|
Post by Ty Kissner on Mar 21, 2006 15:28:47 GMT -5
WE DID COME FROM THE DAMN MONKEYS
|
|
|
Post by Ty Kissner on Mar 21, 2006 15:30:05 GMT -5
THATS WHY ARE DNA IS 99.8 % SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CHIMPNAZEE, THERES ONLY ONE AMINO ACID DIFFERENCE IN THE DNA HELICASE BETWWEN HUMANS AND CHIMPS
|
|
|
Post by Ty Kissner on Mar 21, 2006 15:30:54 GMT -5
as for does evolution occur just conduct some research on the galapogos Islands, it should answer all your questions.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Fournier on Mar 21, 2006 15:31:51 GMT -5
I would like to add an animal to this list. Carcharadon Carcharius. Great White Shark. It's ancestor, the Megaladon was similar in almost every aspect except size. The Megaladon was a 60-80ft long great white shark. Current teeth found have been dated as only 100,000 years old and this creature was here from the first wave of dinosaurs. The ONLY reason it died out (may still be some, but I doubt it) was because it ran out of food. You want to talk about a miracle of evolution, it shrunk 40 feet so it could afford the price to dine.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Fournier on Mar 21, 2006 15:36:28 GMT -5
BTW, New Line cinema is releasing "MEG" in theaters either this summer or next, and you will all get to see the beauty of this apex predator
|
|
|
Post by Austin Slater on Mar 21, 2006 16:04:59 GMT -5
Ty,
Are you joking? the galapogos islands? What does that prove? That birds beeks grow when needed for food or that moths change color so they can disguise themselves better? This proves microevolution but not an increase in information so one species changes into another. I havent even heard evolutionists use those examples as of late to prove thier theory.
As far as the dna likeness to chimps this is misleading. Did you know we are actually closer to pigs then chips in dna? a 1% difference is actually quite a bit when you consider all the information that is present. This doesnt prove evolution and why wouldnt God create things in a similar sense? Do your research and think for yourself, dont rely on what others tell you.
Engin great stuff buddy. I cant add a whole lot to what youve already stated.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 21, 2006 16:06:53 GMT -5
ENGIN!!!! YOU ROCK!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 21, 2006 16:10:32 GMT -5
The ONLY reason it died out (may still be some, but I doubt it) was because it ran out of food. ........You want to talk about a miracle of evolution, it shrunk 40 feet so it could afford the price to dine. to say that the size of this creature is proof of evolution is nonsense. Arnold shwrtzabobllenagerism is a fairly large man..........but if he loses all his money and cant afford to feed his kid properly the kid will not be near as big.........if his kid doesnt have the excercise regimine as him then the kid will not be as physically similar. as i stated before, the similarity in lucy, the first fossil in the chain of evolution, is so simlirar that there is no difference in that of a chimp and the if this shark is so similar to the other whats the difference.....there was no evolution. if so........stop eating and we may see you evolve into a midget so that you can survive......right?
|
|
|
Post by Ty Kissner on Mar 21, 2006 16:35:18 GMT -5
The galopagos formed from Lava erupting from under the sea. Now tell me how trees and grass grew from a rock, because god said i'll but grass on this rock to cover it up, gimme a break.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 21, 2006 16:38:35 GMT -5
Sorry guys still not up to speed on all these posts yet but I will try to hit them as they appeared.
Engin
Without question there are a world of amazing creatures with almost unfathomable skills and oddities, if the skills these creatures posses are attributed to the very specific and intentional actions of a higher power so must be the very unremarkable and questionable facts about these creatures.
A goldfish has a memory span of 3 seconds. Emus can’t walk backwards By some unknown means an Iguana can end its own life A swan is the only bird with a penis The only dog that does not have a pink tongue is a chow Dogs and humans are the only animals with a prostate The left leg of a chicken is more tender than the right leg Zebra cannot see the color Orange It is possible to lead a cow upstairs but not downstairs The Cuckoo places its eggs in the nests of other birds, leaving them to be hatched and the young to be raised by the new parents. Praying Mantis mate then the female eats the male. Eagles will often die when they crash to ground locked together during mating if they have not finished Right handed people live on average 9 years longer than left handed people.
Why would these creatures be given these odd and sometimes detrimental attributes, as amazing as some things appear to be there are a ton of items that really make no sense, are these just accidents?
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 21, 2006 16:43:52 GMT -5
Tim/Engin
By very conservative estimates assuming that God put us on this earth within the last 10K years, over 19 Billion people have lived from 8000 BC until 2002, do we know where all these people’s bodies are? If you simply take the group that would most likely have passed away already well that is almost 5 Billion people, do we know where all of their bodies are?
Think about how many creatures have lived and died on this planet, yet we don't seem to be littered with remains everywhere do we?
In the history of man’s search for ancient animals only 30 T Rex partial skeletons have ever been found, do we really believe there was only 30 that ever existed?
Zuniceratops only the remains of 1 has ever been found, do we believe that only one ever existed?
