Actually, it's a combination of Chuck Norris, Steven Segal and Woody Allen protecting us from an asteroid. When I found this out I thought, "Woody Alen?" but apparently some intergalactic rocks are only vulnerable to a sharp Jewish wit.

I stand corrected!

Any other Christian on the board can hate me for this, but I believe in a mix between the two theories. I think that the "days" God took to create everything shouldn't be literal.

We have discussed this in length and I completely agree with you. I think the aforesaid days are metaphorical.

I actually hohearted agree...

What I dont understand from a lot of evolutionists is how they can explain some findings regarding humans and dinosaurs living together. There are many many artifacts from thousands of years ago that show depictions of dinosaurs and humans interacting together.

Also what I stated before about not seeing anything regarding evolution in the last few thousand years I mean I dont see the missing links, I dont see the extra fingers, the extra eyes, this that or the other thing. You hear about giant bats and stuff from the prehistoric periods, but you would think that over the last while of man being around and such a huge factor on the planet animals and such would adapt around us or something like that.

CRX Forum

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, extra fingers? well I know somebody with 6 toes on his left foot which is similar, if you're talking about something like that. As for extra eyes, well since the majority of animals have 2 eyes, it would be safe to say that adding an extra eye would just hinder the ablity to see. Why add something that's not needed? That's not evolution.
And on your point about the giant bats, well what exactly are you saying? You think that bats and other animals would adapt in such a way to become giant forms of what they are? Bats have no need to be giant any more, with Human's effect on the world, there aren't as many places in the world where they could survive.

The whole classic case of Darwin's theory was pretty much proven by human's factor on moths in a certain area.
In the early 19th Century, the peppered moth was known to most naturalists, including Charles Darwin, as a predominantly white-winged moth liberally speckled with black. Then in 1848, as the dark satanic mills covered swathes of northern England in sooty black smoke, a black variant of the moth was discovered in Manchester. By 1895, 95% of the Mancunian peppered moths were black. This dark form spread across industrial Britain until it was suggested that the prevalence of the dark form of the moth was due to it being better camouflaged on dark sooty surfaces than the lighter variant. But that's not all, ollowing the 1956 Clean Air Act, the black form of the moth began to decline with the return of the white form which was bettered camouflaged on lichen-covered tree bark.


If that's not proof of animals adapting to human's effect on the world, then I don't know what is.

Change that to "wholeheartedly," and I do too.


Epic massive bullshit.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth/



EDIT: It's a good idea to include references when you copypasta, Mary...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/06/04/040608_peppered_moth_feature.shtml

The above article briefly mentions the picture fiasco, and then adds follow-up done by a gentleman in 2007, regarding birds eating moths. This still doesn't change the fact that the peppered moth is an example of genetic drift - a shift in emphasis of existing phenotypes due to environmental "selecting" stresses - NOT evolution. To "prove" evolution, one would have to show a new species arising in the peppered moth lineage - one genetically incompatible with previously existing moths - showing NEW adaptations (better ability to metabolize sooty plant tissues, maybe?) rather than just a greater percentage of the population with a known (albeit advantageous) phenotype.

I hardly see how this is "epic bullshit". Remember it's a serious thread, you could atleast be respectful of other people's views on the subject.

Please gift me some source of evidence for your genetic drift theory please.

Because of what I heard, recent studies did indeed prove that the peppered moth was, after all, an example of Darwinian evolution.
And even if the peppered moth isn't an example of evolution, that doesn't mean that evolution does not exist at all, there are numerous cases of evolution around the world, and I'm sure since we have hardly scratched the surface in relation to animal species on the planet, it's extremely likely that evolution does infact exist

So isn't one of the things about evolution that it is the scientific approach to how we all got here? Okay well where is the scientific proof? Have we seen anything evolving? No, all evolutionists have is faith pretty much, just like Christians and creationists.

I was pretty sure, in the original Hebrew text, the word they used that we translated into "day" meant an unspecified passage of time. It could mean anything like the afternoon or a large passage of time. I prefer the latter.

