@kronz21 It's widely believed that there is a multi-verse full of different possible universes. The idea is that the fact that we (thinking beings) exist in this particular universe automatically proves that the laws of this universe happen to be fit for life. There may be universes where life can not exist but there is nobody there to observe those universes. It's believed that the big bang was an interesting event in the multi-verse. Read Stephen Hawking Grand Design.
The latest evidence suggests the big bang is just a series of infinite big bangs. The universe expands, stars and galaxies form. Less form over time. Stars burn out. The universe cools down. At the center of every galaxy is a super massive black hole that consumes stars and eventually the entire galaxy. SMBlack holes join together forming bigger black holes. All the black holes form into one, and all matter is consumed forming another singularity, and thus another big bang. Time is eternal.
@2cool4skoolful Why do you think the universe has a begin? Big bang theory doesn't say that actually, it says that everything we see nowadays comes from a singularity, and that there's absolutely no way to tell what happened before that singularity. Maybe it's a pulsing universe, which explodes, comes back to a single point again, explodes again, etc.
Strobel knows that Christians don't want to hear, "God might exist, God might love you, you might live forever if you die while believing, you might be special, if you pray God might answer your prayers". No, they want ot hear, "God loves you, you will live forever, you are special" For some reason people think that being an evolved species makes you less special. No, it actually makes you more special, as you are a link in multi billion year long chain of life.
@treysharkk There is no doubt in my heart that God does exist, I may not be able to prove it to you, that is between you and God always. You make however a false statement, that evolution makes you more special than special creation. May I ask you then, what is your purpose? What is the point of you being a cellular thinking glob of plasma that makes it more special than the purpose God have made for you as a person? If your atheism is true then there is no point to our existence.
@Mekelsior What is my purpose? Purpose is self defined, just like love, nice, tall, short, happy, angry and other emotions. The beautiful thing about existing in a world without a predetermined future is that one can create their own purpose in life. It's all perspective. You can look at yourself as nothing but a glob, or that you are a piece of the universe(which you are)and that before you even had a brain, the very cells that make up your body once raomed the vast distances of the universe.
@Mekelsior "the purpose God have made for you" First you have to figure out what purpose "He" made you for. He doesn't speak to anyone. Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus all find their own purpose through their Gods as well. I guess this is proof their Gods exist right? The ability to find ones purpose is without ourselves. We don't have to pretend to speak to a God in order to find our purpose. I have meditated before and experienced self transending love, but I don't make unjustified claims>
@Mekelsior >based on those experiences. I have found my purpose in life. While I work with many people every day, my life is insignificant because I am not in a position in power. No matter what I do my life will be this way in the grand scheme of things. However, understanding how insignificant, small, tiny and unspecial my life is gives me a certain type of freedom. I'm not self centered enough to believe that there is a grand plan JUST FOR ME. This is childish thinking.
@Mekelsior I think that not having to be the center of the universe makes life better. Now I'm not saying that life is worthless, just that it has no predetermined purpose. If it did then what's the purpose of aborted babies, disfuntional babies that die in the womb or shortly after death, blindness, worms that only live in the eye and cause blindess, a hole to breath and eat from that garuntees deaths each year and so on. There is alot to explain that only a scientific view can. God gives none
@Mekelsior You better be careful though. Most people devote their lives to the purpose of their religions and Gods. This is not a purpose they want themselves, but a purpose they have been convinced they want. Just think of the 19 Muslims in 9/11. There are 800 millions muslims who all have very strong faith. They devote their lives, sometimes to sarifice them, to their religion. You can let someone in a cheap suit or funny costume give you a purpose, or you can create your own.
@treysharkk Any Muslim will tell you that a truly faithful representative of Islam would never have killed those people in the Trade centre.Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not the religion's fault that it's practiced in such an aggressive and in some ways primitive region of the planet.Your loss of self and belief of your insignificance, how does that balance with self-esteem?Seems like you're accepting an average and uninspiring life for yourself.Even if not religious, everyone needs hope
@Rodgerinho If Islam is a peaceful religion, why was it founded with war and the creation of a greedy empire that conquered other countries, with its king and war hero being the very prophet worshipped today (Mohammed)?
Christianity, at least, honours Jesus Christ, a man who helped the meek and was against war, kingdoms, politics, reputation and greed. Christ believed all humans should live borderless and as a family. Mohammed created an empire and forced others to be ruled by him through war.
@Armoterra Bottom line, every single religion is peaceful at it's core, but unfortunately corrupt and violent people can try and manipulate religion to their benefit. If you look at South America and across Africa, there's a high christian following, and equally there is great violence and anger. You could say all Christians were violent and bad people if you were to focus on just those parts of the world. Look at muslims in the west, they're very peaceful happy people, just like the christians
@Rodgerinho The evils of religions are written right into the doctrines. If one truly believes and follows their holy book they will be immoral to today's standards. These are ancient philosophies from a time where people were wild. The fact that you are on the internet right now and not hacking away at a baby's genitals or being sacrificed for Yahweh or some other bearded god is due to secular values that disregard religion. Morality evolves as does man. Doctrine does not.
