Illuminati vs. Jesus [a debate about evolution]

[Zyada]

Ok, I’ll play.

However, I’m not going to try to convince **reef shark ** about any “transitional” animals. After all, if you look at a female animal that lays eggs, has fur, produces milk to feed her young, but doesn’t have nipples, and you don’t think that is a transitional animal, then there isn’t any animal ever born that you would accept a a valid example. It’s easy to win the game when you are in charge of setting the finish line, but could you win if the finish line was set by someone else?

In addition, at the lowest level, what makes two animals be considered two different species is somewhat arbitrary - for instance, lions and tigers can interbreed. Are dogs a different animal from wolves, or are they just a wolf bred to interact well with humans?

If your belief system says that dogs and wolves are different animals, why can they interbreed? And where do mules fit in?

Creationists like to say that evolution is “just a theory”. Scientists use the word “theory” because we acknowldege that we don’t know everything there is to know. Can you say the same thing? Or do you talk about creationism as a “fact” like you have a direct line to God?

As a theory, evolution has the following - it has been shown to be explanatory and predictive. It is explanatory in that it explained already observed phenomena, such as the branching heirarchy that you find when you categorize living things by their traits. It was predictive as well - it predicted genes. If people had thought about it, they would have also realized that it predicted antiobiotic resistant diseases like MRSA. It also explains why human embryos are almost identical to fish embryos, down to having a structure that turns into gills in fish embryos, but disappear in humans.

It also illuminates areas to research. When a particular trait seems counter-productive, research can focus on that area to determine what advantage that trait could give. Thus we have explanations for the fluttering of butterflies, the beauty of peacock feathers, the extreme slowness of sloths.

One thing I’ve noticed in my life is that I understand how things work when they go wrong than when everything goes smoothly.

So tell me - in your belief system, how do you explain muscular dystrophy, viruses, fatal allergies, down’s syndrome? And can you explain it without using the word “punishment”?

Here is a major difference between science and religion - evolution is a mechanical explanation - not “Why are we here?” but “Why do we have eyelashes?” Religion should be focused on the philosophical questions - not “Why are bananas shaped that way?” but “Why are we here, what does God want from us?”
I am a Christian, and I agree with evolution, not creationism. Here is the difference between me and thee -
I believe in GOD, I worship GOD. I think that the Bible is one source of understanding God, but I do not think it is the last word on God. If an aspect of His creation conflicts with something in the bible, I think that His creation trumps a book.

I think that creationism is lazy - “I don’t want to have to work to understand the world, so I will just take the easy way out” and I think that creationism is vain - human beings are not the purpose of creation, we are not the end result of creation, we are not the center of the universe, we are not the reason why there is a creation to begin with. We are just one more part of it.

If that upsets you or makes you uncomfortable, I think you need to re-examine your relationship with God.

God is far more than you or I can conceive of, and if your belief system pretending to be science is trying to make Him something that you can wrap your head around, then you aren’t worshiping God, you’re just using Him to make yourself feel better.

[Trinopus]

@Zyada

. . . One thing I’ve noticed in my life is that I understand how things work when they go wrong than when everything goes smoothly. . . . .

Stephen Jay Gould noted that, in his essay on “What, If Anything, Is a Zebra?” He pointed to instances of teratology – of “mutant” zebras, or zebras with birth defects, where the stripes aren’t complete. In some individual zebras, the stripes break up into spots. This is informative; it gives clues to the ways in which the stripes are generated in those individuals – and this information can be generalized.

Gandalf taunted Saruman for breaking white light into the spectrum of colors, but, actually, studying broken things is one of the paths toward knowledge. The wise do not denigrate it.

[Capt_Kirk]

@Alessan

Jeez, people. It’s 5772. Stop dragging this out.

Thank You

To th previous post(381), I find it strange that some religious people can’t see the science of evolution as a manifestation of God. Doesn’t the name of God mean “That which can’t known” or similar in many religions? IMHO narrowing the range of God’s abilities and actions seems presumptuous.

CAPT

[Tangent]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

No, everybody doesn’t have to pay the taxes that finance public schools. In fact no one has to pay those taxes if they prefer not to.

As you probably don’t know, reef… public schools are paid for by local property taxes. If you don’t want to support Teh Evil Propaganda Emporiums!!!111, just don’t own any real estate. Easy-peasy.

Meh. If you rent a house or apartment, your landlord is paying the property taxes. One guess where he/she gets the money from!

[reef_shark]

@Rubixcube

Sure humans have ear muscles and tail bones, neither of which are useful. But the textbook case of vestigial organs are the blind mole rats, who have eyes rendered entirely useless because they have a layer of skin completely covering them. Evolution would predict these kinds of things.

'Blind' Mole Rats Can See, Study Confirms

Those eyes are not vestigial, either. And even if something was vestigial, it would be a loss, not gain.

[reef_shark]

@Latro

Ambulocetus does not have hooves.

Why do you state it has?

Your own evolutionist articles state it had hooves. Do you know how to google?

[reef_shark]

@Latro

There are no such things as MACRO evolution or MICRO evolution.
There’s just evolution.

But why don’t you give us an example of an animal that was created?
One that has no fossils of it nor its entire species before, say 10.000 years ago.

You were correct until you said ‘or’. There is no evidence or observation of macro evolution, which is one kind of an animal to another. Only natural selection from the original 2 parents. Look at how all animals suddenly appear, fully formed. Thats all we see.

[reef_shark]

@EVIL_COW_PIE

Hmm. I read the link you provided (thanks) and it did not say one word about how old reef shark thinks the earth is. Maybe you’re not understanding the question. I shall restate:

reef shark, I want to know how old you think the earth is in years, in your own words. I’m not asking how old the KJV says it is. However, if you agree with the KJV please free to re-state in your own words.

