|
|
|
squab
New Member
2 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2003 : 23:19:28 [Permalink]
|
| i'm curious. i neanderthals never existed, then what are we to make of the evidence of their passing? they were cleary like us, but different. is this just a puzzle set for us to unravel, or a bad seed that found itself buried in eden's compost heap? |
 |
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 03:01:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Whales didn't sin themselves, but sin basicly took over the WHOLE earth. Including the oceans. Thats what I believe at least.
Whales didn't sin, but they have to pay the price for Adam and Eve's fall? And god let this happen to an innocent animal? What a lovely deity you believe in. Perhaps he ties fire-works to cats' tails for fun as well.
Incidentially, whilst we're on this topic, point out to me the passage in the bible that refers to whales receiving vestigal limbs as a result of "sin taking over the world". Or alternatively, point to any passage in the bible where an animal is reported to have mutated because of "sin".
You see, the problem is C88, your utterly ludicrous claims don't even have the benefit of biblical accuracy. You choose to make up any old hokum to explain away facts that are completely accounted for by evolution. Are you even slightly aware of the bizarre thought processes you are undertaking to do this? Believing whatever you want may have the benefit of giving you psychological certainty, but is has nothing to do with truth or the real world around you.
quote:
Scientists say we "evolved" from Neanderthals
No they don't, the matter is as yet unresolved. There are proponents of several different theories on this issue. Once again, you haven't even bothered to check basic facts. Here is an excellent web-site on the topic:
http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/
quote:
And my point is that we are clearly a more developed species than a Neandertha (sic) would have been.
Provide evidence that "clearly" shows we are "more developed" than Neanderthals. Did you know, for example, that the average size of a Neanderthal's brain was larger than ours, that they used tools, and practised complex burial rites?
quote:
And no I can't point to a place in the bible where it points to them, because they never actually existed. Which is exactly what I am trying to prove.
Oh really. So perhaps you'd like to explain to all those gifted, hard-working scientists that have studied Neanderthal fossils for a century or more exactly what it is they've been looking at? And how exactly are you "proving" that they didn't exist but using them in your argument about "progress".
quote:
ALSO: I am not stating these as clear facts, but I read them on the internet and I want to know what people think.
Well, if they're not "clear facts", you can't use them in your arguments. A bit of advice for you: stop reading things exclusively on the internet (and especially on creationist web-sites, which is I suspect all you read), and get a few books out of the library. You might be able to get hold of a few "clear facts" that way.
(Edited for spelling and to add link) |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
| Edited by - NottyImp on 08/25/2003 03:21:03 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 12:36:33 [Permalink]
|
Hi everyone
C-88: I've found out that just about everyone has a reason for believing something, and it's not a good idea to presume that other people's view of the universe is without foundation. Granted, I'm a creationist too, but when you insult other's intelligence and work, you offen them, and "a man offended is harder to win than a walled city". And, "a man that can control himself is greater than he who controls a city". Also, the Bible says that when man sinned, the ground produced thorns and thistles, and that's all that was transformed due to man's sin. Besides the serpent and woman's childbearing.
Now, everyone else: Does anyone know of a site that gives full-color photographs of the dino-human footprints? I found some black-and-white photos, but they were'nt very good. Even so, they did have one good picture of a footprint that definitely looked human.
Those photos can be seen here:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-035.htm
Later,
Hippy. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 08/25/2003 13:03:13 |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 13:17:11 [Permalink]
|
Hi creation88
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
I am using A neanderthal as an example. It is no different for what I am talking about than any other pre-man being. And my point is that we are clearly a more developed species than a Neandertha would have been. Therefore being better.
We are smarter but they were stronger. Which is better? (it depends on the use/need, doesn't it?)
We are taller, they were shorter. Which is better?
In the circumstances of the time, we prevailed. But perhaps they would prevail under different circumstances.
quote:
Which relates to my "Getting Better theory" from a couple of posts ago. And no I can't point to a place in the bible where it points to them, because they never actually existed. Which is exactly what I am trying to prove.
Do you dispute all the fossil findings? (over 500 individual Neandertal fossils have been found, not to mention the 100s of other homonid species fossils)
The point was that "getting better" is, technically, not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is change, not improvement. If you're focusing on a particular trait/aspect/behavior/whatever with respect to a particular benchmark, then you may be able to say better/worse...but that is an artificial comparison.
quote:
A recent study shows that at the rate it is going now, over 600M years the moon would have gathered many feet worth of dust. And astronauts on the moon clearly proved that wrong. Right now, there is very little dust on the moon, showing that the moon could not be nearly 600M years old. Forget 4.5B.