@MorningwoodProductio The "evils" of religion? That's way too vague and extreme, cant you give a more reasonable example that objectively demonstrates your point? What exactly are you referring to? And if you look at the 10 commandments, in what way do they fall short in modern society? In actual fact religion has shaped our moral and legal compass for centuries. I'm not saying you should have a religion but it's wrong to write it off, it has influenced our civilization for the better
@MorningwoodProductio You consider only 30% of people have an internalized moral compass and the rest need social pressure and boundaries to keep them from doing ill deeds. Then bear in mind how much the rich and powerful want to take for themselves, if we didn't have religion, if it didn't permeate society at the upper echelons, then you and I would most definitely be slaves in a totalitarian state, and human rights wouldn't even exist
@MorningwoodProductio All that being said, I'm not saying you should practice a religion, believe in a God, or have much interest in a religious text. However in the past, as a species, religion has had a hugely positive influence on us
@Armoterra - Muhammad also married 6 year old girls, consummating said marriage at the age of 9. Muhammad also partook in the beheading of innocent men; or women, point being, not the so called holy prophet that he so self-proclaimed. Islam is the only religion, globally, that is murdering others by the thousands; no, it is not a peaceful relgion. As a matter of fact it is an imperialistic system first and foremost...a religion (man made) second to serve its purposes.
@Armoterra - Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet, also, and supposedly, was given the way by his god (a moon god, allah), to deliver his final message to the world, which included approximately 13 lines only. That's it! Not to mention, 3 of those lines were degrading women. So the founder of our world, told his representative to deliver a final speech to the world, and it was a whole 13 lines, degrading women, and zip about life and how we were to live;;;NOT my vote.
@Armoterra - Lastly, and never in judgment, the two key scriptures that Muslims use to get Muhammad into the Holy Bible or discredit it are: John 14:16, in their attempt to say that the Bible is referring to there prophet, and in actual fact, it is referring to the Holy Spirit, the third part of the Holy Trinity; it is in writing. Second is John 10:30, where Muslims claim Jesus never claimed to be God, and He did, and it also is in plain writing. Romans 10:9 is needed by Muslims asap
@Mekelsior I don't think you've searched as hard as I am STILL searching everyday to make sure my beliefs are correct. How hard have I really tried to search for God? Speak to a Buddhist, read the Quran, speak to Jehovah witnesses attend their services speak to Muslim. Their ideas are just as valid as yours if not more ! I don't trust you to tell me which god is real because you haven't truly searched the world out there with an open mind. To make an informed decision you need as much info a
@johnbgroovy I have been a JW for 17 years my friend so I have believed that Jesus was just a man, but the Bible is open and available for those that seek Him, the Bible is stating clearly that Jesus Christ is the Creator, that He is our God, that He is our Savior, our King and our Lord. I always seek that which is true, the entire world is denying Christ, JW, Islam, Buddism, most of Christianity as well as they refuse to obey the Commandments, such as the 7th day Sabbath. My <3 goes out to you.
Your talking about absolutes. We will never know something 100% and yes thats true science doesn't deal with absolutes it deals with probabilities but it is utterly foolish to believe gravity might not work when you drop A ball. We can,t see, touch, taste, hear, or smell God nor has any scientific tool detected or undoubtedly pointed to a God THAT is not coincidence. If it were me I'd prefer a God but I don,t believe fairy tales that make me happy it's WRONG!
@johnbgroovy Hi John, there are many things we can`t see, touch, taste, hear or smell, yet we believe they exist based on the evidence that we see surrounding it. For example, there is no such thing as darkness, it is just absence of light. Nor can we identify a thought, yet if we hook a person up to a neurological device we are able to see that something is going on, yet we do not know what. Same with God, we see the evidence of His movings and from this evidence it is that we conclude. =)
@johnbgroovy I believe in God, based on the world I have around me, it is both philosophically sound to believe in a Creator even though we are unable to sense him by our imidate senses. God communicates to us differently and for those that do seek Him with all their heart, they WILL find Him. By careful study and contemplation of the Scriptures you will see that the Prophecies of Daniel and John in the book of Revelation speaks volumes on the existence of God. =)
The theory however states that there is no God, or there is no need of God, that everything came from nothing. If this is the premise, then the only other option is God. <<< YOU
NO there's an option called " I don't know" the one that honest people use when they really don't know the answer. Only narrow minded presumptuous people will replace " I don't know for the "GOD" answer and forfeit any efforts to even contemplate investigation.
@johnbgroovy When you have only two options, either God exist or God does not exist, then it is impossible to state that "I don`t know" is a logical answer, if it is decided that it is false that God does not exist, ie Evolution is bunk.You could argue that you yourself is god but that is another discussion alltogether. =)
If you look back at history you will find that many people believed THOR, ZEUS, and JUPITER were the real GODS of the time that explained unknown phenomena. Now take the time to reflect on that point and ask your self are you doomed to repeat history?
I have an open mind to evidence and data that proves God's existence and so far everything has fallen short. I am patient enough to wait rather then put on a show of arrogance to having the answer already.
@johnbgroovy True, many did believe in many different things, but most of it was either Sun and moon worship and or the worship of the One Creator God also known as monotheism. When we look at the events happening in Egypt and Assyria after their confrontation with the Exodus and Jona the Prophet, we see entire sun worshiping civs converting to monotheism. For me this is very strong evidence that the Bible speaks the truth, then we have the time prophecies that no other religion have.
