One of the cool things about being powerful enough to do anything is the power to defy logic.Regardless of God's perfection, the general teaching in most religions about god is that he is omnipotent, and can do as he damn well pleases, and so he could easily have designed life on earth with all the "imperfections" you cite.
One of the cool things about being powerful enough to do anything is the power to defy logic.
:mrgreen:
No... I meant in terms of one of the usual logical traps regarding God:You don't "defy" logic. One's reasoning may be illogical, but, as logic is a quality of reason only, there is nothing against to be defiant.
No... I meant in terms of one of the usual logical traps regarding God:
If God is all powerful, can he make a rock too large for Him to lift?
Oh, sure we can. Only a retarded Creatrix would put the vagus nerve in humans where it is. That's just one example from one animal. There are countless species, and not one single one of them is "perfectly" adapted to it's environment, it's merely adapted well enough to survive.
Nah, Creationism was disproved long ago, even before it was ruled as nothing but a lame attempt to introduce religion into public classrooms.
The evidence for human evolution from common ancestors with today's bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orantutangs, and going further back, cats, dogs, and fish, is irrefutable. Since that evidence is conclusive in support of the fact of evolution by natural selection, the oddball weirdo religious dogmas to the contrary are disproven.
How about if those people disprove the established facts of evolution before they try to concoct another off the wall fantasy to replace it?
Really. Science disproved creationism long long ago. Easy enough to do. The Christians claim their god is a perfect god. Creationism is a Christian construct. The facts of life on planet earth are that living animals are hodgepodges of morphologies originally intended for one purpose being adapted to another over time. Any "designer" that produced "designs" like that is clearly imperfect, blind, and ignorant. Ergo, by the definitions the Christians have of their god, He could not have designed life on earth. Thus, Creationism is false.
Yeah, then they turn around and argue that they're not talking about a "christian" god.
Yeah, right. There's no evidence supporting their claim, there's the facts of evolution denying it, they're all disproven.
As a scientific theory, no YEC, cannot be claimed to be disproved. But as general idea not to mention specific arguments Creationism makes, it can be argued with utmost certainty that creationism has been disproved.
As a scientific theory, no YEC, cannot be claimed to be disproved. But as general idea not to mention specific arguments Creationism makes, it can be argued with utmost certainty that creationism has been disproved.
Well, not to support Creationism in the science class room here (which I strictly oppose, for the record), but I could take your logic to a point in history and say categorically that the theory of the incandescint bulb is conclusively disproven, in toto.
So far Creationism hasn't failed; it has simply found 2,000 ways not to succeed as a valid scientific theory.
Today, Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore it does not belong in the science classroom.
Let's teach our children to read and let the parent's decide rather to set the Bible or Reason in front of them at breakfast, please.
If your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, i want to hear your opinions on Evolution. Did it occur? If so, are we the biologically enhanced version of Apes, changed over thousands of years of evolution? Or did it not happen at all. Does it have any scientific basis? Or did a being from a greater source place us here?
Whats your opinions?
If man evolved from apes, then why are still apes?
If man evolved from apes, then why are still apes?
You mean why are humans still apes? or did you mean why are apes still apes?
Questions such as these are demonstrative of a basic misunderstanding of the science and processes of evolution. Generally, a species does not evolve all together, in the same way, like one big happy family. A fortuitous mutation occurs, giving one organism an advantage over the rest, allowing this organism to reproduce more than others. If this happens enough times, the new strain will not be able to reproduce with the old (non-mutated) strain, and it will be considered a new species. When a new ecological niche opens, where resources are available, a species (or multiple species) often evolves to fill this niche (as an organism that is able to take advantage of these resources will be able to reproduce more, et cetera). There is still an ecological niche for apes where they exist, resources from which they can live and reproduce, therefore, there are still apes. Humans are a branch of the Greater Apes; there are other branches.
Duke
Nice talking, but if that is true (We had'nt all evolved together) that mean that we are Attesting an evolution in Apes species to a primitive man right now, which is not happening .
I'm really not sure what you mean here. The current apes are not facing the same resource-related issues that our ancestors faced; they have more or less what they need. There is no pressure on their populations that would make them evolve into a higher-thinking creature, the way there was for ours. Or, the mutation that might give some of the apes an advantage has not occurred.
I'm not sure if that's what you are asking, it would be helpful if you could clarify it for me.
Duke
That was exactly what I was asking about ..
But am really wondering why had evolution stop not in Apes only, in other creatures, its like going down the stairs after going up, evolution then extinction ..
Evolution is a complex process that never exactly stops. A species may not appear to be evolving at one point; in fact, the genetic makeup of some species has not changed significantly for many thousands of years. Very simplistic organisms have lived in the same ecosystems, the same way, using the same resources and being preyed upon similarly for long periods of time also. If this situation is stable, and certain genetic makeups are not being favored by natural selection in this species, evolution will not take place.
We cannot see the exact evolutionary pressures that were put on our early ancestors. However, by looking at our own attributes that stem from our genes and our evolution, we can make good guesses as to why we evolved to where we are now. For example, apes that mutated to have developed hands and convenient opposable thumbs may have had a leg up on the other apes. An ape with a mutation that increased the brainpower of an ape, allowing it the cognitive processes to use its hands to use tools would also have an advantage over its fellow apes, and it would reproduce more, spreading this mutation. As arms became more important, apes that could walk on two legs were favored. The myriad of influences and interactions that lead to a species' development over millions of years is never simple to explain or demonstrate, but I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.
Duke
Thanks alot Duke, thats so useful ..
Dude you memorized me with high school days, damn biology :lol:
Ha ha yeah, just so happened to be my favorite science class! Though I'm sure you figured that out by now. :2razz:
Duke
No and Never !! :rofl
What's most interesting to me about these evolution debates online is the frequent flipping back and forth between the ideas of creationism and intelligent design. Very often those who refuse to accept evolution will make arguments for both... with little or no understanding of the difference. Thus terms such as evolutionist and Darwinist get tossed around in vitriolic fits with little or no meaning.
More accurately, Einstein said that Relativity "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one." And that Relativity "may be conceived as an organic development of Newton's thought." .
I agree that it was an advancement of Newton's work. .
It didn't demolish them as was said (to clarify: when I said "well said", I was referring to the point that was being made about the presumption of truth that people have regarding evolution. .
The presumption should be that the theory is falsifiable. .
I was not referring to the irrelevant detail regarding Einstein and Newton because, well, it's accuracy was irrelevant. The point was still clear regardless of the accuracy of that detail. .
And the point is that nothing should be regarded as "truth" while knowledge is still incomplete) .
As far as Poincare goes, I, too, am a huge fan of his work. .
He is well-known to mathematicians and physicists, .
but he deserves far more recognition than he gets in general discussion when discussing the most brilliant minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially when discussing relativity. .
The point that was beng made and affirmed as a good one by me was that we shouldn't assume that evolution is written-in-stone "fact". Nor should it be assumed to be written-in-stone "fantasy".
It should be viewed as a scientific theory and, thus, it should be considered falsifiable. As it stands, it may or it may not be accurate..
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?