So My Views Aren't Right?

[Viktorkrum77]

That theory doesn't work either. If it did, then we would have the thousands upon millions of useless mutations still attached to us, wouldn't we? Sure, we have an appendix and we're not sure why we have it - but a lot of studies indicate that it could have helped with digestion when we weren't eating as well. That's an adaption. We don't have 199 random mutations just sitting in our body though, waiting for the 200th so it can start working.

 

No, because usually a mutation that isn't helpful just fades away. At some point I believe we had a use for appendexis (that might have been a different organ, I'm thinking of the thing that helped with raw foods). But either way, the reason mutations don't stick are because they provide no distinct advantage so they get phased out. Normally a mutation just gives you cancer anyway. It's very rare that a good one happens. We do have soem mutations like people having six fingers per hand and being completely covered in hair that have no evolutionary advantage and stuck around though, just a little extra thing to add to my already off-topicness. :P

 

 

 

Yea, we've evolved enough to not need alot of body hair. And we most likley had webbed feet and hands. The only thing left is eyebrows, which for some reason we still have. :-k

[Guest GhostRanger]

That theory doesn't work either. If it did, then we would have the thousands upon millions of useless mutations still attached to us, wouldn't we? Sure, we have an appendix and we're not sure why we have it - but a lot of studies indicate that it could have helped with digestion when we weren't eating as well. That's an adaption. We don't have 199 random mutations just sitting in our body though, waiting for the 200th so it can start working.

 

No, because usually a mutation that isn't helpful just fades away. At some point I believe we had a use for appendexis (that might have been a different organ, I'm thinking of the thing that helped with raw foods). But either way, the reason mutations don't stick are because they provide no distinct advantage so they get phased out. Normally a mutation just gives you cancer anyway. It's very rare that a good one happens. We do have soem mutations like people having six fingers per hand and being completely covered in hair that have no evolutionary advantage and stuck around though, just a little extra thing to add to my already off-topicness. :P

 

 

 

That's exactly my point. They fade away. So why, for things like the cilium, do we have 200 completely useless mutations that stick around long enough for them to randomly start functioning together? That doesn't make sense if useless mutations fade away.

[issy2]

 

And what of this 6000 years? In the entire Bible, all units of measurement are shown in thier original Hebrew form. Note, the geneologies occur thousands of years before the Julian Calendar was invented. Who is to say that a year in the Bible is only 365 days?

 

 

 

 

Oh yes, and Adam lived then for what, 7 billion years? If we are to assume that no matter how the hebrew word "yom" for day is to be intepreted, there was some man who lived 930 years?

 

 

 

Do you, as an educated person, actually believe it could be possible for a human being with nearly no technology, intelligence or advance to live up to billions of years because a hypothetical "God" granted him the ability to do so?

 

 

 

I am rather well educated, thank you. I don't pay $14,000 a year for nothing. The reason they lived so long back then was because there were no diseases, they ate pure food, and did not have habits such as smoking or other ways we kill our bodies.

 

 

 

If you just came out of Paradise, I am sure you would live to a ripe old age, too.

 

 

 

Oh, and God is not hypothetical to me.

 

 

 

I may be an unsure athiest, but wouldn't it be fair to say the Bible is just metaphorical, written by God to show us what is right and what's not? God's week may have last seven-billion years.

[logic-is-overrated]

The problem with the Genesis days being hundreds of thousands or millions of years is the fact that Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and the story of Adam continues on after the seventh day. So Adam lived through a complete Genesis day. If you say a day means hundreds of thousands of years then Adam lived to be hundred of thousands of years and if you say day means millions of years then Adam lived to be millions of years. Now, if you believe that a person could live to be millions of years, then fine believe it. But you can't blame a non-believer for not believing it.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThe Problem of CarbonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Barihawk]

The problem with the Genesis days being hundreds of thousands or millions of years is the fact that Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and the story of Adam continues on after the seventh day. So Adam lived through a complete Genesis day. If you say a day means hundreds of thousands of years then Adam lived to be hundred of thousands of years and if you say day means millions of years then Adam lived to be millions of years. Now, if you believe that a person could live to be millions of years, then fine believe it. But you can't blame a non-believer for not believing it.

 

 

 

Easy one. Man was originally created to live forever in Eden. When Adam dies, the Bible says he had lived almost 1000 years (forgot the number, like 965?) AFTER leaving the Garden.

 

 

 

The price for Adam's sin was mortality.

[pianofrieak2]

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThe Problem of CarbonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

Your last paragraph is also irrelevant. Everyone here is arguing macroevolution. No one disagrees with small changes in the genetic code over time. It's macroevolution that everyone has a problem with. Don't do the straw-man fallacy.