Wuerhosaurus only the remains of 1 has ever been found, do we believe that only one ever existed?
Shuvuuia only the remains of 2 have ever been found Sinornithoides only the remains of 1 has ever been found Sinosauropteryx only the remains of 3 have ever been found Spinosaurus only the remains of 1 has ever been found Suchomimus only the remains of 1 has ever been found Therizinosaurus only the remains of 1 has ever been found Ultrasauros only the remains of 1 has ever been found Utahraptor only the remains of 1 has ever been found
Poor Knights Island, New Zealand (Feb 18, 2006 18:37 EST) A diving trip off the Poor Knights Islands has turned up two rare sea creatures living in what could be a marine biology time warp. One of the tiny creatures - a miniature seahorse - has only ever been recorded once before anywhere in the world, and never known to be in New Zealand waters. The other - an equally tiny sea-hare - is possibly a never-before discovered species. Auckland diver Ann Gilmore made the world's first recorded live discovery of the 2cm seahorse (Hippocampus jugumus), while diving at the Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve at Anniversary Weekend. The only other recording of the species was when a dried shred was found on a beach on Lord Howe Island in 1925.But it was a sea-hare, of the huge mollusc family, that had caught her attention before she saw the seahorse - which she first thought was a scrap of floating seaweed.ne of the other divers, Paul White of Auckland, took the photographs Australian marine biologists are now using to identify what could be the world's rarest sea-hare and sea-horse.
As recently as 2003 during one deep sea expedition alone, 100 new ocean creatures were discovered in very small or single quantities, are we to believe that these that were found are the only ones that ever existed?
My point to all of this is that not finding the remains of something yet does not mean it did not exist we prove this fact every year as we find things we did not know ever existed all.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 21, 2006 16:47:14 GMT -5
they are accidents at all........very interesting stuff.
all creatures have faults and weaknesses.
Human have a very vunerable shell compared to the turtle.
But if we didnt have that we would sacrifice many pleaseares that we enjoy today.
God created everything with a purpose and a plan.
We dont see the remains because of decay.....the remains we do see are due to petrification.......petrification has to happen rapidly not over billions of years. Because decay would get them first
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 21, 2006 16:50:59 GMT -5
this is my idea of a good debate.......nobody is trying to kill anyone and a muslim and christian are in agreement and i dont think either has offended the other as of yet.........this is great!!
|
|
|
Post by Ty Kissner on Mar 21, 2006 16:56:21 GMT -5
TJ Archive > Volume 12 Issue 1 > If God created the universe, then who created God?
First published: TJ 12(1):20–22 April 1998 Browse this issue Subscribe to TJ If God created the universe, then who created God? Answering the Critics by Jonathan Sarfati
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1 The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause.
It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
In Summary The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
Objections There are only two ways to refute an argument:
Show that it is logically invalid
Show that at least one of the premises is false.
a) Is the argument valid? A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this paper is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the sceptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.
b) Are the premises true? 1) Does the universe have a beginning? Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2
Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe.5,6 It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse—a ‘flat’ universe.
Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’ Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.8
2) Denial of cause and effect Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9
But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’
Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.
Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.
Is creation by God rational? A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, sceptics can’t have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 21, 2006 16:59:17 GMT -5
Ryan don’t apologize I am just trying to focus on one small point at a time, do humans change, alter or evolve in the basic sense of the word, have they improved or physically altered for any reason? I too was answering some questions and making some points but I would like to address this one little thing if we can first. Ryan I see in your passage how the languages changed but I do not see anything to explain how their physical attributes changed, if God made man in his own image and Adam and Eve populated the earth (let’s not get into Noah yet) how is it that Asians have a very similar look yet they differ distinguishably from each other by nationality, further Asians differ in physicality from other humans of other regions that also exist on this earth from the same linage? What I am offering to everyone is that even under the one possible belief that god put us here some 6K years ago humans have altered and evolved to become the variations we now see everyday and this process has taken place as a direct result of the effects of their environment on their physical being… Hence evolution. Austin if a person looking yourself, changed to look like this guy below in a matter of 30 seconds is that a mutation? I am not saying there is anything wrong with the way this man looks and I mean no offense to anyone but it is far different from you is it not, so how did he take on such a varied look from you? You could very easily say what you are referring to is a more significant change from say a monkey to a man, but in reality if you take the remains of early humans compared to modern humans say, Neanderthal man or Cro-Magnon Man to modern man this is potentially a very slight change. Under some schools of thought all of these below documented creatures are only a very slight change one to the other again and again and we are the result. Ardipithecus Ramidus to Australopithecus Amanensis to Australopithecus Afarensis to Homo Habilis to Homo Rudolfensis to Australopithecus Aethiopicus to Australopithecus Africanus to Australopithecus Robustus to Australopithecus Boisei to Homo Erectus This is just some rendering along these lines The argument may be that we evolve in a manner akin to how we age, slowly and under the influence of how or where we live, but over a far greater period of time. No one wakes up old, and only over a period of time where you can see photos of yourself young compared to your older self do you really see how much you have aged.
|
|