure it all goes as planned? How can this system organize itself by blind market forces alone? When we look at how command economies (communist) vs free market turns out, which is more logical - A DNA commisar vs the blind, random hand of natural selection?

 

If what I have said is true, God does not plan or think, he always knows (which is beyond human comprehension for we live in a universe with beginnings and ends).

 

The universe is vast and nearly infinitely complex. So vast and complex, that for God to tinker with it, he must be fully aware of the consequences of his actions. He must know its vast complexity down to minute detail. Everything that happens he can thus foresee the consequences of. If he can foresee that a comet will strike the earth in 3 thousand years, he can just alter a slight detail (break a few laws of physics, nothing too serious) and he has avoided an untimely demise for his creation.

 

...Which means humans cannot have free will if God is omniscient. Every action we do, God has predicted and foreseen before we're even conscious of taking it. Remember, even thoughts are actions, as they're neurochemical reactions in your brain. God has foreseen everything. Conclusion: We do not, and cannot have free will if God is able to rule his universe.

 

Evolution: I'm not really sure where in the Bible it says that Evolution is blasphemy and not true. Of course, you can interpret parts of the Bible to hint at this, but officially it was never written word for word. I find it quite simple to see that evolution could work.

-God creates the universe (possibly universes) and within it (them) he plants worlds for life to live upon (either planets were made for life to live on, or they're just random decorations that orbit around an energy efficent sun).

-God creates the first forms of life which are one day destined to become humans. Within these organisms God puts forth the will to survive and live on.

-God oversees the develop of life, possibly making sure that it goes on and succesfully evolves.

-The Ape finally reaches a milestone of its potential - Human.

-Humans reach the point where they can finally understand their surrondings and create complex thought.

-God comes down to Earth and tells his creations of his existence and of the rules by which they shall follow.

 

This is pure gold. Go out and preach this to other, less literalist Christians.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

I am still waiting for the one absolute proof. Not "evidence'

 

Sure. I'm happy with where you are now. You can go on with this charade of "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!" if you like. It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants who wouldn't be able to notice logic even if it bit you in your behind.

 

But I'm happy with the direction where this is going. You have now retreated to your indefeatable core of pure faith that does not require proof or fact to be true. You have now given up on presenting proof and refuting mine, and with each whiny post you make, I will look all the more victorious because it is so indeniably obvious that you have given up on trying to prove creationism with scientific fact. Now, you say, you're right because the Bible tells you so. Anyone with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented. Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact.

 

Want to hear some scary numbers? The number of "take-no-prisoners"-literal creationists are dwindling. They have been going downhill since the dark ages. It's looking grimmer and more and more ugly for your kind. Your world view is dying out. There is no sign that the Biblical world view is getting stronger. The evolutionary theory is getting more and more backed up by logic and facts with each decade.

 

So, even though I know you're dead set in your beliefs, and that nothing will cure you save disproving God (which I've done a few times now) - I'm content with the fact that I know I'll be right in the end. It's a superficial enjoyment, but I'm savouring it like nothing else. I'll burn in hell, but at least I can see I'm right with regards to evolution and that my descendants will live in a future devoid of creationist hogwash. Sorry for this rant, but if you can, I can damn well too.

 

Now lets get this thing back on track.

 

Even the bible has Evidence it's true.

 

You must learn to distinguish between historical fact and Biblical horsedung. It's historical fact that the Hittites existed. This would have been proved without the aid of the Bible. It's not fact that Jesus exerted miracles. That the Bible tells you so does not in any way make it fact. This is logic on a very basic level, and I'm praying hard that you can follow me here. We need evidence that miracles and reality bending took place.

 

btw, viruses (virii? or is that only computer terms) require something to survive. They don't evolve. They may adapt, but everyone does that, even today.

 

Ahh! So everything adapts?

 

What is the difference between evolution and "adaptation". Where is the defining line between the two?

 

Fine, we'll call evolution adaptation if that makes you happy.

 

and how exactly did we get fossils of sea creatures in the middle of the united stats buried in the ground?

 

Plate tectonics. How come there are sea shells on mount everest? How come Mt Everest is taller than Mt Ararat and yet still got covered by the flood? Plate tectonics.

 

Regarding the flood, how'd you explain the polar ice caps? What happens when they get submerged?