 

 

 

Exactly. That's the point where evolutionists miss out. We all know that within a species, adaptation occurs. No one is refuting that point.

 

 

 

The point we are refuting is the jump from simple adaptation of a species, to one species becoming another species. There isn't proof for it, it's only an idea that's being used to fill in scientific gaps.

 

 

 

But remember! If a mutation isn't necessary, it will disappear. Unless of course the mutation knows that it should wait around doing nothing until 199 random mutations also happen to occur. But those 199 random mutations will also have to stay around long enough to randomly wait for the last one to randomly appear. That would make sense, if the entire theory of evolution wasn't dependant on the fact that the obsolete mutations disappear, not wait around for 199 completely random and mutations to appear at 199 completely random times, and randomly start working to gether when they were compeltely obsolete before.

 

 

 

In the above example, the one I keep pointing out over and over and over and no one seems to have anything worthy to say about it, the theory of evolution disproves the theory of evolution.

[logic-is-overrated]

The problem with the Genesis days being hundreds of thousands or millions of years is the fact that Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and the story of Adam continues on after the seventh day. So Adam lived through a complete Genesis day. If you say a day means hundreds of thousands of years then Adam lived to be hundred of thousands of years and if you say day means millions of years then Adam lived to be millions of years. Now, if you believe that a person could live to be millions of years, then fine believe it. But you can't blame a non-believer for not believing it.

 

 

 

Easy one. Man was originally created to live forever in Eden. When Adam dies, the Bible says he had lived almost 1000 years (forgot the number, like 965?) AFTER leaving the Garden.

 

 

 

The price for Adam's sin was mortality.

Where do you get after leaving the garden? My bible says Adam lived a total of 930 years. It doesn't say anything about before or after doing anything.

[Tigra00]

 

And what of this 6000 years? In the entire Bible, all units of measurement are shown in thier original Hebrew form. Note, the geneologies occur thousands of years before the Julian Calendar was invented. Who is to say that a year in the Bible is only 365 days?

 

 

 

 

Oh yes, and Adam lived then for what, 7 billion years? If we are to assume that no matter how the hebrew word "yom" for day is to be intepreted, there was some man who lived 930 years?

 

 

 

Do you, as an educated person, actually believe it could be possible for a human being with nearly no technology, intelligence or advance to live up to billions of years because a hypothetical "God" granted him the ability to do so?

 

 

 

I am rather well educated, thank you. I don't pay $14,000 a year for nothing. The reason they lived so long back then was because there were no diseases, they ate pure food, and did not have habits such as smoking or other ways we kill our bodies.

 

 

 

If you just came out of Paradise, I am sure you would live to a ripe old age, too.

 

 

 

Oh, and God is not hypothetical to me.

 

 

 

A better argument would be to state that God somehow never intended us to die. Saying they lived so long because they didn't have diseases is...well, funny. Everyone's bodies eventually just get tired of working and stop, no matter how great you eat or whatever. I eat great myself, I've never smoked or drank or done drugs, and I've only been sick like twice in my life, literally...We'll see if I live 900 some years! Oh, but of course you'll say I'll eventually breathe in bad stuff or la-de-da and I'll die from that tiny bit of crap, whereas someone who smoked like a chimney can sometimes live to be like 90 years old, lol.

 

 

 

Just go with the "We were never intended to be mortal" argument. It sounds...Better.

[pianofrieak2]

The problem with the Genesis days being hundreds of thousands or millions of years is the fact that Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and the story of Adam continues on after the seventh day. So Adam lived through a complete Genesis day. If you say a day means hundreds of thousands of years then Adam lived to be hundred of thousands of years and if you say day means millions of years then Adam lived to be millions of years. Now, if you believe that a person could live to be millions of years, then fine believe it. But you can't blame a non-believer for not believing it.

 

 

 

Easy one. Man was originally created to live forever in Eden. When Adam dies, the Bible says he had lived almost 1000 years (forgot the number, like 965?) AFTER leaving the Garden.

 

 

 

The price for Adam's sin was mortality.

Where do you get after leaving the garden? My bible says Adam lived a total of 930 years. It doesn't say anything about before or after doing anything.

 

 

 

It's ok, logic. He doesn't know what he's talking about. His point on Adam's sin costing him mortal death is correct, for we all died spiritually on that die resulting in the possibility of mortal death, but everything else he said is wrong or, at the very least, unBiblical (of which I mean not being able to prove).