Sure you can! Fill in this blank:

The earth is _________ years old.

It’s easy really.

Its always easy for other people to do your work for you. There are years corresponding to ages of the important genealogies. Genesis shows Noahs and Abrahams lines. Its simple math. If you want to see the ancestors of Jesus you can look at the beginning of Matthew, and its verified (backwards) in Luke.

The more important question for now is, How can you tell the Earth is 4.6 billion years old? Doesnt the 2nd law of thermodynamics mean anything to you?

[reef_shark]

@Mangetout

I suspect you have an unworkable definition of ‘observe’, at least as applies to your opponents in this discussion. Is Noah’s flood observable?

Do you see the grand canyon? What couldve caused that? How did fossilized clams get on the top of Everest? Again, fossils are created by burial. Meteors dont do that, floods do.

[reef_shark]

@Czarcasm

How do you account for the fact that they are fossilized and quite a bit older than any biblical flood?

Are you talking about carbon dating now? This should be interesting…Do you know what results scientists got when they carbon dated live animals?

[Latro]

@reef_shark

Your own evolutionist articles state it had hooves. Do you know how to google?

I did.
They all say it had webbed feet.

[reef_shark]

@Gyrate

Like this.

Yay! Now we can add plate tectonics to the muddle too!

You still dont understand that the clams had to be buried to fossilize. They were petrified clams, still closed. Meaning they were buried alive. If everest rises .25 inches per year, a clam isnt going to suffocate. Plate tectonics offers no explanation for that, sorry.

[reef_shark]

@DrFidelius

When mating, whales swim belly-to-belly, and the male has an extraordinarily long and prehensile penis to facilitate coitus. They do not “attach” to each other.

You know they have to attach to ‘facilitate coitus’, right? Ever seen these tiny bones in snakes? Same function. Again, a few episodes of the croc hunter wouldnt hurt.

[running_coach]

@reef_shark

You still dont understand that the clams had to be buried to fossilize. They were petrified clams, still closed. Meaning they were buried alive. If everest rises .25 inches per year, a clam isnt going to suffocate. Plate tectonics offers no explanation for that, sorry.

The clams were at sea level when they died. Then Everest rose. How does plate tectonics not come into play?

[reef_shark]

@DrFidelius

Oh, and ambulocetus had a very long skull and big, carnivore teeth. Very much like a whale’s skull.

Now, it is unlikely that modern whales are directly descended from the populations of ambulocetus from which we happen to have found the remains. This is much less relevant than it may sound, as we do not have examples of specimens from every population of related animals which ever existed.
Ambulocetus shows clearly that there existed semi-aquatic animals with whale-like features in a time earlier than fully aquatic whales. That is what “transitional” means.
Also, the question of what “whale-like features” are significant and which are trivial gets very technical and boring, and (and I mean this with no intention of disrespecting you) you do not have the background to understand the arguments or conclusions.

Whales have big carnivore teeth too, right? Common design is just as much evidence for a common designer than anything else.

[Latro]

@reef_shark

Do you see the grand canyon? What couldve caused that? How did fossilized clams get on the top of Everest? Again, fossils are created by burial. Meteors dont do that, floods do.

Plate tectonics made the platau rise and then river gauged ou the canyons.
You have heard about palte tectonics, have you?

India was a seperate continent that drifted towards Asia. It bumped into it, and is still bumping into it. Thats how the Himilaya’s were formed.

Didn’t you go to school?

[reef_shark]

@iiandyiiii

Yes, dinosaurs turned into birds. We don’t know for sure if feathers evolved from scales, but that’s one idea. But we know they did evolve- and on dinosaurs (which, in a way, are a “transitional form” between reptiles and birds). We have fossils of feathered dinosaurs that didn’t fly- like Pedopenna and the Troodontidae family.

Ambulocetus certainly spent a lot of time in the water. Here are some more transitional cetaceans: Rodhocetus, and Protocetus- Protocetus was a whale that had toes (why does a whale have toes?). You can even see the “transition” in the fossil record from legs that are gradually changing shape into fins, and the rear fins get smaller and smaller until the only remnant are the floating, unattached tiny hip bones in modern whales.

Whales mate side-to-side, or belly-to-belly, with a very large and agile phallus. The tiny hip bone remnants do nothing and are truly vestigial- you can’t even feel them along the whale’s skin.

You say ‘we dont know how feathers turned into scales’, but you reconcile that by saying ‘but they did evolve’. Seriously??? Feathered dinosaurs that didnt fly like ostriches and emus?

[Latro]

@reef_shark

You still dont understand that the clams had to be buried to fossilize. They were petrified clams, still closed. Meaning they were buried alive. If everest rises .25 inches per year, a clam isnt going to suffocate. Plate tectonics offers no explanation for that, sorry.

They were already fossils when the land rose above the water.

[reef_shark]

@Latro

Plate tectonics made the platau rise and then river gauged ou the canyons.
You have heard about palte tectonics, have you?

India was a seperate continent that drifted towards Asia. It bumped into it, and is still bumping into it. Thats how the Himilaya’s were formed.

Didn’t you go to school?

Rising less than an inch per year. Thats not going to cause a flood to bury clams alive. Did you know theres land under the oceans?

[reef_shark]

@iiandyiiii

I read it all, and I still can’t find the age of the earth. Where is it? Do you even know? Can you give us a hint? You’re not being very helpful here…

Can you give a hint how its 4.6 billion years old? For the 10th time, the burden of proof is on you evolutionists to prove your theories. Your theories are in school books as fact.