At any rate I have taken the time and effort to at least look at these videos despite my atheism. All of the claims on these videos have been refuted many times over do the research ( like I did) and look for yourself. Even after reading the bible FAITH is still required for you to believe in GOD. Faith is believing something without evidence, I prefer to believe things based on empirical evidence.
@johnbgroovy It is always good to study and be open to new things and to challenge yourself and the paradigm that we have. Faith is based on evidence because it is not possible to obtain 100% knowledge of any single truth, Faith is needed in our everyday life as well. We have faith that we will be able to go down the stairs 5 in the morning to make breakfast, yet we do not know if we will be able to do so, perhaps we trip and stumble and then fall? It is possible to believe intelligently. =)
@geniusrepairman1 My theory, is not really my theory but a shared understanding with a multitude of people, not that I argue that majority decides, yet it is worth noting that throughout history everything that has happend in the religious, political, and social aspects may be understood perfectly from the point of view of what we can call the Great Controversy between the forces of good and the forces of evil. If you are interested I can explain more about this?
@Mekelsior I saw the vids you wanted me to see and the guy is very clever and to most non scientists it seems credible. But the vast majority of scientists aren't stupid. All the points raised about lead dating etc I am very sure has been looked at over the time dating methods have existed and taken into account. That's why we have multiple dating methods that are cross checked for accuracy. I hope everything is ok with you.
@geniusrepairman1 I`m doing very good thank you, thanks for asking. =) Professor Walter J Veith has thaught evolution for several years at a university of South Africa, he is a very credible scientist. There will always be scientists who stands firm on their believes regardless of the facts, and would thus argue for their position. Again this is a consequence of social factors rather than any conspiracy. Radiometric dating fails in all ways due to the premisses are not possible to verify.
@Mekelsior If your theory is about the Fall and about the Devil deliberatly giving us false information that sways us to the Dark Side and away from God then I am not interested. If it is something quite different that I probably haven't heard before, then sure, why not?
@geniusrepairman1 It has nothing to do with the devil giving us false information, but simply how humans works as a collective. We see it in religion, in politics and in certain areas of science, such as big pharma, where the idea is preserved more so due to conflicts of interrests rather than a pursuit of truth. A good example is the documentary called Indoctrination. Another one is to study the big food industries such as Monsanto and then lastly dermathology industry.
@geniusrepairman1 I must pardon my late responds but I have been busy and needed to focus my attention to personal matters. I do agree that many religions have had a kind of evolution going on where they have progressed from simple into more complex but this is known as a sosiological phenomenon, it also works within political structures and scientifical structures. This is a very complex science but it can explain why there is such a dicothomy and controversy within the realm of science.
@Mekelsior You know we evolve in our lifetime. Soon after conception we are a sphere, then we become fish like, frog like, mammal like and finally human like. Then when we are born we have stunted arms and legs nothing like the proportions we have later. Our brain grows and develops, we get bigger and harier then we begin to asge and our skin wrinkles, hair can fall out and we even shrink. Day to day it is unnoticable but it happens.
@geniusrepairman1 It is one thing to argue that we look like something and therefor we must be from whatever we look like, it could be simply good imagination, like seeing simular shapes in clouds for example. I do not think I agree with you that humans from birth to death is an adequate example of evolution, it could function allegorically but it would not address the core of the discussion namely.. where is the evidence without bias that everyone has to say.. yes that is true? :)
@Mekelsior Yes the way we change over time within our lifetime was not meant to be taken as the way organisms evolve. I was really trying to show that major changes in an organism are not at all unusual and if an organism like a frog (which is totally different as a juvenile) can change so much in a short time then it is no great leap to see a lizard become a snake, a dinosaur a bird or an ape into a human (eventually over small variations through generations).
@geniusrepairman1 I believe it is still a great leap to see a lizard become a snake, or a dinosaur a bird, and ape into a human because the comparrison with the life cycle of a single organism such as the frog does not match. I believe Dr Berlinski made an estimate on how many changes had to be done from the hypotetical cow to the whale, there had to be at least 50 000 changes. If such a change were to happen the fossil record had to be filled with such evidence, this is not the case.
@Mekelsior Well we do have transitional fossils of whales from terrestrial carnivores, to aquatic hunters, to primitive whales, to modern whales. I think it took something like 40 or 50 million years, but it did happen. Anyhow, most organisms do not fossilise. It is generally a very rare process and certain conditions must arise before it can occur,. We will never find more than a fraction of all life on Earth.
@geniusrepairman1 It is estimated that you need about 50 000 changes or transitional forms in order to create the chain of events as you described, how many transitional forms have you found? Perhaps a dozen... so you are missing most of the chain. How then can you safely extrapolate that A lead to B in this case? From what we know of the fossil record is that in the past there was far greater variety than there is today, we are loosing more and more species every second.
@Mekelsior This is not strictly true. Yes there have been many more species in the past than what we see today but there are also more dead people than people currently alive. The fossil record covers over a Billion years of life. But over this time there have been population crashes as well as explosions. I think there was a massive one in the Permian and more than 90% of sp[ecies were wiped out. Another pop crash occured at the end of the Cretaceous.