[insane]

The problem with the Genesis days being hundreds of thousands or millions of years is the fact that Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and the story of Adam continues on after the seventh day. So Adam lived through a complete Genesis day. If you say a day means hundreds of thousands of years then Adam lived to be hundred of thousands of years and if you say day means millions of years then Adam lived to be millions of years. Now, if you believe that a person could live to be millions of years, then fine believe it. But you can't blame a non-believer for not believing it.

 

 

 

Easy one. Man was originally created to live forever in Eden. When Adam dies, the Bible says he had lived almost 1000 years (forgot the number, like 965?) AFTER leaving the Garden.

 

 

 

The price for Adam's sin was mortality.

Where do you get after leaving the garden? My bible says Adam lived a total of 930 years. It doesn't say anything about before or after doing anything.

 

 

 

It's ok, logic. He doesn't know what he's talking about. His point on Adam's sin costing him mortal death is correct, for we all died spiritually on that die resulting in the possibility of mortal death, but everything else he said is wrong or, at the very least, unBiblical (of which I mean not being able to prove).

 

 

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

 

 

This would imply Adam was not intended to live forever.

[Barihawk]

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

 

 

This would imply Adam was not intended to live forever.

 

 

 

Insane, i am getting from that verse that his immortality ended when he ate from the tree.

 

 

 

And Piano, before you insult me, please show me your college degrees in theology. Find better ways to demean people you disagree with.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

 

 

This would imply Adam was not intended to live forever.

 

 

 

Insane, i am getting from that verse that his immortality ended when he ate from the tree.

 

 

 

And Piano, before you insult me, please show me your college degrees in theology. Find better ways to demean people you disagree with.

 

 

 

No. There were two trees, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. Adam and Eve ate from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil and God made them leave Eden before they could eat from the tree of life, which would make them immortal.

 

 

 

So they weren't planned to be immortal and God made them leave Eden so they couldn't become immortal.

[insane]

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

 

 

This would imply Adam was not intended to live forever.

 

 

 

Insane, i am getting from that verse that his immortality ended when he ate from the tree.

 

 

 

Gotcha. There's no way to tell, but there's no way to tell otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

And Piano, before you insult me, please show me your college degrees in theology. Find better ways to demean people you disagree with.

 

 

 

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're right. :P But I agree the insult was harsh.

[logic-is-overrated]

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

 

 

This would imply Adam was not intended to live forever.

 

 

 

Insane, i am getting from that verse that his immortality ended when he ate from the tree.

 

 

 

And Piano, before you insult me, please show me your college degrees in theology. Find better ways to demean people you disagree with.

The verse says that if he eats from the tree of life then he would live forever. So if he was originally created to live forever then why would he need to eat a fruit to live forever. And again, would you please show me what scriptures you are using to justify your claim that the 930 years Adam lived were the years after he was ejected from the garden. What I gather from a basic reading of my Bible is that he lived for a total of 930 years, thus "days" in Genesis couldn't be millions of years because Adam lived through one of the Genesis "days."

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

 

 

This would imply Adam was not intended to live forever.

 

 

 

Insane, i am getting from that verse that his immortality ended when he ate from the tree.

 

 

 

Gotcha. There's no way to tell, but there's no way to tell otherwise.

 

 

 

I disagree. The verse doesn't imply they were meant to live immortal...

[insane]

I disagree. The verse doesn't imply they were meant to live immortal...

 

 

 

I think what Barihawk said was that eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil made them mortal from their original immortality, and God didn't want them reversing the effect?

[katha610]

 

Now I've got to figure out how this is going to effect me and the girl I like (she believes in 'God', goes to church, ect.).. But don't mind this statement..

 

well, she should accept your point of view. esp, if shes a christian, unless shes quite a radical, dont worry, youll figure something out

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Now I've got to figure out how this is going to effect me and the girl I like (she believes in 'God', goes to church, ect.).. But don't mind this statement..

 

well, she should accept your point of view. esp, if shes a christian, unless shes quite a radical, dont worry, youll figure something out

 

 

 

I think you're confusing the words "accept" and "respect."

[thedepressedsquirrel]

 

That theory doesn't work either. If it did, then we would have the thousands upon millions of useless mutations still attached to us, wouldn't we? Sure, we have an appendix and we're not sure why we have it - but a lot of studies indicate that it could have helped with digestion when we weren't eating as well. That's an adaption. We don't have 199 random mutations just sitting in our body though, waiting for the 200th so it can start working.

