So My Views Aren't Right?

[pianofrieak2]

Since most people here believe in evolution, I was wondering something. You know how we have natural selection and all that? Well, why haven't we found any beings with eyes on the bottom of their feet or legs coming out of their head? You know since it's supposed to be random, the fossil record should be showing the MAJORITY of fossils out there to be all screwed up instead of having about 3 that kinda-look-similar-but-not-really to two animals. I was just wondering about that.

 

 

 

From what I know, the fossil record completely obliterates the evolutionary theory.

[Rebdragon]

Since most people here believe in evolution, I was wondering something. You know how we have natural selection and all that? Well, why haven't we found any beings with eyes on the bottom of their feet or legs coming out of their head? You know since it's supposed to be random, the fossil record should be showing the MAJORITY of fossils out there to be all screwed up instead of having about 3 that kinda-look-similar-but-not-really to two animals. I was just wondering about that.

 

 

 

From what I know, the fossil record completely obliterates the evolutionary theory.

 

Lol, you wana know why we all look similiar? You wana know why many animals are vertebrates, and many other animals have exoskeletons? You wana know why the majority of animals have two eyes on their head?

 

 

 

Evolution genius.

 

 

 

[We all evolved from the same early single celled organisms, and because of that many similarities exist.]

[deloriagod]

Since most people here believe in evolution, I was wondering something. You know how we have natural selection and all that? Well, why haven't we found any beings with eyes on the bottom of their feet or legs coming out of their head? You know since it's supposed to be random, the fossil record should be showing the MAJORITY of fossils out there to be all screwed up instead of having about 3 that kinda-look-similar-but-not-really to two animals. I was just wondering about that.

 

 

 

From what I know, the fossil record completely obliterates the evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

 

 

A. We may have much more to discover

 

or

 

B. There were never beings with eyes on their feet, or legs on their heads

 

 

 

Saying that we should find something like that because it's random is like saying you should win every 3rd game of poker you play. IT'S RANDOM! You can't decide what randomness is going to bring..

[Death_By_Pod]

 

It is impossible for something to come from nothing. All the remains is that it was created. No matter how improbable, it must be the truth.

 

the big bang is not impossible untill its proven impossible. So far scientists have "fossil" evidence and evidence of all sorts proving the big bang to be real, its just not 100% certain. Wikipedia for more.

The Big Bang Theory- Single point infinitely small and infinitely massive. Since it is impossible for anything in our universe to be 1-dimensional the Big Bang Theory is false.

 

 

 

Also if you have studied quantum mechanics you would know that a lot of things can happen which contradict classical laws (such as something coming from nothing). Electrons and black hole singularities are 0-D (You mean 0-dimensional, 1-D is a line and as you know lots of lines exist.).

[Tigra00]

*Shakes head*.

 

 

 

I honestly thought Pianofreak was smarter than he is making himself out to be. First he says Jesus created the Universe in 7 days, then he says that all creatures looking similar in structure disproves evolution. *Sigh*. I almost do not even know how to comment. First off, no, Jesus is not God, so saying that they're somehow the same being is not going to work here. Christian's have completely forgotten one of the 10 commandments, being not to worship false idols, i.e. anyone but God/Yahweh/Jehova/whatever-you-call-said-deity. They make up some random crap about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being one..thing..so they can say Jesus is their lord. Whatever...Your lord is GOD. Jesus was merely a pawn God needed to use to cleanse you of your horrible sins which you haven't stopped commiting...That is, assuming any of this is true at all, which it probably isn't. And by probably, I mean "most likely".

 

 

 

People read too far into religion. They mistake a book written to keep people in line and teach them life lessons for some kind of...literal history book. I'm sorry, but all the promises of Heaven in the universe will not make that so. It's a BOOK written by a King's scribes 2,000-ish years ago. Honestly now. I'm supposed to follow, word for word, in a literal sense, something that a 2,000 year old book says, as opposed to what billions of years of science is telling us? Science, which, mind you, can be proven, or has been already? No thanks, guys! I'm sure the Bible is a great read and all, and when you're done, maybe you'll even have learned something, but it's nothing more than that. You're not going to burn in some eternal flame for not reading a book and bowing down. If we were going to burn, almost everyone on the freakin' planet would be burning, and mind you, most of these are the decent, kind-hearted, great all-around people, as opposed to Christians, who steal your money selling you $100 Bible's and $500 clocks (no joke, watch tv sometime, I'm not kidding) calling it "donating", not to mention the millions they steal via "Feed the Children Fund"...Or Muslims (not all) who blow people up randomly...These people will be rewarded for being GOOD? 'Kay. If you say so. If you were not so blinded by your up-bringing, you'd be able to see that you're brain-washed...Will you ever realize? No, you will not, because you fear your loving God will burn you eternally if you stray. Well, that's nice of him, huh.