@geniusrepairman1 See evolution fits all the known facts. What needs to happen to show evolution is wrong would be to find a fossil or living animal that is a mix of different classes. Example: A bear like animal with antennae, fur, feathers and scales that has both lungs and gills and catches deer by spinning vast sticky webs. Find something like that and evolutionary theory as we know it will fly out the window.
@geniusrepairman1 They have found just that, it is called fossil graveyards, all manners of species all bundled together.. what you wont find is a mix of all animals in one animal, creation does not make such predictions. Truth is there is nothing that can disprove evolution because there is nothing that can prove it. If we consider semantics. Evolution is not possible to falsify because it is based only on assumptions attached to a very low % of truth, organisms change and they adapt.
@Mekelsior Organisms change and adapt. Yes that is evolution. That is it. If you and I are standing in a field and you move away by a metre you can still here me. Move another metre and you can still hear and see me. Make every metre a generation. Seamlessly, 1 metre at a time you move away, stop and talk. Eventually it is a struggle to hear eachother. Eventually you go over the horizon and no longer can be seen or heard. Its still moving just 1 metre at a time.
@geniusrepairman1 When you move away from me 1 metre at a time you are simply walking. Its not micro walking or macro walking, its just walking. And the effect of walking, even though it is a slow process, is that you move away from A and end up at B. Small changes in DNA over generations slowly moves an organism from A to B. Then B to C and so on. And that's it. If you can accept squirrels slowly adapting and becoming new species of squirrel, just keep going and get a chipmunk!
@geniusrepairman1 What if there is a huge chasm or a unpassable wall between the squirrel and the chipmunks? Sean Pitman MD claims that this barrier lies about 1000 aminoacids, anything above this is simply impossible for natural selection and random mutations to overcome. Neo Darwinism agrees that the mechanism explained in gradualism is insufficient and thus concocted the "hopeful monster" theory or rather "Punctuated Equilibrium" on which side do you stand, neo or old? :)
@Mekelsior It was just an example. I'm not saying chipmunks evolved from squirrels It might be vice versa. I was describing the way evolution works. No I don't believe there is an impassable wall. I have seen no evidence of this so I guess I'm old school. But gradualism is not always the case. I have no problem with occasional large leaps (depending how large) occuring that although usually fatal can very rarely lead to something useful.
@geniusrepairman1 I understand the fundamentals of evolutionary theory I just don`t accept it based on its explainatory value alone, I require more in order to change my current paradigm. One of the more interresting problems with the theory is its lack of present day evidence, yes we can show to small changes in nylonase digestion of bacterias but in the end the organism is still a bacteria and has limited evolutionary potential, this is the fact of every organism in this world.
@Mekelsior To see a bacteria become something else just isn't going to happen. Bacteria have been around for billions of years and as far as we are aware only once has a relative of bacteria evolved into multi cellular beings that ultimately gave rise to animals plants and fungi. You aren't talking about a change in species or even genera or family, you're talking about evolution from one kingdom to another!
@Mekelsior Any change we can see in our lifetime is not going to be big. Some examples of evolution: rabbits introduced to Australia 170 years ago are now bigger and tougher than european rabbits and are more resistant to myxamatosis. Cane toads inroduced to Australia in the 1930's are bigger too and some carry a leg deformaty (bad mutation) allowed to sweep through the population as the result of a lack of predation by other animals.
@Mekelsior But if you have a scientific tool that explains the variety of modern biology, prehistoric biology and can predict futre biology and can be used in medicine that actually works then why not accept it? Darwin knew that genetic information had to be passed on and predicted some form of "genes" before they had been discovered. DNA was discovered later and fits in perfectly with the theory. Too many coincidences methinks for it not to be at least largely true.
@geniusrepairman1 Creation science also fits with all the facts, you just need to change your paradigm, ie how you interpret the data and what explaination you accept as plausible. Watch all the presentations of Pr. Walter J Veith, he was a professor of Zoology for many years, he explains very readily a different explaination that covers most of the current conclusions that is made from the evolutionist point of view. Then consider the age of coal and the existance of compressed polonium halos.
@geniusrepairman1 A little diversion: Notice how mythical creatures usually don't fit evolutionary theory? Giant reptiles that fly and breathe fire, horses with 1 horn, griffons both lion and eagle, medusa:a woman who can turn people to stone and has snakes instead of hair. Fairies only 6 inches long, strange people whose feet are on backwards... the list goes on and anyone of these creatures if real would challenge evolution (ecx unicorn, it could happen through mutation)
@geniusrepairman1 Interestingly enough, it is difficult to find out if a creature that is fossil could breath fire or not. No, none of these if they existed would make a dent in the theory, simply because the theory itself is evolving and are adapting new environments.. it is still my understanding and analyze of it all to be a concept that have grown out of control.
@Mekelsior The fire would not dent the theory but the dragon as a whole would. But if you really understand the way evolution works you will realise that if you mix certain characteristics together you destroy the sense of everything. And if that happens then you have to start again. Evolution as we know it would no longer explain the life we see.
