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.
Well, an evolutionist told me we humans all come from fish. FISH.
Does any sane minded person actually have the guts to believe we came from FISH????????
Well, an evolutionist told me we humans all come from fish. FISH.
Does any sane minded person actually have the guts to believe we came from FISH????????
The fact is, not only has this redneck figured out that neo-darwinism is false,
but so has most of the scientific community. But I've noticed that the scientific community is playing a little game....it goes like this: "let's just keep this quiet and hope no one notices that the rug's been pulled out from under them and all the rules have changed.....Then, if/when people do start to notice, we'll say Oh, yea weve known that for a long time.
Well the fact is random mutations have never had anything to with evolution.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...selection.html
In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all
However, subsequent field and laboratory investigations into the genetic and developmental control of such variable traits have shown the multiple allele/continuous variation model upon which the "modern synthesis" was based is, in fact, not the way most traits apparently evolve
This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete
A decade ago such comments would have been heresy .(and they still are, really).
In this next link, a scientist is attempting to show us something new. He has evolved different colors of the same worm based on temperature. While this is nice that its finally being shown in the lab, the fact is, the same thing is done in nature all the time. This stuff happens all over the globe. Look what this guy says:
Its long been known that polyphenisms are controlled by hormones, with the brain sensing environmental signals and altering the pattern of hormonal secretions. In turn these hormonal patterns turn sets of genes on or off to produce different traits.
Wow! (I couldn't have said it better -- but it's taken evolutionists decades to admit this.)
][/FONT]For the past century theyve been telling us that microevolution and macroevolution use the same mechanism.
Well now the microevolutions mechanism has been quietly replaced without the general public knowing about it. So where does that lead macro-evolution? (The land of make-believe, maybe?)
...And the concept of gradualism is has gone up like poof of smoke.
And the fact is, these guys actually admit that individual genes mean very little when it comes to defining an organism.
In fact, its been found that the same gene that determines an insects eyes is the same gene that determines the humans eye.
Thus, the question is how is it that monkey genes are expressed differently than human genes?
Indeed all the rules have changed. The silly cumulative selection hypothesis is out the window. As are random mutations. And without those, the neo-darwins new synthesis is impotent.
Im not saying there still cannot be an atheist version of evolution, but the fact is, your tried and true theory that's considered FACT by so many millions of people and that is being taught in our schools is no longer viable.
At this point the only thing evolutionsts have left is the belief in natural selection. But even this concept has never been tested nor proven by controlled studies.
The fact is, this is just as insignificant as random mutations when it comes to biological change in animals.
There is no evidence to that effect, your opinion is bases solely on supposition. Some of the birds come out of the ocean, but land animals come from the land, they do not come from the ocean.I think you'll find that the vast majority of sane minded people on this board, christian and non-christian, accept the evidence shows us that we evolved from fish, they don't believe it, they accept it based on the current evidence.
Cencorsed so that people don't see the bloody remains as supersports OP is torn to shreds
You have not demonstrated any benefical mutations. We know that there are mutations and there is nothing beneficial about them at all. In fact we study them because they are the cause of so much disease and early death. Mutation are not a good thing. No more then a mutilation is a good thing.Random mutation is still in operation.
Mutation during reproduction is the main method by which new genetic information is created. Without new genetic information, no new traits can be evolved. So, mutation is crucial to evolution.
The morality of mutation is irrelevant to it's existance.You have not demonstrated any benefical mutations. We know that there are mutations and there is nothing beneficial about them at all. In fact we study them because they are the cause of so much disease and early death. Mutation are not a good thing. No more then a mutilation is a good thing.
You have not demonstrated any benefical mutations. We know that there are mutations and there is nothing beneficial about them at all. In fact we study them because they are the cause of so much disease and early death. Mutation are not a good thing. No more then a mutilation is a good thing.
A mustard seed? A singularity is a zero-dimensional point in the spacetime continuum (though the continuum did not exist at the moment of the big bang, the singularity still existed as an infinitely dense concentration of energy in whatever existed before the big bang).There does not have to be "New" genetic information. God created the whole universe out of a "singularity" the size of a mustard seed, or even smaller. He can fit enough DNA into one "seed" for all of the life on earth today.
Who says God is just? The entire field of quantum mechanics deals with the uncertain, the unpredictable. Radioactivity and Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle are evidence of a probabalistic universe. See also the 'cloud' nature of an electron's 'orbit'.Random does not exist, there is no such thing in science as random. It only appears random based on your perspective. Everything in the universe follows an exact, precise mathmatical expression. The universe would have to be exact in order for God to be just. If somone got more or less than what was due to them, then God would not be just. Everyone has to receive the same exacting amount.