 

What happens to farm land when salt water is poured over it? It's useless as farmland. Did Noah farm recently after landfall?

 

What did all the predators eat after landfall?

 

Why is the geological layers and fossils found the exact same way evolution predicted them to - most primitive lowest etc? Ah, that's right, the primitive ones couldn't escape the flood and thus were covered earliest, right? Two words: Birds and plants. I'm sure you know by now what I'm going to say.

 

Also, if we came from monkies... why are there still monkies....

 

If children descended from adults, how come there are still adults?

 

They had a common ancestor, and I'm pleasantly surprised that an actual Christian knew and told you this. Well done, Pnut.

 

and you're still missing the missing link

 

What? The "missing" link between our ape ancestor and us? It's been found. In more

 

Okay, here it goes: Tugenensis, tchadensis, kadabba, ramidus, Lothagam, australopethicus, afarensis, bahrelghazali, platyops, boisei, crassidens, robustus, aethiopicus, africanus, garhi, rudolfensis, habilis, pekinensis, erectus, ergaster, louisleakeyi, neanderthalensis, steinheimensis, heidelbergensis, antecessor, rhodesiensis, helmei and last but not least: sapiens.

 

Now, which missing link do we need now? Oh, right, they're all hoaxes. Fakes. Useless evidence. All of them.

[Reborn Outcast]

Cjais I'll say it again because you havn't answered me yet...

 

 

Originally posted by C'jais

Where does it say exactly this?

 

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

 

And you need to read Genesis 2 before you speak:

 

Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."

 

Now before you say anything about the last 4 words of that verse, God spared them because he loved them but he harmed the serpent. (Devil).

 

 

Originally posted by C'jais

But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

 

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Cjais I'll say it again because you havn't answered me yet...

 

hehehe... fair enough really.

 

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

 

You have to understand, there's nothing to select against a tailbone. A tail there is, because it's useless when walking upright. But as stated before, there are a few muscle attachments to the tailbone itself, making it somewhat important (but it could easily have been removed and its muscle attachments placed somewhere far more convenient).

 

And scale again. Just as the dewclaw on dogs and cats, making a limb disappear is not something that's done overnight.

 

Oh, and I'm not even going near a Bible discussion here, as I haven't even read more than a few necessary lines. That point is completely irrelevant to evolution anyway.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by C'jais

You have to understand, there's nothing to select against a tailbone. A tail there is, because it's useless when walking upright. But as stated before, there are a few muscle attachments to the tailbone itself, making it somewhat important (but it could easily have been removed and its muscle attachments placed somewhere far more convenient).

 

And scale again. Just as the dewclaw on dogs and cats, making a limb disappear is not something that's done overnight.

 

Oh yes I see what you are saying but I'm just wondering that, according to evolutionists, why wouldn't the tailbone have evolved over 4 million years to not break as easily? Or waht about the thing in your body (I believe that it is the appendix, correct me if I'm wrong) that leads to a dead end where "stones" are formed from food that builds up there?

 

And I did have a reasonable timescale with me because the hominid species of Australopithecines didn't have tails and that was 4 million years ago. I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something.

 

EDIT: As you can see, I'm trying to make a rational arguement.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

why wouldn't the tailbone have evolved over 4 million years to not break as easily?

 

Oh, you want diamond hard bones? Sorry, I'm guessing you'll have to wait a long time for that to happen. Really, the problem is the structure itself that's a bit fragile. But nature has got to work with what it's got, so therefore it can't simply make the tailbone go away and reengineer the muscles unto a bone structure that's more solid, but that there would be no selection pressure to evolve. It simply isn't significant.

 

But God could do this. If he cares.

 

Or waht about the thing in your body (I believe that it is the appendix, correct me if I'm wrong) that leads to a dead end where "stones" are formed from food that builds up there?

 

Ah, another inconvenient problem that God could have designed a lot better. Again, it's simply not significant. Now, if the appendix was key to our survival and it's explosion would kill, you can bet that evolution would take care of it fast. Or we'd die.

 

And I did have a reasonable timescale with me because the hominid species of Australopithecines didn't have tails and that was 4 million years ago.

 

Tails are useless when walking upright. They were very quickly taken off, since it's a waste of energy to lug that sucker around all day without ever using it. But the tailbone, the last remain of it, has some minor use. There's no selection pressure against the tailbone. It remains.

