Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why don't you stop listening to other people and make up your own mind, have a look for yourself you can still remain a Christian, but we know that you won't because you do not want to lose your creationism, would you rather bury your head in the sand than find out the truth and lose your creationism? or is it peer pressure that stops you being true to yourself?There is. And if you were involved in the research you may dispute many of the lines of information that you currently have faith in. But there is no "clear" anything in science. Everything must be retested. And if you cannot recreate an event, it's not science. What your referring to may seem scientific, but it's not science.
"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).
You don't know anything about science, do you?There is. And if you were involved in the research you may dispute many of the lines of information that you currently have faith in. But there is no "clear" anything in science. Everything must be retested. And if you cannot recreate an event, it's not science. What your referring to may seem scientific, but it's not science.
"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).
And I'd disagree with him on that last point anyway: evolution is absolutely proven fact. Although granted, the evidence for evolution has advanced by tremendous leaps and bounds in the forty years since he wrote that, even in the 1970's evolution was established fact.Mendel showed that inheritance is particulate, that 'factors' in the genotype transmit the characters expressed by the phenotype. This discovery, combined with the growing knowledge of the chromosomes and their behaviour in the maturation of reproductive cells, was the basis of the modern discipline of genetics, which revealed how evolution by natural selection of random changes in the factors or 'genes' or in their permutations and combinations proceeds. ...
During the last fifty years genetics has unravelled many of the extremely complex phenomena of inheritance, and has show that evolution by natural selection of random mutations, generally of small size, is a logical explanation of the origin of the immense array of organisms now and in the past living on earth. The theory is so plausible that most biologists accept it as though it were a proven fact, although their conviction rests upon circumstantial evidence; it forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.
Say what? So, you're telling me that if I get struck by a car tomorrow and die, it's because of my genes?
Then explain to me why you can't implant the embryo of one species of mammal into another's womb and expect that embryo to develop into a viable organism.
20 years in R&D, some of that for Amoco Oil (now B.P.) , and other in Physical Properties testing for Adhesive manufacturers.You don't know anything about science, do you?
OK. My bad.Oh, and quote mining is bad, mkay?
He not talking about the reproducible parts. He's talking about the bologna parts that can't be tested by the scientific method.And I'd disagree with him on that last point anyway: evolution is absolutely proven fact. Although granted, the evidence for evolution has advanced by tremendous leaps and bounds in the forty years since he wrote that, even in the 1970's evolution was established fact.
Why don't you stop listening to other people and make up your own mind, have a look for yourself you can still remain a Christian, but we know that you won't because you do not want to lose your creationism, would you rather bury your head in the sand than find out the truth and lose your creationism? or is it peer pressure that stops you being true to yourself?
The very fact that it is a touchy process disproves your assertion completely that all the information is contained within that original cell. If it were, it wouldn't matter which animal bore the young. But it does.Only because it's a touchy process.
But people are working on it.
Amazing that through all that you stubbornly refused to learn anything about science. Or promptly forgot everything you did learn.20 years in R&D, some of that for Amoco Oil (now B.P.) , and other in Physical Properties testing for Adhesive manufacturers.
The very fact that it is a touchy process disproves your assertion completely that all the information is contained within that original cell. If it were, it wouldn't matter which animal bore the young. But it does.
Amazing that through all that you stubbornly refused to learn anything about science. Or promptly forgot everything you did learn.
Repeatability is absolutely, positively not a requirement of science, for one. ...
It's relevant because of what news headlines are feeding you? If you'd have read my post, you'd have seen that:However, I know for certain that the "old line" is still used in evolutionary thought. Don't act like it is something out of line with the truth. Every archeologist out there is looking for the common ancestor. Every find talks about it, and every find changes the evolutionary model for the human evolutionary line.
I have no idea how you went from there to "morphing". But whatever.
They do not paint a clear picture and if you were told that you were told something that is not at all accurate.First of all, those fossils posted or only a teeny tiny fraction of the total number of hominid fossils found. Put together, the hominid fossils paint a very clear picture of a series of lineages, some of whom died out, but one of whom became us. So even where the fossil evidence is concerned, there is much much more.
This evidence could be used as much for common design as for common ancestry.There is also the morphological evidence: we share a number of uniquely-ape characteristics with the other apes, such as fingernails, a lack of a tail, and our particular sort of molars.
This is really quite unremarkable when in fact the design of the ape family is so similar to us. Just to create the same design would require genetic similarity. DNA throughout the living world is similar which can attest to a designer as well. Bananas for instance have 50% of their genetic makeup similar to humans.But the best evidence we have is genetic. We can do genetic tests for the relationships between species in the exact same way we do genetic tests for the relationships between people. And we find that chimpanzees are our closest cousins.
Yes?And then this is only talking about the evidence linking humans with the other apes.
Why is it that you atheists always counter that we don't know what a definition is or what fallacy is being used in an argument. Don't you think that we have the same resources available to us, as you do to you? This is bizarre. A straw man is the same for me as it is for you. You were attacking my argument using foolish comparison rather than arguing against my actual argument. Straw man.I don't think you know what that is. That little story was how I see the debate between the two of us.
Except it is absolutely not a programmed feature. The information in an adult is far and away greater than the information content of a single, fertilized egg. That information is generated spontaneously by interactions between the growing human (whether embryo or fetus or child) and its environment. Screw up the environment, and you get errors in development. For example, if you implanted a human embryo into a lioness, you almost certainly wouldn't get a viable human child. You wouldn't get a lion, of course, but it would most likely end in miscarriage.