This is an old & bad argument which has been rejected even by many creationists.
evolutionist links...
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_159a.html (short)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html (long)
creationists reject the argument too...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1372.asp (short)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp (long)
You may find this creationist page interesting...(old arguments that are no longer used by this group)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp
quote:
And then I was wondering if anyone heard about the tooth found by a man in Nebraska. Scientist hailed it as proof of an "Ape Man". And this was his tooth that they had found. Further study showed that it was not that of an Ape Man but that of a pig. That's how easily scientists are willing to exagerate to come up with "facts".
Another argument that should no longer be used. The tooth was found. The scientist mis-identified it. There was a non-scientific speculation about the type of homonid that it might belong to. A couple of years later, the scientist re-examined the find and corrected his mistake.
Here's more info about it...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html |
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 14:46:33 [Permalink]
|
| Getting back to the poor whales. Isn't it the case that further evidence of the whale's evolution is the horizontal fluke, and vertical as in fish. I understand that the reason for the horizontal fluke is that the movements the whale makes in order to propel itself are identical to quadruped mammals, in other words the spine flexes up and down (for the most part) not side to side. This seems to me to be good evidence that the whale evolved from a acient quadraped mammal. What would be the reason to create another swimming method, if the whale was created as is? I would have thought using the tried and tested desiagn would have been more logical? |
Baza |
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 14:48:33 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry that should read not in fish, obviously the fishs tail is vertical...... |
Baza |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2003 : 06:02:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now, everyone else: Does anyone know of a site that gives full-color photographs of the dino-human footprints? I found some black-and-white photos, but they were'nt very good. Even so, they did have one good picture of a footprint that definitely looked human.
I would suggest searching for web for sites that also have color pictures of the loc ness monster, big foot, and aliens. I imagine that the man/dinosaur footprints would be mixed in with them.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2003 : 11:52:14 [Permalink]
|
Anyway, back to the original topic, with a bit of modification. What is the leading theory on how life began in the first place?
Furshur: Snide remarks do not constitute proof. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2003 : 18:25:40 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, furshur was not off the mark at all with schlumping that fraud human/dino "evidence" along with other pseudo-science, urban legend, and fantasy topics.
The common thread with them all? -- none of perpetrators of those "studies" use real science as a tool of investigation. They have their own personal agenda, be-it advancing their own fundamentalist beliefs at any cost, or maybe monetary gain from a gullible public.
Whether you like it or not, Creation science is junk science. It's a fairy tale trying to pass itself off as serious science and it fails miserably every time, as it does with that (sorry, but) laughable human/dino track National Enquirer type exposé. Nothing new with that page; heard it, seen it over the years.
As far as the leading science theory on how life began? Science is still trying to crack that one. Ask any biochemist at your local school of higher learning. Or check out your local library. Has to do with inner actions of chemistry and the natural world.
Wonder what's going to happen when science cracks the million dollar question of how to mix the right batch of chemicals, zap it a bit, bake at the right temps to turn out a new batch of new living life.
It'll happen sometime soon.
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
| Edited by - Randy on 08/27/2003 04:07:57 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2003 : 05:54:07 [Permalink]
|
Hippy and 88, you guys apparently have no understanding of how evolution could work without a 'guiding hand'. You site that the different dog breeds are from human intervention - which is true, we selectively breed dogs to bring out traits that we want. But evolution does not need an intelligent guiding hand. Here is an example (which is not necessarily how these animals evolved) that I think is instructive to understand how evolution works.
Assume that there was a browsing (consumes buds/twigs of trees) animal. This population of animals will have a natural variation in the size and body types, just like humans or any other species. Assume that these animals live in an area that has periodic droughts, like Africa. As the drought lingers the trees get over browsed so that the animals begin to starve. The last animals of this population to survive will be the tallest animals that can reach the browse higher up in the trees that the smaller animals could not reach. The smaller animals (of this particular species) will perish. Periodic droughts will continue to favor the animals with the highest reach. The tall genes remain in the gene pool and the shorter genes are removed from the gene pool. I am referring to the evolution of Giraffes. Now, I am not saying this is exactly how a giraffe came into existence. This is only to illustrate how evolution by natural selection occurs. There was no intelligent guiding force necessary. Environmental, changes drove the evolution. The giraffe did not evolve because it wanted a long neck or great height. The giraffe did not evolve a long neck because he stretched it. He evolved in the same way that man breeds dogs for specific traits, except instead of man selecting the traits nature 'selected' the traits.
