Science & Technology Science, Technology, Computers, Internet, Games, Mobiles, Hardware, and PC problems.
Whether you are a computer Geek or a newbie, this section serves you
I'd have to disagree. Adam was not the first creature to die on earth. It was inhabited by others long before man.
How do you know that, Dalzi? Where are your sources? My question is out of curiosity, I would like to hear from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chafic
Natural selection is a gradual and very slow process. It is not random, but it depends on random singularities (such as mutations).
We all change you know. Some years from now we will all have longer fingers (the hours that humans are spending in front of their pc's will affect their bones' hands for sure) but it doesnt mean we, Humans, are in a process of evolution.
Quote:
Thus, there are many of possibilities that could explain why Eskimos don't have hair on: It could be that to have animal fur on the body, the human genome needs a big modification that no randomness was able to achieve, it could be that this modification took place but wasn't beneficial for that human's survival (for different side effects) and thus disappeared, and it is mostly probable that other physiological\biological changes that could be imperceptible to the eye were more beneficial to the survival to the arctic man, and was thus kept, but you simply cannot observe it.
Could be... could be... could be... Ok, tell us how scientific those "could be" are. and then I'll change my mind.
The universe as it exists was not produced by some cosmic accident! Do you think a mere accident could create such a wonderful world? The conditions of creation were intricately planned and considered. It is clear to everyone that the world was an Intentional Creation.
A mindless uncontrolled "big bang" would result in destruction and chaos, not the life and order we now see.
Geophysicist John R. Baumgardner notes: "In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity."
Quote:
Actually,to your surprise, or maybe disappointment, the Eskimos fit body, and the adaptation of their metabolic and circulatory system to the arctic weather are proof of genome modifications.
Indeed but they still belong to human species. They still have a brain just like yours, they have two arms and two legs, their eyes have the same properties and ours, and so on.
Look at dogs: there are so many type of dogs out there.
If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally. Jesus' disciples likewise believed the Genesis account of creation. For example, Luke’s Gospel account traces Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam. If Adam were a fictional character... at what point would this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth?
The Bible contains a great deal of evidence that it was inspired by a superhuman intelligence. For example, it contains many prophecies, or history written in advance.
We all change you know. Some years from now we will all have longer fingers (the hours that humans are spending in front of their pc's will affect their bones' hands for sure) but it doesnt mean we, Humans, are in a process of evolution.
Ashlen, you totally misunderstand evolution, because you insist on perceiving it on a short interval of time. I am not sure if you're relating longer fingers to spending time in front of PCs. I will just give a simple (and simplistic) example of how evolution (and natural selection) works: If any generation or group of humans, following a certain genome modification, happened to have more advanced brains, and that these more advanced brains gave them advantage over other humans (technological, scientific...), it is likely that over time these humans with advanced brains would replace the old generation (maybe by winning wars, conquests...), of course throughout long periods of time.
Certainly, you can imagine other modifications to the genome, maybe such as a one that would enable women to conceive to the age of 60. It is very likely, if such a modification would take place, that group concerned would have higher birth rates, and could gradually replace other groups where women are able to normally conceive until the age of forty.
Natural selection is not magic, it is simple and effective, but its effect is to be understood on long periods of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlen
Could be... could be... could be... Ok, tell us how scientific those "could be" are. and then I'll change my mind.
Now seriously, what kind of argument is that. If I tell you to give me a combination of two numbers the sum of which would be 0. There are millions of answers; it would be ridiculous to say that because it could be "-1+1" and "2745.541-2745.541" that any of them is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlen
The universe as it exists was not produced by some cosmic accident! Do you think a mere accident could create such a wonderful world? The conditions of creation were intricately planned and considered. It is clear to everyone that the world was an Intentional Creation.
A mindless uncontrolled "big bang" would result in destruction and chaos, not the life and order we now see.
Oh wait here, you're committing a huge mistake. Evolution never claimed to explain the creation of the universe, never. The theory of evolution takes off from the very moment at which life began, anything before that is not its field. Creationists claim that the world is the result of intelligent design; Darwin came to prove that, at least in what concerns living creatures, they were not created, but they evolved.