 

 

 

I've come to accept, even if there is a God, that he doesn't look after me, and he never will. I have looked to the sky and given "God" the finger before just to spite him. Why? Because he's never done a damn thing for anyone. NOONE. The only people who claim to have been helped by him are Christians getting rich by saying they've been helped by him. That's it. Noone else. Not a starving baby, not a homeless man, not a prisoner, not a civilian in a war-torn country, and surely not a teenager suffering from more medical problems than you could imagine. Refering to myself, of course, but countless others could go into that catagory.

 

 

 

Believe what you will, but keep it to yourself. You are the reason people kill eachother. You are the reason EVERYONE is angry. You are the reason for every war EVER fought. You are the reason people fight in general. The least you could do is kill eachother and save us rational people the time and effort. Prove me wrong. Prove you're not the problem, that you are infact, somehow, the solution.

 

 

 

I don't want to down people's religions, but christ, how dense can one person be? The world is 6,000 years old? The grand canyon was created via the "Great Flood"? Ugh. I cannot even fathom the idiocy it takes to believe this. If the world was 6,000 years old, period, end of story, then the Egyptians would have been some of like...the first people. For some reason, though, they felt the need to worship God's noone even knows the names of anymore? Oh, but wait, the Pyramids are probably 12 years old and carbon dating is a Neo-Nazi scam or something.

 

 

 

I want to bash my head into a wall now. Just thinking of the idiots out there teaching their CHILDREN this stuff angers me. They should all be jailed for abuse.

 

 

 

Edit: I can't wait until we find life on some other planet in some other solar system. It may not even be in my lifetime, but it will completely toss religion for a loop. I don't recall the Bible ever saying anything about other life forms anywhere but Earth, so it'll be quite the "HOLY CRAP!" day at the Vatican. I can see it now, though...News headlines everywhere..."Catholics discover a NEW new testiment buried beneathe 6,000 year old rubble of Adam and Eve's original hut! They are claiming it speaks of God creating life on an infinate number of planets! Hooray! Religion is SAVED!" and in small-print "Carbon-dating was used to discover the age of the ancient text, however, the Vatican is still calling Carbon dating a "Nazi insturment of death."

 

 

 

Oh man. I can't wait to see the gullible goldfish that buy into that. It's like the Mormon religion all over again.

[Death_By_Pod]

Since most people here believe in evolution, I was wondering something. You know how we have natural selection and all that? Well, why haven't we found any beings with eyes on the bottom of their feet or legs coming out of their head? You know since it's supposed to be random, the fossil record should be showing the MAJORITY of fossils out there to be all screwed up instead of having about 3 that kinda-look-similar-but-not-really to two animals. I was just wondering about that.

 

 

 

From what I know, the fossil record completely obliterates the evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

Quantum mechanics says there is an extremely small probability that all the particles in our body are situated on Mars rather then on Earth so why hasn't anyone quantum tunnelled to Mars yet?

 

 

 

Also youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re assuming that there is a code which tells the body where to place our eyes and that it's easily alterable. Natural Selection isn't random; it has a direction (either to 0 or 100% prevalence) called genetic drift. Try finding two fossils that are exactly the same if you think that we are not random.

 

 

 

I can't go into the exact details into why it doesn't change (I'm not a biologist) but I would presume it would have something to do with how our ancestors looked like (they had eyes on their heads, positioned towards the front). There is a rare birth disorder called cyclopia where people are born with one eye (caused by the brain failing to divide) which is caused by something relatively simple and near the face. In order for the body to have a chain of bad thing happening and the end result is having a functioning eye on my foot is similar to me spontaneously appearing on Mars due to quantum tunnelling.

[Notorious_Ice]

 

I'm just sorry when the day comes and God judges you and you look back and say

 

"phhhtt, I'm s.o.l."

 

 

 

 

Ok, well i stated my opinion and backed it up with FACTS.

 

 

 

All you did was insult me and bash my beliefs. You did not use any evidence or facts or opinions whatsoever.

 

 

 

You sound like one of those 10 year old kids who are only religious because they're parents take them to church every week. But they dont even know anything about their religeon, let alone have their own opinion because they are too busy picking their nose for their booger collection.

 

 

 

Come back when you've matured a little.

[issy2]

God gave the choice to us, he wanted to let us decide if you want to believe in Him or not.

 

 

 

The Bible? The Ten Commandments? I don't believe it's mentioned anywhere he gave us that choice. Infact it's mentioned that those who don't believe in him will go to hell. And therefore the Bible creates an arguement of not having free religion, or is frowning down upon it.

 

 

 

Hey, sorry to all the religious guys here, but if (and that's a big if) there is a God, an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God, he would surely give us a fair choice, fair free-will, to believe and/or worship whoever we want, with the natural mercy to forgive those who, completely understandably, choose not to worship a 'God' who gives us absolutely no proof of his existence to my knowledge.

[Oy_the_Great]

Since most people here believe in evolution, I was wondering something. You know how we have natural selection and all that? Well, why haven't we found any beings with eyes on the bottom of their feet or legs coming out of their head? You know since it's supposed to be random, the fossil record should be showing the MAJORITY of fossils out there to be all screwed up instead of having about 3 that kinda-look-similar-but-not-really to two animals. I was just wondering about that.