 

 

 

This time I searched for the wikipedia article before posting:

 

 

 

Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research. They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

 

Current evidence indicates that eyes originated as simple 1.patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. By developing a small 2.depression for the photosensitive cells, the organisms obtained a better sense of the light's source, and by continuing to deepen the depression into a pit so that light would strike certain cells depending on its angle, increasingly precise visible information was possible. The aperture of the eye was then 3.shrunk in order to focus the light, turning the eye into a pinhole camera and allowing the organism to dimly make out shapesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[katha610]

 

Now I've got to figure out how this is going to effect me and the girl I like (she believes in 'God', goes to church, ect.).. But don't mind this statement..

 

well, she should accept your point of view. esp, if shes a christian, unless shes quite a radical, dont worry, youll figure something out

 

 

 

I think you're confusing the words "accept" and "respect."

 

 

 

and i think i dont. these words go hand in hand.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

That theory doesn't work either. If it did, then we would have the thousands upon millions of useless mutations still attached to us, wouldn't we? Sure, we have an appendix and we're not sure why we have it - but a lot of studies indicate that it could have helped with digestion when we weren't eating as well. That's an adaption. We don't have 199 random mutations just sitting in our body though, waiting for the 200th so it can start working.

 

 

 

This time I searched for the wikipedia article before posting:

 

 

 

Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research. They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

 

 

 

That paragraph doesn't even make sense. It says it's still missing vital parts. And I'm talking about a cilium, which is different than the flagella as it's much more complex.

 

Current evidence indicates that eyes originated as simple 1.patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. By developing a small 2.depression for the photosensitive cells, the organisms obtained a better sense of the light's source, and by continuing to deepen the depression into a pit so that light would strike certain cells depending on its angle, increasingly precise visible information was possible. The aperture of the eye was then 3.shrunk in order to focus the light, turning the eye into a pinhole camera and allowing the organism to dimly make out shapesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Now I've got to figure out how this is going to effect me and the girl I like (she believes in 'God', goes to church, ect.).. But don't mind this statement..

 

well, she should accept your point of view. esp, if shes a christian, unless shes quite a radical, dont worry, youll figure something out

 

 

 

I think you're confusing the words "accept" and "respect."

 

 

 

and i think i dont. these words go hand in hand.

 

 

 

No. They might relate to each other, but they are very different, especially when talking about Christianity and other religions.

 

 

 

We, as Christians, are not suppose to accept the fact that people aren't Christians. That doesn't mean I'm going to try and force everyone to be Christians, but I am going to try and share the truth and pray that people will become Christians.

 

 

 

I can, however, respect the fact that someone is a Christian. They have their beliefs and I respect that. But I don't accept it because I believe it is our mission to share the Word and the Truth with non-believers. Accepting someone that someone has different beliefs would prevent that.

[thedepressedsquirrel]

 

That paragraph doesn't even make sense. It says it's still missing vital parts. And I'm talking about a cilium, which is different than the flagella as it's much more complex.

 

 

 

A cilium is a kind of flagella. That paragraph says that the flagella's evolution is simplified because scientists have discovered organisms that are simpler forms of it, meaning the flagella's parts are able to function on their own.

 

 

 

 

Right. That explains how it could evolve. Not why the light sensitive pads would be deemed useful in the beginning and not disposed of. And I still wonder, this point: everyone agrees that the light sensitive cells would appear in places that were of no help at first probably thousands of times. Why then would they keep occuring if the bodies keep telling the mutation it doesn't help? Why would a mutation keep occuring until it found the correct spot, when the theory of evolution relies on the fact that useless things don't stay around?

 

 

 

The body doesn't tell the mutation that it doesn't help. Organisms and their mutations die because of competition for food, not because the body "judges" which mutations are better. The light sensitive patch didn't occur "uselessly thousands of times." In its most primitive state, it was able to tell the difference between light and dark. Then, future generations reshaped it until it provided true eyesight. Finally, a lens was added.

 

 

 

As for the eye occurring in "weird places," those creatures would have had less chances for survival (competition for food and protection from predators) than creatures with eyes in the right places.

 

 

 

Again, animals with weird/wrong eyes are not "judged" by their bodies. They die out because of competition.

 

 

 

 

Adaptations will continue from generation to genertation forever and so fourth, it doesn't mean adaptations will make one species turn into another. Why is that? The theory of evolution says that whoever has the adaptation that works will survive, and the less evolved form will die out. Then why is it that when the original cells start turning into all these species, and one species turned into another, we have so many different types of animals on the planet right now?

 

 

 

I think you're judging animals by complexity instead of by their ability to get food. In terms of the eyes, like I said above, animals with eyes in the wrong places could not get food like animals with eyes in the right places could. That is why they died out.

 

 

 

In terms of apes and humans, however, neither one has a defect. Humans are smarter, obviously, because they are further down in the evolutionary chain, but an ape can get just as much food as a human can, so both species survive.