I realize that you will nit-pick this whole little dissertation apart, but it may help you to understand one method in which we heathens understand how evolution occurs.
By the way the term nit-pick comes from the practice of removing the eggs of head lice from your hair. Lice eggs are called nits. Very small and very tedious to remove. Nit-wit (the wit of a nit) refers to the small size of the nits. But I digress.
I hope that this helps you to understand a little about evolution. I realize this will have absolutely no impact on what you believe, but maybe you can argue a little more persuasively.
Thanks. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 08/27/2003 13:21:31 |
|
|
|
nukular
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2003 : 11:57:46 [Permalink]
|
As per Hippy's request:
As was stated before by numerous posters, the theory of how amino acids arise is contained in a disciple called abiogensis. The initial experiment ushering in the modern thoughts on abiogensis were performed by Urey and Miller in the 1950's. They started out with (inanimate) chemicals they assumed would be present in the atmosphere and passed an electrical current through, generating amino acid fragments. While the composition of the atmosphere at the beginning of life is controversial (in the academic sense), evidence exists which constrains its composition. This evidence comes in the form of mineral analysis of layers and what reactions occurred.
In chemistry, the conditions place a large constraint on what can occur and what cannot. In addition to mineral analysis, some evidence exists (blue-green algae\sponges) of what early organisms existed. From these considerations, a number of conclusions can be drawn. Nonetheless, I need to point something out. An aspect of science that many laypersons fail to grasp is that science cannot reconstruct how things "went down" exactly, but rather they use evidence to play constraints on what could have happened.
The idea is similar to that found in criminal trials. When reconstructing the events leading to a crime, murder for example, not all of the events leading up to it can be known exactly. The fact that a person(s) is dead and the cause of their demise places limits on how the crime was committed. Any number of things such as blood, foot prints, weapon can help you attempt to restruct the crime but the words that were exchanged or passing events that may have facilitated the crime may never been known. This doesn't mean that they didn't occur, it just means that we only have limited knowledge and therefore must use that knowledge to limit the many possible ways in which the crime could have been committed.
Scientists must therefore use the available information to place constraints on what could have happened. And then construct a theory and test it. It is this step that is often the bain of biologists defending evolution because creationists often use the tatic that it cannot be replayed in the laboratory in real time, thus it must be crap. But in fact, in the case of evolution, there are tests to the theory. Evolution does not assume creatures randomly and spontaneously pop into existence, but are the result of modification by descent. So as other have repeatedly pointed out, certain traits (phenotypes) will be expressed through the generations. These are the vestigal traits, already mentioned.
Nonetheless, one can make a prediction using knowledge of the habit and environment, as to which traits will be beneficial and therefore more likely to be passed on. These traits can than be compared to the fossil record. Notice that in some cases this is similar "working backwards", but then again so is solving a murder. Understanding the methodogy and reasoning invoked in criminal investigations can be viewed as step towards scientific thinking. Creationist/designers typically like to point out small errors (but usually only in one of the above methodologies) and cite that as a failure of the entire program, but never really elaborate on the details (because science is in the details) as to why these criticisms fail or why they are in error. Science (including evolution) is not like an airplane were one small failure leads to complete disaster. It is far more robust than that.
The upshot to this long winded post, is that it is true that scientist don't have an "ultimate" theory set in stone as to how life began, there is evidence which constrains how it began and that this evidence can be used to make predictions which can be tested (in some cases, actually in the laboratory -- as in the Urey and Miller experiment). As an additional note, it should be stated that with the discovery of extremophile and archae (bacteria) that the possible origins has been broadened. For example, conditions around hydrothermal vents may have contained the necessary ingredients to spawn life as well.
Finishing, I wish to ask Hippy a question. Viruses, are they animate or inanimate, alive or dead? How does the definition of replication and modification factor into the designation animate or inanimate? |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2003 : 13:20:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Viruses, are they animate or inanimate, alive or dead?
Lets see, they reproduce, so they are alive. But, they do not have DNA and only reproduce by taking over the cell function to make more viruses, so they are inanimate. But they are 'smart' enough to have the cell do their bidding, so they are alive.