 

 

 

From what I know, the fossil record completely obliterates the evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

 

 

Well Piano, evolution isn't something that happens from one day on another. A monkey doesn't just change into a human, but of course you know that. One small change occurs, something possible very unrelevant, like a monkey that uses a more sophisticated method to gather his food than just pick fruit with a stick like all others do. This causes his brain to use certain functions that it otherwise would not, thus making it more creative. Because it has better access to food, it now has more of a guarantee to survive. If out of the millions of monkeys a few start doing this, at least one or a few will be the ancesters of the monkey kind that we are part of.

 

It takes millions of these slight changes to take place and after many thousands of years, the monkeys that kept adapting (so evolution has nothing to do with a leg somewhere or an eye..) have slightly changed into more sophisticated creatures. They eventually rule out all others of their species who did not have the ability to adapt, because eventually, the smarter monkeys will steal all food before the others can access it. And other changes will get them the females before the others as well, so the dumbos are doomed to disappear. No creature has evolved through some sudden change, ever. People with a handicap, like you described creatures with legs on the wrong place etc. are never any better. The human body would always be worse if something that dramatic happened.

 

Probably the most dramatic changes are those that involve inventions. The man-apes that discovered how to start a fire, for example, were most likely afraid of it for several years. But when they discovered how powerful it can be, that it can cook food, thus making it free of most bacteria and be healthier than raw meat, they were all of a sudden lightyears ahead of other man-apes.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you take the effort to read it all, but I don't doubt you will :)

[Guest GhostRanger]

Since most people here believe in evolution, I was wondering something. You know how we have natural selection and all that? Well, why haven't we found any beings with eyes on the bottom of their feet or legs coming out of their head? You know since it's supposed to be random, the fossil record should be showing the MAJORITY of fossils out there to be all screwed up instead of having about 3 that kinda-look-similar-but-not-really to two animals. I was just wondering about that.

 

 

 

From what I know, the fossil record completely obliterates the evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

 

 

Well Piano, evolution isn't something that happens from one day on another. A monkey doesn't just change into a human, but of course you know that. One small change occurs, something possible very unrelevant, like a monkey that uses a more sophisticated method to gather his food than just pick fruit with a stick like all others do. This causes his brain to use certain functions that it otherwise would not, thus making it more creative. Because it has better access to food, it now has more of a guarantee to survive. If out of the millions of monkeys a few start doing this, at least one or a few will be the ancesters of the monkey kind that we are part of.

 

It takes millions of these slight changes to take place, after many thousands of years, the monkeys that kept adapting (so evolution has NOTHING to do with a leg somewhere or an eye) have slightly changed into more sophisticated creatures. They eventually rule out all others of their species who did not have the ability to adapt, because eventually, the smarter monkeys will steal all food before the others can access it. And other changes will get them the females before the others as well, so the dumbos are doomed to disappear. No creature has evolved through some sudden change, ever. People with a handicap, like you described creatures with legs on the wrong place etc. are never any better. The human body would always be worse if something that dramatic happened.

 

Probably the most dramatic changes are those that involve inventions. The man-apes that discovered how to start a fire, for example, were most likely afraid of it for several years. But when they discovered how powerful it can be, that it can cook food, thus making it free of most bacteria and be healthier than raw meat, they were all of a sudden lightyears ahead of other man-apes.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you take the effort to read it all, but I don't doubt you will :)

 

 

 

Here's the problem that pianofreak and I both have (yes piano, you didn't expect me here, did you?)

 

 

 

1) If the random selections eventually rule out the species that don't survive (which you said they do) why have all of the less evolved species hung around? Shouldn't they have been ruled out?

 

 

 

The other problem with that point I have is it's basis, Darwin's Origin of Species. The studies Darwin did didn't prove changes from one species to another, like we need in evolution. It only showed sligh adaptions that things did, while still staying the same species. We don't have proof of cross-species evolution. At this point, we just assume it happens.

 

 

 

2) I have also asked the question about the eye, countless times, and people always refer me to links and such, but there has never been any evidence, anywhere, of how an eye could be created through random mutation.

 

 

 

Darwin speculated about the eye and even he said he had no idea how it could happen. In order for the eye to happen, it would first have to appear as something very basic, such as light sensitive cells. These light sensitve cells, would then have to appear in the correct place (the front of the head) when it's more likely they would appear everywhere else first. After appearing the in front of the head, they would have to become more usful and help something survive so every other animal in that species who doesn't have these random light sensitive cells would die out. Eventually they would turn into an eye.

 

 

 

There is no one in the scientific community who attempts to claim how the evolved because it's so ridiculous.

 

 

 

3) I made this post awhile ago, and no one responded to it in my topic.