@geniusrepairman1 Dragons are easily explained as dinosaurs, giant lizards, if they could fly or not that is not up to me and decide, although we do have a flying dinosaur the terraroptorix or something? ;) (reminds me of obelix anyway.. ) I believe that the requirement for falsification of evolution need to be so extraordinary as it is borderline fantasy and thus can we really talk about falsification at all? If the tenets are based on a little truth that the rest hangs on how can we falsify?
@Mekelsior Oh you can falsify. The piltdown man was a fake fossil and there have been others. I'm not talking about faking stuff, I'm talking about nature you take for granted. Why do bears have fur not feathers. Because it would not be right if they did. Their other features are mamallian, specificially of the Order Carnivora. No mammal has feathers. Feathers evolved on a different branch of the tree of life after the mammal line had already begun.
@Mekelsior That fits in perfectly with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory predicts we will never find a fossil with features of bird and fish for example. Zoologists use it to predict they will never find a new type of monkey with scales and a beak. And we don't. We never do. When we find something new we can compare it to known organisms and after some debate, fit it neatly within the catalogue of known organisms. It is a powerful tool to explain what we find in the Natural World.
@geniusrepairman1 To predict what kind of animals you would find in the various habbitats is not really rocket science. It is easy to predict that you will find beavers and otters near the oceans and rivers close to trees and so on, it is ecology the study of habitats, you do not need evolutionary theory here to explain anything. Creation Science equally does not predict you will find a bird with scales, so there really is no difference between the two paradigms when it comes to this. =)
@Mekelsior But evolutionary theory explains WHY birds have feathers (and they do have scales, on their legs - evidence of their link with dinosaurs) and bats don't whereas creationism does not explain WHY. It is just God's Will, and that is it.
@Mekelsior Funnily enough in Australia you do not find beavers in forest rivers and they do not have otters near the sea. Nothing like the otter or beaver exist in Australia. The platypus does not cut down trees and fur seals are very different to otters. Guess what scientific theory explains that too?
@geniusrepairman1 True, it is easy to come with explainations but as I have said previously, explaination is not evidence of reality. It may be, but it is not that by default. For me, there is no scientifical reason why I should believe in evolution rather than creation, as there are to many questions that evolutionary theories does not explain, for example, why is the creb (spelling) cycle in pretty much every living organism, when NS could not influence its creation?
@Mekelsior When you can derive hundreds and thousands of explanations all consistant with eachother and the available evidence, the chances that the tool you use (evolution through Natural Selection in this case) is wrong is incredibly unlikely. We do not have complete 100% proof positive that the Theory is correct but we do know that the likliehood is 99.99999999999999% and that is because if we had it wrong then some of our explanations should contradict other explanations.
@Mekelsior Natural Selection is not the only mechanism that drives evolution. Sexual Selection is another (peacock feathers for example) But its all evolution. Now what is this Creb Cycle you write of? I have not heard of it so I can give no comment on it.
@geniusrepairman1 I`m not a zoologist nor have I studied what animals are on the various continents, but I`m sure there are many, and in each continent it would be easy to predict that animals living near the water would be able to swim and to be able to walk on land. The name of the initial animal is not really important. =)
@Mekelsior That's because animals in a particular habitat are adapted to fit in it. But what particular type of animal is the one that in an environment IS important. If God created everything then it would make sense for beavers to be worldwide, for otters to be worldwide for squirrels to be worldwide, but instead we have vastly different types of animals performing similar roles in similar environments. God does not logically explain this.
@geniusrepairman1 To give an example, the humble squirrel you would think, would inhabit tpretty much every forest Worldwide, and it does get pretty close to this but suddenly in Australia instead of squirrels (which are rodents) we have various possums fulfilling a similar role of the squirrel (which are marsupials - they have pouches like kangaroos.) And whereas deer or similar are also found nearly everywhere, in Australia the kangaroo fills that niche,
@Mekelsior Before you say you do not accept evolution you probably should study the distribution of animal life across the continents because if you do that you will realize just how well the theory explains the distribution while creationism just leaves you with a puzzled head as to why elephants are found in Africa and Asia but not New Zealand, why there are penguins only in the Southern Hemosphere and polar bears only in the Northern Hemosphere,and so much more.
@geniusrepairman1 You say Creation theory explains the fact as well as Evolutionary Theory. But it does not. The answer it will give why penguins are only in the South and polar bears in the North is that God has His reasons and it is not for us to know them. That is not an explanation. I do not have a puzzled head because using the tool of evolution consistant with the evidence of the distribution of bears etc, I know why this is so.
@Mekelsior It is easy to see why you are skeptical about evolution because without an understanding of the different Orders and Classes of animals and their geographical distribution you would be blind to the importance of evolutionary theory to explain the World around us. I think you should do some basic research, Wiki Placental Mammals then Wiki Marsupial Mammals. You will find they are enormously different despite external appearances.
@geniusrepairman1 I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of how evolution works but I can only see it working in theory and not in real life or practicallity. The points I made was simply that to argue that evolution only happens in populations and then refer to some individuals in the populations changed and then a split occured kinda defeats the premise. We do see populations split and change but just because they are unable to reproduce at a later state does not mean evolution. =)
@Mekelsior Yes it does because that is basically the definition of specism. If two organisms that look practically identical are not able to reproduce then by definition they are different species.