I am not wishy-washy, I feel stongly both ways.
Is the Smallpox virus an endangered species?
If only the world were as black and white as the fundementalists see it.
By the way, if I were God and making animals from scratch I doubt that I would have in the design a requirement of bacterial infection (Mitocodria). But, that is just me.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2003 : 15:37:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Anyway, back to the original topic, with a bit of modification. What is the leading theory on how life began in the first place?
Hi hippy4christ
As nukular said, there is no strong theory for abiogenesis (i.e., no well proven scientific explanation for how life formed from non-life). This theory would be separate from the theory of evolution which explains how life changed since its beginning. I imagine there could be some overlap in the gray/transitional period from non-life to life.
I'm less familiar with the work on abiogenesis than I am with the theory of evolution, but my impression is that there are 2 leading hypotheses/theories (not sure what to call them). My apologies for these awkward/simplistic explanations...
(1) Organic molecules, including amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), do form under natural processes. Concentrations of these molecules increased in the oceans back when the Earth was young (about 4 billion years ago). These molecules interacted (chemically) & received energy from things like the sun, Earth-heat, lightning, etc. eventually producing a molecule that made crude copies of itself when it bumped into the building blocks in that primordial soup. Tide pools may have helped this process (as tides went out, it was like making many little petri dishes along the shoreline...as the water evaporated/drained away, the organic molecules therein were further concentrated & increased the odds of chemical reactions). Once molecules start making copies, natural selection can kick in.
(2) Same situation for the formation of organic molecules but this time the energy supply was hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.
Obviously, this field needs a lot more research (or my understanding of it does). The question that is probably leaping into your mind is how did a molecule become a self-replicating molecule? Food for thought...modern "prions" are oddly folded proteins that cause normally folded proteins to change into more prions...this causes mad cow disease, etc. Prions are not considered to be alive (by most scientists as far as I know).
There are other ideas too (seem to be less convincing) like life forming in the cores of comets (which contain organic molecules shielded from space, and possibly heat & liquid water (melted ice) from the decay of radioactive elements in the comet). Again with the chemistry leading to replicating molecules. When those comets struck the EArth, it seeded the Earth with these early self-replicating molecules. This seems kind of like the tide pool idea (a little sheltered area for chemicals to mix).
Another point I can toss into the mix on this subject. Some molecules are hydrophobic on one side and hydrophilic on the other side of the molecule. Put a bunch of these in water and it may be possible for them to group into a sphere with the hydrophilic part on the outside and the hydrophobic parts on the inside. With some space inside that huddle, it's kind of like an empty cell with a water proof cell wall.
Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm sure someone else here is more familiar with this subject. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2003 : 05:35:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
Scientists say we "evolved" from Neanderthals, and many other stages of pre-man man. And don't get me wrong, I am using A neanderthal as an example. It is no different for what I am talking about than any other pre-man being. And my point is that we are clearly a more developed species than a Neandertha would have been. Therefore being better. Which relates to my "Getting Better theory" from a couple of posts ago. And no I can't point to a place in the bible where it points to them, because they never actually existed. Which is exactly what I am trying to prove.
Creation88, could you please clarify for us, for continued discussions: Do you still believe that all remains of Neanderthal are actually Modern-Man-with-Downs-Syndrome?
And if not: What are they? Why do the remains of them look as it does?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2003 : 11:38:12 [Permalink]
|
Furshur:
I have no problem with 'change over time' in the Giraffe comparison. I understand how a bigger animal might survive better and hence be more able to pass on its genes. I agree that natural selection can modify the size and shape of a species anatamoy. I don't understand how a species can gain or lose parts of its anatomy. In the example of fish becoming land animals: I understand that an 'air bladder' system already in a fish can be used as lungs, but why would the species lose its gills? It would have to be a genetic mutation that caused the loss of gills, and it would have to be an improvement. But this mutation would have to be species-wide, or else it would soon be outbred, if it managed to breed at all. And mutations are rare as it is, and they usually cause sterility. And wouldn't mutations be recessive traits? I can understand changes in size and shape, but total loss of an organ?
Viruses: I consider viruses to be alive. In my view, life is anything that grows and reproduces, and seeks out nutrients in order to do so. Plants are life, viruses are life because they seek out nutrients (or hosts). Crystals that grow are not life because they do not seek nutrients. I think; I havn't brushed up on growing minerals for a while.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