 

 

 

Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe practically disproved this whole notion of "random mutations" being passed down to ultimately create humans. The flagellum (a bacterial motor) depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of just ONE of these parts makes the flagellum completely useless. Animals cell's have what's called a cilium and it's composed over around 200 protein parts just like the flagellum (doesn't work with them all.) Behe demonstrated that it's mathematically impossible for all 30 parts of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the cilium) to be created through numerous, random, motifications that evolution entails. It makes sense for the proteins to randomlly mutate, but without the other 29 (or 199) the protein is completely useless, so why would it be considered a superior gene and be passed down until the other 29 proteins randomly mutate (and get passed down despite their uselessness) and then they start to work together.

 

 

 

That just doesn't make sense. How would 200 random mutations that are not beneficial (as everyone claims is necessary for evolution to occur) stick around long enough to all of a sudden work together? That sounds about as ridiculous as a magical being floating above earth who created everything in six days (and rested on the seven).

 

 

 

It sickens me when people say I've been "indoctrinated" when they tell me random mutations created the cilium. This universe reeks of design.

[issy2]

God didn't make vegatation till the third day.

And God didn't make the "Great Lights" as in the sun and the moon until the fourth day.

 

They lived in a desert over 3,000 years ago, how where they suppost to know that plants cant live without light? Atleast they knew that animals ate plants so they came after them :lol: . And everyone knows that the bacterial kingdoms apeared when adam ate the apple because there couldn't have been death before.

 

 

 

 

 

It seems you are suggesting God is the by-product of human imagination. Well, I totally agree with that, I would call myself an agnostic athiest ( :? ) but if you believe in God I misinterprated your statement.

[logic-is-overrated]

Light existed before vegatation so solar rays could have very well also existed. Since God created the vegatation it didn't need light. And if there were no solar rays till the fourth day the vegatation could live a day without it.

One more time, here's my point. Plants were created on the third day. The sun and the moon were created on the fourth day. So, the Bible says plants and then sun. I don't care how those plants survived. If I said anything else in my previous posts I apologize for the misunderstanding. All I care about is the fact that it says plants before sun and mainstream science says no, its sun before plants.

[Barihawk]

God gave the choice to us, he wanted to let us decide if you want to believe in Him or not.

 

 

 

The Bible? The Ten Commandments? I don't believe it's mentioned anywhere he gave us that choice. Infact it's mentioned that those who don't believe in him will go to hell. And therefore the Bible creates an arguement of not having free religion, or is frowning down upon it.

 

 

 

Hey, sorry to all the religious guys here, but if (and that's a big if) there is a God, an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God, he would surely give us a fair choice, fair free-will, to believe and/or worship whoever we want, with the natural mercy to forgive those who, completely understandably, choose not to worship a 'God' who gives us absolutely no proof of his existence to my knowledge.

 

 

 

Who said God was all-loving? The Bible itself shows God to love his children, but he is still a wrathful and jealous deity. Look at Sodom and Gamorrah...or the flood...or the Golden Calf! He may love us, but it is after kicking our butts in the right direction.

 

 

 

How do you suggest people do this though? I'm actually interested in what I can do to help defend my faith to the better, so if you have any good ideas PM me or something. But I've had a lot of debates about Christianity and religion, and I defend my faith to the best of my ability, but it usually isn't enough. I look things up on the internet, and sometimes that helps, but people have soooo many different theological views about certain things in the Bible, I have a hard time weeding out the good stuff from the bad stuff. I think in college, if there is one available, I would like to try to take some kind of apologetics class.

 

 

 

Agreed. That and a lot of people think Christians are hypocrites. That's because they met a few like that, and labled all Christians to be the same, I think. I would get more in depth about this, but I think I would offend certain types of Christians

 

 

 

I'll work on finding a few resources for you.

 

 

 

There is an old story about a Catholic Priest, a Baptist Preacher, and a Methodist Reverend who knew a Bhuddist priest. The Bhuddist priest was growing discontent with his faith as he watched the world unfurl around him. The three Christians saw this, and decided to "help" him along his spiritual path. The Priest approached his home, was invited in, and began to speak of the wonders of God, Christ, and the divinity of the Three-in-One. The Bhuddist was impressed, but he asked the Priest "This Christ must have been a wonderful person to have done all these things. But why did God sacrifice a son just to interfere in the lives of his mortal children?" The Priest had no answer, and the rest of the day's conversation was awkward. The Baptist came the next day, and began the usual "believe in God or go to Hell" sermon that Southern Baptists are known for. The Bhuddist was not interested in a sermon, and certainly not one that offended him so. He promptly asked the Baptist man to leave. Finally, the Methodist arrived. Surprisingly to the Bhuddist, the Reverend did not even talk about religion while the two played chess. Over the days, the Methodist came back and the two exchanged life stories, talked about family, and became great friends. The Bhuddist explained exactly to the Methodist what he felt was wrong. The Methodist helped the Bhuddist with his problems, and helped him see the world in a new light. They built homes for the needy together, worked to feed the hungry, and the Methodist man seemed to have a great knowledge of programs to reduce the world's suffering. The Bhuddist man was shocked, and asked "how can you be willing to take the time and effort to do all these things?" The Reverend answered frankly: "Because Christ sacrificed himself for me."