@geniusrepairman1 The argument is then as follows, because we KNOW that all dogs are in the same family, such as wolves, jackals, coyoties, foxes and all dogs including wild dogs. This same argumentation is possible to take with you when looking at other groups who have been classified as different species but in reality it is just a variations within the "kind". Thus the term kind is in this case more accurate. =)
@Mekelsior So are bears of the same KIND as dogs? Fossils have been found with features of both dogs and bears, and genetically dogs and bears are closer than dogs and cats. But dogs and cats are closer than cats and squirrels, And squirrels and mice are closer genetically than mice and moles. Are they all of the same KIND? No they are very different, but they do have morphological structures in common and the DNA confirms their relationship.
@geniusrepairman1 How do you know they are features of both? Could it be that dogs and bears were burried together and thus confused? It is probable.. Morphology is based on inference of the scientist and the imagination of the artist. DNA, again we have mapped some of the genes, that make up a miniscule % of the entire DNA, I do not understand how people can accept this argument from ignorance. Map the entire DNA then it could be taken as evidence. =)
@Mekelsior Probable? Do you really think that little of anatomists that they can't tell the difference between the bones of dogs and bears and the bones of a transitional form between the two?!? Even I could tell the difference if only because of the huge size difference between dog and bear bones! Besides, the bones had to fit together so they were obviously compatable in size. And the "dog" features were huge because these animals were big. Other scientists examine also and verify fossils
@geniusrepairman1 Since I do not know the story I was simply asking a question, is it not good to ask questions? :) To assume that dogs and bears are related based again on homology is again based on inference. Let me ask you this, on what basis and grounds do you want to demonstrate such? DNA testing perhaps? So dogs or wolves, were huge in the past, sure but does that not go in the face of evoluton who states from small to big? :)
@Mekelsior No problem in asking questions. Maybe the word "probable" was a poor choice and was meant to be "possible." :) Dogs and bears have been shown to be closely related based on morphology, the fossil record which has many different transitional species and indeed DNA. Detailed molecular relationships amongst all the carniviores (that includes dogs and bears) have been conducted and we have excellent knowledge of the relationships of all (or most) species in the entire Order. :)
@Mekelsior An elephant colony can get stranded on a small island and evolve into a smaller form (like the Dwarf Elephant Stegadon fossils of which have been found on the island of Flores in Indonesia, now extinct). so that it does not run out of food sources. There is no rule that says a small form must become big and no big animal can become small. It all depends on the environment. The pygmy people of the Congo jungles are around 4 feet or so but they evolved from larger ancestors.
@geniusrepairman1 I would argue that it is not evolution that decide the size of an organism, but rather the food source. Evolution does however state that we all evolved from a single cell, which is rather small.. and then became more and more complex. If there are some variations between the various scientists that profess evolution, sure. Some would argue from small to big, some would pay less attention. In text books it is presented as small to bigt, in many cases anyway. =)
@Mekelsior All life evolved from single celled organisms so in that sense we have evolved from small to big, but once you have multicellular forms like animals, plants and fungi, you can go from big to small or small to big repeatedly no problem. Now you are right, the scarcity of food does play a big role in the morphology of species and that is all part of Natural Selection. Maybe you need to know more about what NS actually is?
@Mekelsior This genetic relationship consistant with particular anatomical markers is consistant throughout life from bacteria to plants and animals. Flowering plants of the greatest variety are all closer genetically than they are with ferns for example. Squids are closer to ants. Fish are closer to birds. Squids and humans are equally close with cabbages, explained because we both share a common ancestor destined to father the entire Animal Kingdom.
@geniusrepairman1 They may be closer in gene count but as we have only mapped 2% of the genes it would be dishonest to say that ants produced squids, especially since they are contemporary. If we are to consider the layers they are found common sense would dictate that if they were burried in a flood, ants would be higher up due to its habbitat. Now.. here is a thing, bee hive fossils.. explain that? They should not be there at all. How old is bees according to evolutonary thinking?
@Mekelsior Who is talking about ants becoming squids?!? You claim you have an understanding of evolutionary theory then you make a statement that seems to show lapses in understanding. Ants and squids are more closely related genetically than squids and humans primarily because ants and squids are inverterbrates and we are verterbrates. By no means did celaphapods become insectoria or vice versa. They do share a common ancestor way back in time before insects or celaphopods existed!
@geniusrepairman1 I do not believe I have said that ants evolved into squids, or that evolutionists believe that, perhaps you can give me the quote? My argument have been always that it is easy to make an assumption based on your paradigm, and such transitional stories are just that, it is based on inference and the paradigm of the beholder. Now, you have still not talked about the kreb cycle and other complex systems or how these things came about or anything like that. =)
@Mekelsior Yes I have unless Youtube ate it. Complex systems like cells etc did evolve but the science is highly technical and books fill entire chapters explaining it. It is not in my ability to easily explain how this happened with this limited space, I reccomend you Google these and read up on them on wiki or biology websites. I used the city metaphor remember? You didn't like it! :) Well, lI tried...