Explaining the creation of the cosmos is a totally different story, and there are many theories competing on that level, from the rationally unsustainable intelligent design, to other principles such the anthropological one or the purely physical explanations. None of them yet was able to give trenchant proofs, but there is the more logically acceptable (I don't think they have the answer though) to the least acceptable, which is intentional creation which is trying to explain the complex by the more complex; You just overlook the question : How did that intelligent designer come to existence in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlen
Geophysicist John R. Baumgardner notes: "In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity."
The above quotation is at least ambiguous. I'm not even sure what this man is talking about. Actually, you're quoting me one scientists among thousand, the most of whom (and of course those who are the most credited in their fields) are not creationists.
Doing a little research about Baumgardner, here's what I found (and that makes sense ):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlen
Indeed but they still belong to human species. They still have a brain just like yours, they have two arms and two legs, their eyes have the same properties and ours, and so on. Look at dogs: there are so many type of dogs out there.
But of course, not every modification in the genome engenders a change in species. Even among humans, each group has a different genetic baggage. To observe the emergence of a new different species, that'll necessitate a big modification in the genome that would take long periods of time.
Your sentence in bold proves exactly evolution's point: there are many breeds of dogs, but they all share together a big number of genes that makes them similar in appearance to them. On the other hand, we do also share with dogs some genes, and that's why we have eyes, noses and ears like they do. Slow and gradual modifications made us differ in other aspects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlen
If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally. Jesus' disciples likewise believed the Genesis account of creation. For example, Luke’s Gospel account traces Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam. If Adam were a fictional character... at what point would this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth?
Ashlen, I really have no problem with you taking any moral lesson from the Bible or any other scripture (It's none of my business anyway); My point in the discussion is why do you go in circles, building on fallacies (which I'm not sure if you're aware them or not) to discredit scientific theories supported by overwhelming evidence.
As for the genealogy of Jesus, I would really bid on that. Actually, accounts written 2000 years ago cannot be regarded as scientific records. Nevertheless, even if you want to go by this path, it never struck you that the Gospel of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from king David via 41 generations, while they're only 28 in Matthew's Gospel? The names aren't even the same. How could those be considered as scientific accurate records?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlen
The Bible contains a great deal of evidence that it was inspired by a superhuman intelligence. For example, it contains many prophecies, or history written in advance.
It would be good then if we could use such prophecies to prevent disasters; or better yet, it would be great if the superhuman intelligence would spare us those disasters.
According to Scripture death didn't even enter the world until Adam sinned!
Ashlen, do you believe Adam & Eve were the first humans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chafic
The real heart of the age-of-the-earth debate (if "debate" is the right word) is always radiometric dating. There are lots of ways to guesstimate ages, and geologists knew the earth was old a long time ago (and I might add that they were mostly Christian creationist geologists). But they didn't know how old. Radiometric dating actually allows the measurement of absolute ages, and so it is deadly to the argument that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.
There’s your first mistake Chafic; you should have read my opening post before responding with this study. The Bible does not claim the earth is 10,000 years old, it clearly states that the second earth age is thousands of years old, but that there was another age that preceded it. The age of the earth itself is many millions of years old, and that’s why there’s a gap in time between verse 1 & 2 in Genesis 1. Science teaches us of an age with mammoths, dinosaurs (Behemoths) etc. These existed long before the second earth age. Read my post for more understanding. The rest of what you posted is based on “Young Earth Creationism” which is not found in the scriptures, but the contrary. This earth is not thousands of years old, but rather this earth age is approx. 14,000 years old. Had the person who wrote this article read the scriptures, he would have understood that “Young Earth Creationists” are contradicting the same scriptures they are trying to represent. If I want to know Christianity, I will read the Bible not listen to the Pope in Rome or some Evangelist Bible thumper; if I want to know Islam, I will read the Qur’an, not listen to some Shiekh who believes the earth is flat.
Ashlen, do you believe Adam & Eve were the first humans?