 

 

 

Now, you can substitute any of the Denominations in that story for whoever you want, but they represent how Christianity is flowing today. If you truly want to arm yourself, use the Bible as a shield instead of a sword. Lead by example by providing a Christlike life (you may not live sin-free, but try to live like He did).

 

 

 

I'll have a few more things for you eventually via PM.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just sorry when the day comes and God judges you and you look back and say

 

"phhhtt, I'm s.o.l."

 

 

 

You are the second Christian in my story, man. People like you who give others a bad impression of us.

[Oy_the_Great]

Here's the problem that pianofreak and I both have (yes piano, you didn't expect me here, did you?)

 

 

 

1) If the random selections eventually rule out the species that don't survive (which you said they do) why have all of the less evolved species hung around? Shouldn't they have been ruled out?

 

 

 

Well, I dare you to name 5 species that are less evolved, such as you call it.

 

The last few hundred years, a lot of species have gone exstinct, due to human acitivity. That proves many animals aren't able to adapt quickly enough, making them lesser species, actually not worth living here. But that's of course harsh, and it smells of Hitler's ideas, so don't quote me on that ;)

 

The animals that now exist, all have some kind of superiority to other animals. Little maggots can easily survive, but the continuity of some animals like buffalos, lions, tigers etc is in much graver danger. When we would not interfere, these animals would have all been hunted down for their skin or for the danger they pose.

 

So, what I try to say is that no lesser species hang around, or never for a long time. It takes a few hundred, perhaps thousand years to wipe out a lesser specy, but they will either die or adapt eventually.

 

 

 

The other problem with that point I have is it's basis, Darwin's Origin of Species. The studies Darwin did didn't prove changes from one species to another, like we need in evolution. It only showed sligh adaptions that things did, while still staying the same species. We don't have proof of cross-species evolution. At this point, we just assume it happens.

 

 

 

Perhaps Darwin's studies did not, we do see that animals change over time, and this can't be observed like a study, because it takes far too long. Take cats for example: the small cat we all know as a pet, has been exported by European travellers to all over the world, where they have never ever been before. These cats are able to survive everywhere, whether it's in a hot desert or in the north poles.

 

And they are a fine example of adaptation; the Lynx-type found on the Falklands for example has evolved from regular cats in a relative short time span.

 

 

 

2) I have also asked the question about the eye, countless times, and people always refer me to links and such, but there has never been any evidence, anywhere, of how an eye could be created through random mutation.

 

 

 

Again, name me an animal with 3 eyes. An eye doesn't just occur. And animals with more than 3 eyes? There are none, or at least none that are succesful. The very complex evolution of the eye is one that took several hundreds of millions of years. Almost every creature has 2 eyes, simply because 'creatin' another, no matter how useful it sometimes may be, is too complex. It was possible to develop it over so many years because no real threats existed in the world more than half a bilion years ago, before the dinosaurs. Single cellular creatures evolved into more cellurar creatures that may have had a very, very primitive version of the eye. This evolves throughout the millions of years, and it's possible to do so, because no big share of predators were around back then. Eventually, this miniscule creatures evolved into fish and insects. The facet-like eye of an insect is a great link between a single cell and the eye we have now. It consists of simple cells that detect movement, but not colour. This is what the eye serves it purpose for: so that insects can detect enemies attacking them. They can track food in other ways. Eventually, the simple fish with two (needed to estimate distance) eyes evolved into amphibia, so they needed to adapt their eyes as well. A long trail of evolution led to mamals and birds, that all have more or less the same kind of eyes. (and here the circle endeth :))

 

 

 

Darwin speculated about the eye and even he said he had no idea how it could happen. In order for the eye to happen, it would first have to appear as something very basic, such as light sensitive cells. These light sensitve cells, would then have to appear in the correct place (the front of the head) when it's more likely they would appear everywhere else first. After appearing the in front of the head, they would have to become more usful and help something survive so every other animal in that species who doesn't have these random light sensitive cells would die out. Eventually they would turn into an eye.

 

 

 

There is no one in the scientific community who attempts to claim how the evolved because it's so ridiculous.

 

Well, I just explained it, didn't I? It's a process of trail-and-error. You're 100% right when you say those light-sensitive cells are likely to evolve somewhere on a useless place. But after thousands of different places, those cells come into place, and stay, because the species has now been enhanced and will likely survive. Also, it's not completely trail-and-error, because a light-sesitive cell doesn't just pop up. It pops up because some cells in the body need to adapt to the light, like we need to adapt to our community or we get banned, for example. If those cells adapt, and it's a failure, the creature dies. But if they succeed and the animal can see the different shades of light, this animals will surely reproduce and be succesful.

 

 

 

---

 

I don't quite understand how that professor came to that dramatic conclusion, but I assume it is possible. Perhaps all of those flagella are fragile to a certain matter in certain circumstances, and perhaps these circumstances and matter are rather trivia among more or less evolved apes?

