quote:

Originally posted by Nhazghaal:
Which would explain us well enough, but it still begs the question where those aliens came from. Creationism begs the question where did God.

Well, when you're thinking about this topic, no matter what you believe, you have to eventually come to something that doesn't have a linear timeline, or more simply put, it doesn't have a beginning, middle, and end, it just always was. It's mindblowing to think about that, because we're so used to the action/reaction scenario - everything that exists or happens is because of something else. It's weird knowing that there's something (or someone) in the universe that doesn't follow that rule.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Well, when you're thinking about this topic, no matter what you believe, you have to eventually come to something that doesn't have a linear timeline, or more simply put, it doesn't have a beginning, middle, and end, it just always was. It's mindblowing to think about that, because we're so used to the action/reaction scenario - everything that exists or happens is because of something else. It's weird knowing that there's something (or someone) in the universe that doesn't follow that rule.

Very philosophical, Eric to the G75. I like that !

The universe breaking its own sacred laws? Gasp!

Wow this thread just goes in circles, and all the anti-creationists still don't answer MB questions.

I'll try to answer MB questions as concisely even though I have to go through my huge anthropology book and bio book.

First, fossils are very rare. If you were buried in your backyard, your bones will still decay. In order for them to be preserved from decay, scavenging and disintegration is by means of burial in aqueous sediments. A large number of Earth's species probably did not die in the right place at the right time to be preserved as fossils; of those fossils that were formed, many were probably destroyed by later geologic processes and only a fraction of existing fossils have been discovered. The fossil record is biased in favor of species that existed for a long time ,were abundant and wide-spread, and had hard shells, skeletons, or other parts that facilitated their fossilization.
Also, you must remember that natural selection only works on the populations' offspring or gene pool. So if let's say you your a body builder, there's no evidence that your offspring will have a gene that gives them greater muscle mass or whatever. There are many factors that changes the gene pools, but it's mostly the environment. Yet, if the environment is stable than the changes in the offspring's' gene pool is considered almost nonexistent, or in equilibrium. Very slow gradual change can result, but this hardly leads to new species. Only major environmental changes allow for new species. Because of this, transitional fossils are even more rare because the transition of one species is abrupt, and instances of gradual change in the fossil record are rare, and some of that transitional species underwent may not be apparent in fossils.

Second, the statement of reptiles only bore reptiles and birds only birds is misleading. Birds and reptiles represent a mass variety of species and you can't look at a reptile changing into a bird like that, but a gradual speciational process. We know speciation on a species level does occur. However, genus and family taxons are closely related as well. Take for example the dog family or cat family. The genus canis comprises of dogs and wolves, and the fox is in another genus in the same family. So as years goes by, maybe a disaster or some isolational process gradually changed one population of wolves into fox or or something. This extends to the higher taxons such as class, and even though as mentioned before transitional fossils are rare, there is evidence for the transitions between amphibians to reptiles to birds and such.

Third, evolution does not rely on random change, even though the events are random. Profound changes in the Earth's geologic features can take place through cumulative effect of slow but continuous processes, and evolution goes hand in hand. So, there could be countless chances that other changes happened, that other disasters occurred, that other species occurred. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs paved the way for the tiny rodent like mammals to dominate, prosper, and exceed. If it didn't, who knows what could happen. If a larger asteroid came that and almost killed the whole earth, microscopic organisms would still survive and the process begins again. Of course, maybe everything would be different. That's why I believe if an alien were to visit Earth, it would look completely, totally different than portrayed in movies, (such as Alien with the tails and spikes adapted by reptiles). It might not even have DNA, but maybe another polymer that allows for storage of information and faithful replication. The statement that the chances of humans came to be is 1 in gazillion is true, but misleading because it does not apply to evolution.

The answer on the transition from apes to man is also clear, but I will discuss this some other time. I
will from now on try to go online everyday to see MB's questions/responses to these points first.
I will post how man has come to have intelligent thinking tomorrow.

Also, this is why humans barely evolve. Because we have conquered then environment. Natural selection is environmental pressure, and so it doesn't apply to humans. However, other factors contribute to humans evolving, such as sexual selection. Humans have gotten taller over the centuries.