@geniusrepairman1 I asked by what mechanism did it evolve when natural selection does not work on the genotype? It should be easy to just mention the mechanism. =)
@Mekelsior The cells did evolve through Natural Selection. As always, the best adapted cells survive in a particular environme\nt while the less well adapted die out. As particular environments change those cells that adapt to this change continue to survive while the others die out. That is the basic mechanism. The enviromental factors include competiition, energy efficiency, faster reproduction or stronger offspring etc.
@geniusrepairman1 Insects have been around since long before the dinosaurs. Bees would have evolved sometime after the evolution of flowering plants, probably during the Cretaceous. That's over 65 million years ago. No problem with hive fossils or termite fossils or other insect fossils.
@geniusrepairman1 Then you have fossils of bees that were living outside the hive? The hive have to evolve as well, how did this happen and what evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?
@Mekelsior The hive is very interesting. There are many species of bees and hive complexity varies greatly as well. Although the hive of the honeybee is mathematically perfect other bee species have hives not as perfect in having that hexagon pattern, But one species's hive was expertly studied by a mathematician who realised that it was only 1 decimal place away from the perfect design of the honeybee! 1 behavioural gene mutation could give this species hexaganal hives too!
@Mekelsior Complex hives evolved from simpler hives. We can see how this occured because as I said there are many species of bees that have hives that range from the very basic to the complex. Presumably it was the bees facing the greatest evolutionary pressure that ended up becoming our honey bees. I don't know how old the earliest fossil hive found was but I could look it up if you really want to know. Does not mean there are not older ones waiting to be discovered though.
@Mekelsior The oldest bee so far is 100million years old and has features of both bees and wasps so it is another transitional form! Its also about 15 million years older than the oldest bee found before then which places hives at the time I said above. This 100 000000 y old bee is unlikely to have had a hive and probably had a nest like wasps as it is so primitive a bee. Or it had a hive much like a nest. So bees evolved from wasps as we thought! We have proof!
@Mekelsior Now if God designed the bee why did He make different species; only 1 of which has the perfect mathematical hive design? And why do some bee species not make honey at all? Also, bees, wasps and ants are all quite similar in many ways. Are they all of one Kind or not according to Creationism?
@geniusrepairman1 All bee species were one kind yeah, it is the most logical conclusion, and we see that over time variations within the genes does happen and thus speciation occur. If ants, wasps, bees are one kind i can`t answer. With time we may learn the truth by more study of the organisms, but because of evolutionary theory we may never learn the truth, because it is not even considered that they may be the same.
@Mekelsior I have loved animals since I was a kid and I always wanted to know how they got here. I heard the story of Adam and Eve but it never really impressed me. I was also skeptical of scientists digging up a jaw bone and declaring it to be a mammal or reptile etc. How could they tell? But when I got older I began investigating all of this and now I know how they can tell. It all does make sense when you know the facts. You need to read some books on prehistoric life.
@geniusrepairman1 I have read some and I know the arguments very well, and I see also the danger of indoctrination by this study and by accepting the semantics of scientists. I have said several times that it is important to remove the assumptions and then see if the theory has any merit. What I have read so far is filled with assumption, remove them and everything falls in on itself. But by all means, it is important to study everything, to be critical and to be willing to accept truth.
@geniusrepairman1 Well, so does that of intelligent design and creationism, both explain concicely the natural world of life on earth. =) There is no difference between the two paradigms in quallity of explaination, the same evidence is looked at the paradigm decide the meaning of the evidence. =)
@Mekelsior Neither theory explains how its done. If ID involved technology then what were the tools and how does it work? Also why are there so many designs in different animals that do the same thing, like eyesight? Octopi have more efficient vision than we do in that the optic nerve connects to the front of their brain, why we need a much longer nerve stretching right to the back of our brain.
@geniusrepairman1 Octopi would be blind in an instant if they were landborn with those eyes. So functionallity would be my guess. It was designed to be in the water, humans were designed to be on land. =) Again, I do not need to know the process of how to make a hammer in order to use it, I do not need to know how God created us in order to study how we function. Evolution does not even touch on origin and there is no problem there for any scientist. =)
@Mekelsior The advantage of an optic nerve attached to the visual processers of the brain right behind the eyes has nothing to do with being aquatic or land based. It is vastly better because the optic nerve does not have to travel right through the brain like it has to do in all vertebrates so less can go wrong. Its like an extension cord. The longer the cord the more the chance one part will get damaged. This happens in humans often.
@geniusrepairman1 So you are arguing that if humans had the eye of the squidd we would be better off? But if you do take the squid up, how would the sun affect it`s eyes?
@Mekelsior No I am arguing that if we had the part of the brain that processed vision at the FRONT of the brain rather than the BACK as octopi do then we would have faster vision processing because the nerve impulses would not have to travel so far and less complications due to having a shorter optic nerve. The eyes themselves would need to be adapted for land.
@geniusrepairman1 But then you argue that we actually need faster vision in order to be humans? I manage just fine with whatever i do, and I even use glasses. =)
@Mekelsior Of course if we had eyes that saw the right way up (our eyes see upside down and our brain vision processor has to turn the picture the right way round!) like a squid would be helpful too. If Octopi could play Online games against us they would beat us every time because they can process what they see faster than we can. So why did God give us eyes that see upside down? And octopi eyes that see the right way up? By the way, fish see upside down too, and they live in the sea too...