I thought it was Eve who first ate the apple... come to think of it, surely the Serpent is to blame?It is though one man: Adam, that sin entered into the world. It is through one "man", Christ, we are redeemed from that sin.
The mustand seed theory is a product of Jewish mysticism from around 1100 ad, but some people say it is a part of the tradition that goes back to Moses.A mustard seed? A singularity is a zero-dimensional point in the spacetime continuum
There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
You seriously believe that the universe has it's own DNA?
Who says God is just?
I thought it was Eve who first ate the apple... come to think of it, surely the Serpent is to blame?
Either way, it is a detestable and grossly unjust god who punishes the child for the wrong-doings of the father.
You do not have a theory; you only have a hypothesis!I believe everything on the earth could have come from one "seed" but all the information was there in the beginning.
If anything as life began to radiate then information was lost when it was no longer needed.
So my theory would pretty much be the opposite from Darwin's theory.
In the inflation picture, there was no initial singularity. An initial singularity is actually ruled out by the fact that the universe is spatially flat, homogeneous, and isotropic. None of these would be possible if we came from an initial singularity.A mustard seed? A singularity is a zero-dimensional point in the spacetime continuum (though the continuum did not exist at the moment of the big bang, the singularity still existed as an infinitely dense concentration of energy in whatever existed before the big bang).
That's not really true. Since the behavior of molecules are well within the quantum realm, there is always a degree of randomness. But regardless, what we can do is look at the average rates of various random processes, including mutations. And whenever you are dealing with large numbers of random processes, at least some parts of the results of those random processes become completely predictable.But random mutation is a misnomer. The precise velocity and location of each particle, force, and quanta of energy could be used to predict the mutations that will occur. Unfortunately, such a computation would require a computer larger than the universe itself.
Anyone who claims to "prove a theory false" knows little about the scientific method. The only way to disprove a theory is to offer a competing theory that explains away the same data better. Poking holes has no effect.The fact is, not only has this redneck figured out that neo-darwinism is false,
So you are using an analogy? Or are you still claiming that a mustard seed is the source of the universe?The mustand seed theory is a product of Jewish mysticism from around 1100 ad, but some people say it is a part of the tradition that goes back to Moses.
It was picked up by Planck and quantum physics about 100 years ago. It is not unusual for a religious theory to be adapted and used as a science theory.
A tad innaccurate, but I'll let it slide.Science believes that everything on earth evolved from one living cell.
And what seed was that? A mustard seed?I believe everything on the earth could have come from one "seed" but all the information was there in the beginning.
Life is not energy. It is an abstract concept we use to define a group of entities with common traits. Information in the real (physics) sense is not encoded in 'life'.If anything as life began to radiate then information was lost when it was no longer needed.
Darwin's theory had nothing to do with the origins of the universe, let alone some conjured 'information carrying Life'.So my theory would pretty much be the opposite from Darwin's theory.
Laugable. I could say I'm a steak-flavoured ice-lolly, but that does not make me one.God says He is just. His scale of justice has a perfect balance.
No serpent has offered me fruit that I was warned would kill me.Everyone is given the same choice that Eve was given, in the Garden of Eden.
The universe is not homogenous, since it is not uniform. Nor is it spacially flat (Einstein showed that the four forces warp the spacetime continuum). The inflation idea is that after the big bang, there was a period of rapid expansion that later slowed to a more uniform rate.In the inflation picture, there was no initial singularity. An initial singularity is actually ruled out by the fact that the universe is spatially flat, homogeneous, and isotropic. None of these would be possible if we came from an initial singularity.
Anyone who claims to "prove a theory false" knows little about the scientific method. The only way to disprove a theory is to offer a competing theory that explains away the same data better. Poking holes has no effect.
I think Chalnoth means that it's flat with small areas of curvature where accumulated matter exists.Nor is it spacially flat (Einstein showed that the four forces warp the spacetime continuum).
I don't agree--at bare minimum, you need a competing explanation, if even a vacuous one. If your explanation is "stuff only arises from like stuff", that's still a competing theory with more evidence.I have a little nit pick. A theory can be falsified without a competing theory being offered, an example being Pasteur's work with Spontaneous Generation.
I don't agree--at bare minimum, you need a competing explanation, if even a vacuous one. If your explanation is "stuff only arises from like stuff", that's still a competing theory with more evidence.
But no, it doesn't need to be a well-developed theory if there's no support at all for its antithesis.
Trickster
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?