 

I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something.

 

Yeah, it'd also be convenient for bacteria to adapt to all kinds of anti-biotics before they were threatened by it. That way, they'd have their defenses up before it became an issue. I'm guessing you're thinking the same thing about the tailbone being inconvenient here, as well. But it's not going to happen, until it becomes a significant factor.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something.

 

EDIT: As you can see, I'm trying to make a rational arguement.

 

But you are failing miserably because you have not considered the single most important question that you must ask yourself before calling an argument rational:

 

"Are there any insignificant factors here?"

 

Basically, the selection pressure on removing the tailbone isn't significant. In other words: Other factors are so vastly more important to the survival of the species than the presence/absence of tailbones. So it won't go away.

 

Or we'd die.

 

Which would infact be evolution taking care of the problem. The natural way.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by C'jais

Ah, another inconvenient problem that God could have designed a lot better. Again, it's simply not significant. Now, if the appendix was key to our survival and it's explosion would kill, you can bet that evolution would take care of it fast. Or we'd die.

 

Ah I did some research and look what I found...

We now know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.

It is VERY significant.

 

 

Originally posted by C'jais

But the tailbone, the last remain of it, has some minor use. There's no selection pressure against the tailbone. It remains.

 

Ah yes if you consider walking or playing sports minor, then sure.

 

The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in an completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility - it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics? This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone!

 

Evolution actually predicts that there will be leftover features as one organism turns into another. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function, every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful primary or backup purpose.

 

Take a look at this.

 

Oooooo... and read this. Lots of stuff here disproving evolution.

 

Heres a nice website that counter Dawkins, who was a follower of Darwin.

 

Some interesting stuff about pseudogens. (There was another, more technical website but it requires Adobe Acrobat to open so I didn't know if you would want it or not.)

 

Heres a nice thing on the "How long was the time period when God created everything".

 

VERY nice site talking about dating.

 

 

 

 

Now, before you can even reply, READ ALL OF THOSE LINKS, which is exactly what you told me to do for your website like the "silly flood story" and stuff like that. READ ALL OF IT. And don't come back and tell me that it's a biased webpage or article. ITS SUPPOSED TO BE BIAS BECAUSE ITS TRYING TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION. Please, read all of it.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

It is VERY significant.

 

Appendix: While it serves a minor role in the immune system (stress that minor), removing it does not seem to hurt the person, and they generally don't wish it back, since it might explode and kill them. Not particularily a benefit, and more a curse than a blessing.

 

Ah yes if you consider walking or playing sports minor, then sure.

 

It's just plain false that it serves such a role. The few muscular attachments it has could easily have been fitted on a less vulnerable structure.

 

Evolution actually predicts that there will be leftover features as one organism turns into another. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function, every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful primary or backup purpose.

 

Odour receptors, again. Dewclaws. Little toes. Goosebumps. The hair at the back of our necks.

 

Now, before you can even reply, READ ALL OF THOSE LINKS, which is exactly what you told me to do for your website like the "silly flood story" and stuff like that.

 

But clearly you did not read it, or otherwise you wouldn't be presenting the same proof over and over again, which was refuted on those pages I gave. But nevermind, I didn't command you to read them really, and I certainly did not expect you would.

 

Let me get this straight: This debate takes place here, in this forum. This is not about exchanging links and saying "Well, explain this!", and then think you've done your job. No. Unless you can understand the links you give me yourself, I am not interested in them in the slightest. I'm not going to haul all that ton of text into this forum and debate something you didn't even write yourself.

 

Here's what we do: You translate your links into your plain english and I'll refute that. You provide a link if I'm interested in more, or where your source is, so I can read it in greater detail. But to think this debate is about slinging webpages at each other I find a serious waste of time.

 

If you do this, I'll be more than happy to reply to your posts, but if you haven't even taken the time to understand your links yourself, then I won't be spending useless time in here.

[Reborn Outcast]

C'ais thats your problem. I DID read all those links that I gave in fact. I DO understnad. But you just don't WANT to respond to them. You're ignoring the fact that I have given well presented links that might actually be true and go against evolution. You just don't WANT to hear it. Did you even read the links? If so then something should've struck your attention.