Oh, but it may be much bigger than that.This doesn't mean that all of the information exists before the child starts growing.
Why is it that you atheists always counter that we don't know what a definition is or what fallacy is being used in an argument. Don't you think that we have the same resources available to us, as you do to you? This is bizarre. A straw man is the same for me as it is for you. You were attacking my argument using foolish comparison rather than arguing against my actual argument. Straw man.
You keep saying that, and yet somehow you seem to have completely ignored the absolute disproof I just presented: any old uterus won't do. You need somebody from the same species (or, in rare cases, a very closely-related species).Surrogate wombs are picky about the occupants. This is why women loose babies.
Its a scientific FACT that all the information is within the egg and the sperm cells.
Check how cloning works. The ongoing challenge is to create either a surrogate
or a totally artificial womb. The biological separation is so complete it allows for
women with AIDS to birth children without AIDS 70-90% of the time.
So even a virus can't cross the barrier.
Except it is absolutely not a programmed feature. The information in an adult is far and away greater than the information content of a single, fertilized egg. That information is generated spontaneously by interactions between the growing human (whether embryo or fetus or child) and its environment. Screw up the environment, and you get errors in development. For example, if you implanted a human embryo into a lioness, you almost certainly wouldn't get a viable human child. You wouldn't get a lion, of course, but it would most likely end in miscarriage.
This doesn't mean that all of the information exists before the child starts growing.
Well, yes, it is possible. That doesn't contradict anything I have said. What I have said, however, is that it is extremely difficult, and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Because the requirements are so exacting. And we probably haven't even scratched the surface in discovering the details of the environment that are required.It all does. We ARE working on surrogate wombs for human children.
The reason that we are is...that it's entirely possible.
You keep saying that, and yet somehow you seem to have completely ignored the absolute disproof I just presented: any old uterus won't do. You need somebody from the same species (or, in rare cases, a very closely-related species).
Did you know, for instance, that clones are noticeably different from the animals they were cloned from?
All of a sudden you're better informed. Amazing.That most clones don't survive, despite having identical genomes?And by the way, don't hold your breath for an artificial womb. The requirements for a womb are so exacting that it is highly unlikely we'll see one in use any time soon.But why did you bring in the AIDS link? That doesn't even make sense. Because the mother's blood never mixes with the fetus's blood (at least not until birth, where this happens in some cases), most diseases won't be able to make it to the fetus. But lots of other things do. Otherwise it would be impossible for the fetus to grow at all: the fetus depends upon the mother for nutrients and oxygen, and to extract waste and carbon dioxide. So lots of things are able to make it across the barrier to the fetus. Just look at fetal alcohol syndrome for an example of what can go wrong there.
I have most definitely not acknowledged that artificial wombs are on the horizon. They are quite far from it. There is no artificial womb on the horizon at all. There are crazy ideas out there that maybe someday far in the future we might do it. But there are no serious proposals for doing it any time soon. We don't even yet know all of the details of the environment that are required!Sorry. You have proven no causality or problem whatsoever. Just below, you acknowledge that artificial wombs are on the horizon. This negates your premise of information transferal in the womb. Here, let me show you:
Scientists Predict That Babies Of The Future Will Be Born To Centarians With Artificial Wombs
Um, not even close. For one, clones are typically much larger than naturally-conceived young, and usually have to be delivered by c-section as a result. Most of them also tend to die prematurely. A healthy clone is quite a rare thing.Not.
If one is fed and the other starved, then there could be a weight difference. Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome
It's relevant because of what news headlines are feeding you? If you'd have read my post, you'd have seen that:
1. In-species transitional fossils are largely meaningless, as evolution doesn't predict them. (except in special cases where a species is terminated)
2. If you would look at the link, you'd see that we have transitional fossils in between things like reptiles and mammals.
It's obvious you didn't understand my post. Try reading it again.
Let's see if I can post links now.
Homo Rudolfensis
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed
Here is your (F) Rudolfensis, above...an ape.
Lluc, the flat faced ape 12myo.
Lucy
Lucy: The First Hominid Skeleton
Above is Lucy, with curved fingers, no heavy eye brow ridging...and still an ape.
http://truthopia.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/turkana-boy-he.jpg?w=497&h=378
Above is Turkana Boy, Erectus or eragaster, they haven't made up their mind...as you see the side view shows...an ape...and an ape with heavy eyebrow ridging. If you square his chin up by tilting the head back a little even more does he look like an ape.
Another Homo Erectus from Wiki......just a heavily eyebrow ridged ape.
None of these are intermediates. They are varieties of apes.
You do not know what these creatures actually look like with flesh on. Nor do you know what the common ancestor looked like, nor do I know what the first ape kind looked like. Regardless of arm length, disputes over whether or not fossils are from one or more individuals, these are all apes and are obviously discontinuous with mankind. They are incapable of complex and sophisticated speech and high level reasoning and perceptive ability.
This is the kind of misrepresentation that can be demonstrated with much of the fossil record.
Rather a huge variety of apes and mankind suddenly appearing in the fossil record demonstrates evidence for creation.
I could be gracious and say it is a matter of interpretation. However, I think these are clearly apes, and only someone that needs intermediates would ever think they were anything but apes.
Creation=Science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?