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I also hope you read what I said Ghost, it took me 40 minutes of my precious studying time in this exam period ;)

[Oy_the_Great]

/story

 

 

 

While I believe in Christ, I do not believe in him as a divinity. I see him as a very noble man, that taught people what is beneficial and what is sinful with the utmost care and patience.

 

I also believe in humanity, in the fact that people can enhance eachother's lives, like your story told us. But my reason would not be the martyr-alike one the reverend uses. Because it makes his life seem so miserable. The reason I want to help people is only because it makes them feel better and that makes me feel better as well. I'm sure that most people in the world think like this, but the few that do not and wreck the work of the good people are often the ones that gain power, through submission and violence. Violence is much stronger than beneficial activities, and that's why there's so much misery in our wolrd. We can't ever overcome all of this misery, because bad intentions will always remain somewhere.

 

I like to see myself as a Christian, though I often get asked why that is, because I do not believe in the holy trinity etc. But if only for the great ideology Christianity offers us, I am proud to be Christian.

 

The problem is that every ideology is a good one. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or any other religion, preach peace and harmony. It's just those bad intentions that ruin it.

[issy2]

 

 

 

2) I have also asked the question about the eye, countless times, and people always refer me to links and such, but there has never been any evidence, anywhere, of how an eye could be created through random mutation.

 

 

 

Again, name me an animal with 3 eyes. An eye doesn't just occur. And animals with more than 3 eyes? There are none, or at least none that are succesful. The very complex evolution of the eye is one that took several hundreds of millions of years. Almost every creature has 2 eyes, simply because 'creatin' another, no matter how useful it sometimes may be, is too complex. It was possible to develop it over so many years because no real threats existed in the world more than half a bilion years ago, before the dinosaurs. Single cellular creatures evolved into more cellurar creatures that may have had a very, very primitive version of the eye. This evolves throughout the millions of years, and it's possible to do so, because no big share of predators were around back then. Eventually, this miniscule creatures evolved into fish and insects. The facet-like eye of an insect is a great link between a single cell and the eye we have now. It consists of simple cells that detect movement, but not colour. This is what the eye serves it purpose for: so that insects can detect enemies attacking them. They can track food in other ways. Eventually, the simple fish with two (needed to estimate distance) eyes evolved into amphibia, so they needed to adapt their eyes as well. A long trail of evolution led to mamals and birds, that all have more or less the same kind of eyes. (and here the circle endeth :))

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, spiders and arachnids in general are a very popular species. They have eight eyes.

[Guest XplsvBam]

Since most people here believe in evolution, I was wondering something. You know how we have natural selection and all that? Well, why haven't we found any beings with eyes on the bottom of their feet or legs coming out of their head? You know since it's supposed to be random, the fossil record should be showing the MAJORITY of fossils out there to be all screwed up instead of having about 3 that kinda-look-similar-but-not-really to two animals. I was just wondering about that.

 

 

 

From what I know, the fossil record completely obliterates the evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

 

 

Well Piano, evolution isn't something that happens from one day on another. A monkey doesn't just change into a human, but of course you know that. One small change occurs, something possible very unrelevant, like a monkey that uses a more sophisticated method to gather his food than just pick fruit with a stick like all others do. This causes his brain to use certain functions that it otherwise would not, thus making it more creative. Because it has better access to food, it now has more of a guarantee to survive. If out of the millions of monkeys a few start doing this, at least one or a few will be the ancesters of the monkey kind that we are part of.

 

It takes millions of these slight changes to take place and after many thousands of years, the monkeys that kept adapting (so evolution has nothing to do with a leg somewhere or an eye..) have slightly changed into more sophisticated creatures. They eventually rule out all others of their species who did not have the ability to adapt, because eventually, the smarter monkeys will steal all food before the others can access it. And other changes will get them the females before the others as well, so the dumbos are doomed to disappear. No creature has evolved through some sudden change, ever. People with a handicap, like you described creatures with legs on the wrong place etc. are never any better. The human body would always be worse if something that dramatic happened.

 

Probably the most dramatic changes are those that involve inventions. The man-apes that discovered how to start a fire, for example, were most likely afraid of it for several years. But when they discovered how powerful it can be, that it can cook food, thus making it free of most bacteria and be healthier than raw meat, they were all of a sudden lightyears ahead of other man-apes.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you take the effort to read it all, but I don't doubt you will :)

Ahhh I understand now, monkeys evolved into humans. But where did the monkeys come from?

[Oy_the_Great]

I meant creatures that rely on their eyes, like mamals or birds.

 

 

 

Besides, spiders usually have eight eyes (some have 2, 4 or 6), but few have good eyesight. That means they can likely survive without eyesight.

 

And you shouldn't take everything I said too literary. I meant that evolution isn't an obviuos process.

 

 

 

Bam:

 

don't take everything too literary; I gave an example, to use as a basis for further conclusions. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

 

 

anyway:

 

single-cellular creatures -> fish -> amphibia -> reptiles -> birds and mammals

[____]

Here's the problem that pianofreak and I both have (yes piano, you didn't expect me here, did you?)