Well, all you evolutionists (not that I'm not one, but I don't advertise it) should have a field day in the next 50 years with Mr. Science (Al Gore)'s An Inconvenient Truth. Since I firmly believe the Earth will be evolving quite soon, hopefully the ecosystems will catch up to it, at least before we all croak or gather enough evidence to actually teach our kids something they can be sure enough to actually care about.

Nice work, nomercy.

But all the evidence in the world won't shift the stubborn monkey mind, I think.

And I say that as yr friend, O! Simian sibling......

Actually, nomercy2182, that was really good! You explained it very well & didn't even use any links! You weren't even condescending. I can't wait to read more! Be careful, though, we didn't "evolve" from apes, but an "ape-like' creature.

not that i want to get into anything on this topic, as the very title of the group indicates that it is something to be carefully parsed by Ph.D. think tanks and not entertainment forum posts, but nomercy2182 said something blatantly false, and i have to correct it.
human beings have not gotten taller over the centuries due to sexual selection, at least not in the sense you used the argument. we are all taller today than in the past because of better nutrition. period. the we are not all taller is proven by pointing out that easterners tend to be shorter than americans, and our diets are at least equally as nutritious. human beings are not taller these days, they are just better fed.

Well, i'm a christian and I believe in evolution. However, I do not believe in transmutation. It's fact that a singular species can mutate over time to better adapt to their environment. However, transmutation or mutating from one species into another is far from fact and no examples or evidence has been provided to prove it. Yet it's being taught in our public classrooms as fact. A ridiculous, unproven, scientifically unsupported theory is being taught to our children on the same level as algebra.

So, I don't believe that original matter just appeared out of nothing and slowly became the stars and planets then very slowly evolved into bacteria and single-celled organisms which became more complex organisms and eventually mutated into the millions of different species.

In other words, I don't believe and science hasn't proven that evolution explains how any of the species came to be. All evolution does is show how a specific species can better adapt to its environment.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:
Well, i'm a christian and I believe in evolution. However, I do not believe in transmutation. It's fact that a singular species can mutate over time to better adapt to their environment. However, transmutation or mutating from one species into another is far from fact and no examples or evidence has been provided to prove it. Yet it's being taught in our public classrooms as fact. A ridiculous, unproven, scientifically unsupported theory is being taught to our children on the same level as algebra.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Unless you class reptiles and birds as one "species"? From the article:

quote:

Birds (class Aves) are bipedal, warm-blooded, egg-laying vertebrate animals. Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic, and the earliest known bird is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx.

i simply can't accept the belief that sentience simply developed over time. i can't think of a more ridiculous concept.

quote:

Originally posted by golden flea:
i simply can't accept the belief that sentience simply developed over time. i can't think of a more ridiculous concept.

People thought the same thing about the Earth being round once.

An argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

Except for the guys who wrote the Old Testament. They were comfy with that idea. (I already quoted it, a long time ago.)

quote:

An argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

On the nose, Dork.

Things once held to be "ridiculous concepts:"

The sun is a star.
The sun is the center of the solar system.
The earth revolves around the sun.
Matter is made up of little components called "atoms."
The atom can be split.
There are laws of attraction between bodies that correspond to the mass of the bodies involved.
Humans can travel to the moon.
The experience of time is relative to location and speed of travel.
Jim Carrey can make a decent film.

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:
An argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

I hate to say it, but you hear that argument a lot around here. "I can't fathom that the theory about X is true, so the more likely scenario is that an invisible omnipotent being did it."

A lot of people can fathom it. Enough to make it a generally accepted scientific fact.

"These scientists with their theories and their facts. Everybody knows it was a talking snake in a tree! That's how it all started." - David Cross

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Things once held to be "ridiculous concepts:"

Also, that disease was caused by invisible bacteria instead of punishment from sinfulness, and that washing your hands with soap would be more effective than praying for your recovery.

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Unless you class reptiles and birds as one "species"? From the article:

quote:

Birds (class Aves) are bipedal, warm-blooded, egg-laying vertebrate animals. Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic, and the earliest known bird is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx.

Well, if you factor in the Ice Age, evolution from theropods(dino) into our current species of birds would be impossible. How does an Archaeopteryx evolve into a current species bird if the Archaeopteryx is long since extinct? Am I missing something?