There’s your first mistake Chafic; you should have read my opening post before responding with this study. The Bible does not claim the earth is 10,000 years old, it clearly states that the second earth age is thousands of years old, but that there was another age that preceded it. The age of the earth itself is many millions of years old, and that’s why there’s a gap in time between verse 1 & 2 in Genesis 1. Science teaches us of an age with mammoths, dinosaurs (Behemoths) etc. These existed long before the second earth age. Read my post for more understanding. The rest of what you posted is based on “Young Earth Creationism” which is not found in the scriptures, but the contrary. This earth is not thousands of years old, but rather this earth age is approx. 14,000 years old. Had the person who wrote this article read the scriptures, he would have understood that “Young Earth Creationists” are contradicting the same scriptures they are trying to represent. If I want to know Christianity, I will read the Bible not listen to the Pope in Rome or some Evangelist Bible thumper; if I want to know Islam, I will read the Qur’an, not listen to some Shiekh who believes the earth is flat.
True, no scriptures say when earth was created and how old it is. We have to find that out via examination and science. I have no idea where people get these ideas from. Where on earth is there anything in the scriptures that even hints towards earth being a baby?
The Qur'an for example, doesn't do that with man even, we only know how old man can be from science. Even in verses like the following, it's obvious that when Adam was created the angels were already familiar with blood and destruction taking place on earth.
There’s your first mistake Chafic; you should have read my opening post before responding with this study. The Bible does not claim the earth is 10,000 years old, it clearly states that the second earth age is thousands of years old, but that there was another age that preceded it. The age of the earth itself is many millions of years old, and that’s why there’s a gap in time between verse 1 & 2 in Genesis 1. Science teaches us of an age with mammoths, dinosaurs (Behemoths) etc. These existed long before the second earth age. Read my post for more understanding. The rest of what you posted is based on “Young Earth Creationism” which is not found in the scriptures, but the contrary. This earth is not thousands of years old, but rather this earth age is approx. 14,000 years old. Had the person who wrote this article read the scriptures, he would have understood that “Young Earth Creationists” are contradicting the same scriptures they are trying to represent. If I want to know Christianity, I will read the Bible not listen to the Pope in Rome or some Evangelist Bible thumper; if I want to know Islam, I will read the Qur’an, not listen to some Shiekh who believes the earth is flat.
I don't really see where my mistake is. You were talking about the wrongness of basing archaeological studies on carbon dating because it can't go back in time. I was just saying that there are different sorts of radiometric dating.
As for the two ages thing, I would qualify it with anything but clear. Actually, there's nothing clear about it, it could be interpreted in a zillion ways. The whole idea of two ages separated by a gap is not scientific at all. One could say that there is a new age for earth since electricity was invented, another one when humans landed on the moon, and another when Britney Spears issued her album "Baby One More Time"....A new age, in the sense you're using, would mean a reset to 0 of all ages, because everything takes off from a beginning; Having dated fossils to way more than 14k years old is certain proof of the fallacy of the two ages story. I really wouldn't want to elaborate more on this idea.
Many features, proteins and DNA sequences in man are similar to or identical to other primates. But that doesn't prove man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor. It's just as reasonable to decide that the same Creator made them both.
So essentially, based on this logic, its saying that you and your cousins are not really cousins but just have the 'same creator.'
Quote:
Any remains older than 14,000 years could not be considered to be human; we need only look at the physical appearance of these ancient apes to know that they are not advanced enough physiologically to be considered human. Their brains and brain functions were by every comparison, far inferior to those of human beings and in fact much closer to the capacities of animals.
Not really. Based on every study and examination, all indications point to the consensus that our 35,000 year old ancestors were anatomically modern humans.
Physical evidences: more vertical forehead, cranial capacity (slightly different from present humans).
Behavioral evidences: the ability to paint, invent deities, utilize tools for their habitat and well-being, etc.
I dont have the slightest clue as to how all of this converges to less-human and more animal-like behaviorisms.
Quote:
Very small frontal lobes, severe facial angles and very small brain size in general mean that the complexity of their brains was closer to those of apes than humans simply because..... they were actual apes. The physiology of the brain along with the general 'likeness' of human form would be 2 major factors in concluding whether or not a particular organism is human; take away either of these to a large degree and you can no longer consider that organism to be categorized as such. The first earth was able to support a more variety of life and species due to more favorable conditions.
Actually, no. The cranial capacity of our late ancestors was larger than ours and considered a great progressive leap in our evolutionary line. The frontal lobes have expanded and developed greater figure, per our transition into human evolution.
None of this evidence correlating to the past 30,000+ years indicates anything remotely close to an ape.