 

 

 

1) If the random selections eventually rule out the species that don't survive (which you said they do) why have all of the less evolved species hung around? Shouldn't they have been ruled out?

 

That's assuming that all of one species live in the exact same region and do not go any where. If you were an animal, and a more dominant family group muscled into your territory, would you stick around and let them kill you, or would you bail and find somewhere else to live?

 

 

 

Generally speaking, you'll go else where - since that's instinct to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

The other problem with that point I have is it's basis, Darwin's Origin of Species. The studies Darwin did didn't prove changes from one species to another, like we need in evolution. It only showed sligh adaptions that things did, while still staying the same species. We don't have proof of cross-species evolution. At this point, we just assume it happens.

 

This I tend to agree with. Although one has to wonder why a lot of species have bones and organs that have zero use what so ever. And I still consider anphibians to be natures example "instant evolution".

 

 

 

2) I have also asked the question about the eye, countless times, and people always refer me to links and such, but there has never been any evidence, anywhere, of how an eye could be created through random mutation.

 

 

 

Darwin speculated about the eye and even he said he had no idea how it could happen. In order for the eye to happen, it would first have to appear as something very basic, such as light sensitive cells. These light sensitve cells, would then have to appear in the correct place (the front of the head) when it's more likely they would appear everywhere else first. After appearing the in front of the head, they would have to become more usful and help something survive so every other animal in that species who doesn't have these random light sensitive cells would die out. Eventually they would turn into an eye.

 

Ironiclly it is more than likely that the eye formed exactly like that. I believe Matt linked to an in-depth article about it a long time ago (starting with photosensative cells). And then up to being able to recognise movement etc. I dunno. I tried looking for it but I can't be arsed, that and you seem to have to basic gist of it anyway (you've probably seen it enough times).

 

 

 

There is no one in the scientific community who attempts to claim how the evolved because it's so ridiculous.

That's probably because it's a theory, with plausable fact only to back it up. It's possible, but until there is something more solid, it'd be career suicide to claim it to be what happened.

 

 

 

3) I made this post awhile ago, and no one responded to it in my topic.

 

 

 

Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe practically disproved this whole notion of "random mutations" being passed down to ultimately create humans. The flagellum (a bacterial motor) depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of just ONE of these parts makes the flagellum completely useless. Animals cell's have what's called a cilium and it's composed over around 200 protein parts just like the flagellum (doesn't work with them all.) Behe demonstrated that it's mathematically impossible for all 30 parts of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the cilium) to be created through numerous, random, motifications that evolution entails. It makes sense for the proteins to randomlly mutate, but without the other 29 (or 199) the protein is completely useless, so why would it be considered a superior gene and be passed down until the other 29 proteins randomly mutate (and get passed down despite their uselessness) and then they start to work together.

 

 

 

That just doesn't make sense. How would 200 random mutations that are not beneficial (as everyone claims is necessary for evolution to occur) stick around long enough to all of a sudden work together? That sounds about as ridiculous as a magical being floating above earth who created everything in six days (and rested on the seven).

 

Did Behe physically deconstruct the flagellem to see if that was true? Perhaps the lack of one might break it, but what's to say that taking away another might counter that break? I haven't read anything on it, but if you point me to the text for the above issue I'll get back to you wtih a better reply.

 

 

 

 

 

It sickens me when people say I've been "indoctrinated" when they tell me random mutations created the cilium. This universe reeks of design.

Also sickens me when people try to stuff, IMO, mis-information down my throat. While I know most people aren't, there are enough to ruin the impression for everyone else.

 

 

 

Essentially, all sides have their inconsiderate bastards who are too "hard-line" to keep an open mind. I think man created religion to explain what they don't understand - that's all well and good since I really don't care when it comes down to it. I've probably spent more time thinking on what to eat than whether science or a religion is correct.

[Guest XplsvBam]

I meant creatures that rely on their eyes, like mamals or birds.

 

 

 

Besides, spiders usually have eight eyes (some have 2, 4 or 6), but few have good eyesight. That means they can likely survive without eyesight.

 

And you shouldn't take everything I said too literary. I meant that evolution isn't an obviuos process.

 

 

 

Bam:

 

don't take everything too literary; I gave an example, to use as a basis for further conclusions. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

 

 

anyway:

 

single-cellular creatures -> fish -> amphibia -> reptiles -> birds and mammals

Let's say that natural selection did result into the human race. Why are there fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds, and mammals still? If in fact what you are saying and that if a monkey used a more sophisticated way of getting its food natural sellection says those would out live the old monkeys, ultimatly resulting in super powered monkeys. The problem is there isn't any dumb monkeys left. Since we do have dumb monkeys it contradicts natural selection and ultimatly contradicting evalution.

 

 

 

I take what you say about evaltion literally because I take what the Bible says literally.

 

I think man created religion to explain what they don't understand - that's all well and good since I really don't care when it comes down to it. I've probably spent more time thinking on what to eat than whether science or a religion is correct.

I think God created religion to explain what man dosn't understand. I also have something to back this up, The Bible.

[Oy_the_Great]

I meant creatures that rely on their eyes, like mamals or birds.