I never said I was an "evolutionist", I think it is illogical to believe in an almighty omnipotant being such as "god", so therefore, I'm searching for a plausible scientific explaination, and so far evolution seems the best answer, if it was scientifically proven that another theory was 100% correct, then I'd gladly dismiss evolution

This.



Source?

I never said you were an evolutionist. I was really just using your post as a spring board. ^ _ ^

What evolution for me comes down to is man trying explain away God and in a way trying to be like God.

I think it is illogical to believe there isn't God. Things and people work too well for everything to just be an accident. I mean when you think about it the big bang makes no sense. "Once upon a time there was nothing. Then it exploded and there was something. And then over an undefined HUGE amount of time, gradually there was more accidents and now we have a very complex universe." Besides don't explosions break things instead of fixing them?

I also don't think there will ever be a way to prove either side wrong or right for that matter.

To clarify... the example was BS. I wasn't making a personal attack on you. I teach biology, and I get tired of sh*tty evidence being passed off as ironclad fact. The moths are just one particular example I grit my teeth at because it comes up so often... and NOBODY EVER mentions the "funny business" associated with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift - It's a basic tenet of population genetics. It's not a theory.


Again, where did you hear this? If you're referring to the bit at the bottom of the BBC page you referenced, I find it highly suspect that a "professor of evolution" was the one heading up the study. Conflict of interest much, prof?


I agree with MOST of this... My original point was that the moth is a BOGUS (albeit well-known) example of what other, more reliable evidence (comparative genomics, for example) does a much better job of illustrating. The "numerous cases" you refer to are primarily in simple organisms (bacteria and protists mostly) whose short generation times allow for much more detailed studies of natural selection at work. (See Behe's discussion of Malaria/plasmodium evolution HERE for an example.) What is much more difficult to find is evidence of speciation, especially among "higher" organisms, eg. animals.

Please don't take things so personally. I'm merely suggesting that you should try to have more to base your beliefs on than false examples and assumed likelihoods.


Out of curiosity, why do you find the possible existence of an omnipotent being/deity/etc. so "illogical?" As you stated above, we've "hardly scratched the surface" in our understanding of much of anything. Why is the idea of "God" scientifically implausible?

Personally, I think it's 100% impossible for a being to exist outside the laws of physics (I'm a big physics student and it's one of the things I'm passionate about)

The big bang theory isnt as simple as you just put it, it's actually extremely complex and makes alot of sense.
The best way I can explain it is as this..
Image the universe was in flux.. like you know when you turn on your tv onto a blank channel and you get all that fuzz?
There was an ongoing battle between matter and anti-matter, but eventually, it reached a point that the ratio of matter to anti-matter was extremely one sided, which caused the "explosion". And as we know, energy (in this case, matter) cannot be destroyed, only converted into another form, so the energy from the big bang was converted into galaxies, nebulai and other astronomical anomoly.

also, by you saying that "once there was nothing, then there was something" doesnt make sense, then think about it in the sense of god, where did god come from then? and if he had existed forever, why did he wait for an infinite time to create us? (I'm saying infinite, because if he existed forever, then that's an infinite amount of time)


Okay, I realise I'm getting a bit off topic, but I've explained the big bang as well as I can, but I'm sure you can find a better explaination of it online, because what I said doesn't even scratch the surface

In all honesty, I think that a singularity like "the big bang" and the resulting, finely-tuned universe is one of the best arguments in favor of the existence of an extradimensional deity who set the thing in motion. The ratios of matter to antimatter (to dark matter?) alone is on such a knife-edge that had it differed a few points either way during the formative milliseconds of the universe it would have either collapsed soon after "the bang" or had insufficient mass and gravity for nebulae, galaxies, etc. to coalesce.

Random chance? Or one helluva' well-planned billiards shot?

Mary, I would very seriously recommend a book / documentary called The Privileged Planet. Fascinating stuff. (link)

you have a relatively good arguement, but I'd believe more in random chance than a divine being any day.
We should continue this conversation on AIM or something rather than taking up space in this thread, add me later if you want