Quote:
As far as modern human remains, it would be almost pointless to include information regarding carbon dating because it leads to a debate concerning carbon decay rates and mathematics in relation to how the world was and how the world is now. Opponents of carbon dating techniques claim that the system used to come to such conclusions is wrong and that the rate of decay has changed over thousands of years due to changes in the environment which they say, means that we can’t use carbon dating to accurately date any fossil older than 7,500 years or so.
But there are many calibration methods, to amend possible errors. One method involves measuring the results against the age of the rings in trees (which obviously is a good source of invariance).
I'll try to write down why the Theory of Evolution is wrong. First, i will base myself on Science. After, the Bible.
Evolution is not even a scientific law. A scientific law must be 100% correct! The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is full of errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.
Wrong.
A law is axiomatic and self-evident. A theory is multifaceted and consists of different layers. Examples: theory of relativity, theory of quantum physics, theory of the atom, etc. none of these are laws, but they are accepted with as much confidence as any law.
Quote:
*** The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning!***
Yes it can. New genetic information can arise through series of mutations within the genome.
Quote:
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have 'reflective' skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
First of all, every organism evolves what it needs to survive. So, it does not have to happen through fur, necessarily. Eskimos can just be more well-adapted people in terms of surviving the cold without getting sick too often or tolerate the cold for longest periods of time, genetically speaking.
Second of all, some evolutionary traits are exaptive results of their natural origins. For example, there is a certain mutation which is actually not beneficial for viruses in their usual environment. However, in the presence of antibiotics (which are lethal), this very same mutation helps them resist the predator and it has been empirically shown that in such an antibiotic environment this mutation in the virus exponentially multiplies and is passed down to future generations at an ever-increasing rate.
So, the point of this is that just because a certain apparent trait is lacking does not imply that natural selection has 'failed.' It just means, in the particular environment for the particular organism, the traits it has are just fine for it and for implicit reasons too. Fur works for some organisms, while it doesnt for others (let alone the fact I imagine if eskimos did evolve fur it would take much longer than you're expecting) just like the seemingly lethal mutation for that virus actually has a secondary-purpose that benefits it.
Quote:
Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science... As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.
The problem is, creationism is just a lazy default for writing off the problem we cant explain. Invoking an intelligent designer just says 'he did it', without explaining how he did it.. On the other hand, evolution actually provides us with a mechanism to explain how it all works (which is necessary in science).
Intelligent design doesnt provide a thing. Its just a sell-out.
Quote:
An important factor that we must recognize, if we are honests, is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's
Thats subjective reasoning. I know religious people who believe in evolution.
In fact, alot of the atheist Darwinists out there were former creationists.
Unless you would like to seriously believe that there is some society of atheists who are covertly conspiring to destroy you God-worshippers (and who happen to make up the scientific community).
Fact of the matter is: evolution has academically survived for over 100 years. I can find you dozens of scientific journals (i.e. the holy bibles of science) supporting evolution while you cant provide a scrap for creationism.
Quote:
There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who think 'well you know... God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course'. Evolution is an enabler for atheism! Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe.
Obviously.
All you need to do is look at a strain of bacteria or virus, and you can actually watch them evolving in the lab.
This is so damning of a reality-slap-in-the-face that even the Catholic Church has decided to embrace evolution.
And when the Catholic Church (the historically #1 leading persecutor of science) is opening its arms to science, then you really know enough junk has hit the fan.
In the mean time, I would advise you (just for a moment) to put down your Bible or Creationist leaflet (or Quran, if you're a Muslim), and actually read an academically published/peer-reviewed scientific journal. This is what makes it or breaks it. Not a bunch of energized Christians cheaply trying to sell pseudo-science
Then how did god create animals like rabbit, cats, dogs ? From where did those animals came from ? Did they just fell down from the Sky to the Earth ?
Some people here claim that evolution is illogical and magical ! But what about creationism ? To me it seems that creationism is by far much more illogical and by far much more magical than evolution (that if we assume that evolution is magical in the first place)
Reminds me of that episode of south park, when whats-his-face raises his hand in class and says 'couldnt evolution really be the answer to how, rather than why?' and Ms. Garrison retorts '....ah..retard alert! retard alert!'
9th March 2008
. My source is science which shouldn't be contradicted by religion.
):
They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have 'reflective' skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