 

 

 

Besides, spiders usually have eight eyes (some have 2, 4 or 6), but few have good eyesight. That means they can likely survive without eyesight.

 

And you shouldn't take everything I said too literary. I meant that evolution isn't an obviuos process.

 

 

 

Bam:

 

don't take everything too literary; I gave an example, to use as a basis for further conclusions. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

 

 

anyway:

 

single-cellular creatures -> fish -> amphibia -> reptiles -> birds and mammals

Let's say that natural selection did result into the human race. Why are there fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds, and mammals still? If in fact what you are saying and that if a monkey used a more sophisticated way of getting its food natural sellection says those would out live the old monkeys, ultimatly resulting in super powered monkeys. The problem is there isn't any dumb monkeys left. Since we do have dumb monkeys it contradicts natural selection and ultimatly contradicting evalution.

 

 

 

I take what you say about evaltion literally because I take what the Bible says literally.

 

 

 

There still are fish because the world's a big place and chimps can't swim, nor do they intend to try, because they will be eaten by creatures that still can swim.

 

And there are different kinds of evolution; if you don't realise that you're just not worth calling yourself a smart monkey.

 

1/ evolution through enhancement, wiping out or driving away, like Rick said, other similar creatures

 

2/ evolution through movement: by moving to new places, creatures require changes. A fish can't live on land, that's why amphibia, the link between them, did. But more succesful forms of land creatures than amphibia evolved and conquerred the lands. Only because they sacrificed their swimming capabilities.

[____]

I take what you say about evaltion literally because I take what the Bible says literally.

So you seriously believe, without any doubt what so ever, that the earth is only 6,000 years old despite there being physically proof that there are human races that are 20, 30 and even 40 thousand years old?

[Guest XplsvBam]

I meant creatures that rely on their eyes, like mamals or birds.

 

 

 

Besides, spiders usually have eight eyes (some have 2, 4 or 6), but few have good eyesight. That means they can likely survive without eyesight.

 

And you shouldn't take everything I said too literary. I meant that evolution isn't an obviuos process.

 

 

 

Bam:

 

don't take everything too literary; I gave an example, to use as a basis for further conclusions. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

 

 

anyway:

 

single-cellular creatures -> fish -> amphibia -> reptiles -> birds and mammals

Let's say that natural selection did result into the human race. Why are there fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds, and mammals still? If in fact what you are saying and that if a monkey used a more sophisticated way of getting its food natural sellection says those would out live the old monkeys, ultimatly resulting in super powered monkeys. The problem is there isn't any dumb monkeys left. Since we do have dumb monkeys it contradicts natural selection and ultimatly contradicting evalution.

 

 

 

I take what you say about evaltion literally because I take what the Bible says literally.

 

 

 

There still are fish because the world's a big place and chimps can't swim, nor do they intend to try, because they will be eaten by creatures that still can swim.

 

And there are different kinds of evolution; if you don't realise that you're just not worth calling yourself a smart monkey.

 

1/ evolution through enhancement, wiping out or driving away, like Rick said, other similar creatures

 

2/ evolution through movement: by moving to new places, creatures require changes. A fish can't live on land, that's why amphibia, the link between them, did. But more succesful forms of land creatures than amphibia evolved and conquerred the lands. Only because they sacrificed their swimming capabilities.

Then why are animals so similar? But yet nothing even comes to close to homo-sapiens? Where is the missing link?

[Guest XplsvBam]

I take what you say about evaltion literally because I take what the Bible says literally.

So you seriously believe, without any doubt what so ever, that the earth is only 6,000 years old despite there being physically proof that there are human races that are 20, 30 and even 40 thousand years old?

I assume you are talking about carbon dating. Well if you are comparing the Bible to carbon dating yes without any doubt what so ever I believe the Bible.

 

 

 

Some carbon has come from space, and since we don't know how carbon ages in a different environment other then earth it is safe for me to say that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

 

 

For example, highly compressed carbon creates diamonds. That is only compressing it. We have no idea what else can happen to carbon in a non-earth environment.

 

 

 

[Edit]

[Oy_the_Great]

Then why are animals so similar? But yet nothing even comes to close to alternative living-sapiens? Where is the missing link?

 

 

 

Many animals are similar? Excuse me? That's ridiculous. We're both human both we obviously differ a lot.

 

And the difference between a fish and a lion is pretty obvious, I'd say.

 

 

 

I don't quite understand what you mean with nothing comes close to us human beings, but I guess you mean no other creatures are so intelligent?

 

Well, we evolved in a record speed. It took us about 50,000 years to evolve from cavemen into what we are now. It takes another creature 50,000 years to evolve one single harmless little thing.

 

If there would only be a few thousand humans that would not meddle with nature too much, eventually, after millions of years, another intelligent race would erupt, of that I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

 

edit: if you think carbon dating is influenced from outer space, you're obviously one of the ignorant people that do not care about whatever scientific explanation we give, you prefer staying in your religious shell. I'm not going to bother too much then.