@geniusrepairman1 Do you have any problem seeing anything upside down? I don`t so how can argue it would help to see everything the right way? We already do bro. =) I do not argue that our eyes are better, I argue that they are good enough. =) Big difference there, and again to ask why God did this and why He didn`t do this is a logical fallacy. Does our eyes work, are we able to see in this world we are in?
@Mekelsior Yes our eyes work ok but they are hardly the construct of an intelligent designer because they are set up illogically and rather shoddily. There are many more problems with our eyes including blind spots, and easily detached retinas. Our brain has to "photoshop" everything we see by filling in details based on guesswork of the image we do see! As well as our blind spot the brain has to filter out blood vessels that block our vision. Otherwise we would see veins everywhere!
@Mekelsior If the eyes were professionaly built it would be easy to fix most of these problems but our ancestor that had the basics of our eyes was a slug like creature (not an actual slug) with a basic spinal cord. And because evolution can only build on what isalready there we are stuck wth a bad system that only really works because of a good brain processor (that uses up energy that could have been used for other things).
@geniusrepairman1@geniusrepairman1 If the eyes were professionaly built? My challenge to you is to build some eyes or refer me to anyone that has done so, that are better than the human eyes and maybe you have an argument. =) Remove the assumption of evolution, how then is your view on the eyes? if your not able to do something better then how can you argue they are bad, do you have problems with focusing in on an object, do you have a need to be able to see atoms?
@Mekelsior Better eyes have been built and they belong to Octopi. So if it's possible to have "professionally designed eyes" then why don't any backboned animals have them? Even eagles with their great vision have to waste processing power to turn the images they see the right way up.
@geniusrepairman1 But we are not octopi? And again, the eyes of the octopi would burn out on land.. or so they say. Were we designed by God to be an eagle or an octopi, is this your argument? We are humans, let the eagle be the eagle :) I do believe you are asking the wrong question, if you compare the human eye with the perhaps most technological device we humans have made, the hubble telescope, you will find that the human eye is far superior. =)
@Mekelsior Again, I was not talking about the eye itself, but its underlying structure. And I am not talking about vision eoither. I am talking about evidence of Intelligent Design, and considering that the architecture of our eyes is seriously illogical especially when other another phylum has eyes that ARE logical, the theory of ID over ET is seriously compromised. Unless a very smart God designed the octopus and a fairly average God was assigned the task of designing humans.
@Mekelsior The other point is if humans are meant to be the pinnicle of creation then why did he put the eye equivilent of the Rolls Royce in the octopus and give us eyes equivilent of a mini minor?
@geniusrepairman1 From where do you get the notion that being the crown of creation means that we are the strongest (blue whale), fastest (cheeta?) the most dexterious or most gracious? just curious, we are the smartest, we have the abillity to decide and to say no, we have free will.. we are made in the image of God as to experience what it means to be creative, we can create music and art and so on. =)
@Mekelsior We may not be the strongest or fastest but surely we should be the best designed. That means having 100% efficiency. Otherwise why plonk a great brain into an average animal that has serious design flaws? We should use 100% of our fuel (food) but we waste (excrete) a lot of valuable nutrients. We see well but waste a lot of energy doing so. We have hair that always needs to be cut. We have useless wisdom teeth that often cause trouble, the appendix... inefficient, mediocre.
@geniusrepairman1 Do you know.. if we the humans ran on gasoline, we would be able to run for 18000 miles on 1 gallon.. is that not efficent? what else would you ask for.. "Ah no.. thats not good enough.. make it a billion miles.. or make it infinite miles.." how about if we needed no food? Would that not be efficient? What if we did not die.. or what if we could fly? How many excuses are you going to make friend? I`m not ridiculing your positon here, I just don`t see your argument. =)
@Mekelsior Let me be clearer. Why do we excrete valuable nutrients? We eat and drink to gain vitamins and minerals for our cells in our body so we can continue to function effectively. If we were Intelligently Designed then it should have been possible to make a system that allowed us to extract all the nutrients from our food, or at least all of it except for a trace. But a lot of those nutrients end up getting flushed and we consequently must eat more than we should need to.
@geniusrepairman1 Show me one human created device that is more efficient than the human body, running on gas or diesell or anything.. then you got my attention. The rest is easily explained as we are fallen mankind and are not functioning according to the original design. We die and waste away because of Sin.
@geniusrepairman1 Anyway, to clarify.. the reason why we are falling a part is many, one is diet and exercise, if we live according to the health laws of God we are able to live more fully and to be more healthy. The second is why are we decaying in the first place? The answer here is sin, we lost our immortallity when we rebelled against God and decided to live without Him. Then since we are a copy of a copy of a copy our stature are accordingly. Im amazed of how well the design is really. =)
@Mekelsior Original Sin. All the suffering of the World stems from this even though no non human life (apart from the snake) had anything to do with Eve eating the apple. What a terrible crime, to disobey God just once when clearly His understanding of psychology would be that sooner or later Adam and Eve would not be able to resist temptation. He must have known that so we never had a chance. Why would you want to believe this story? I do not understand this.
@geniusrepairman1 It is not a matter of original sin, it is a matter of human choice. You mention psycology, our picture of that is also faulty, Adam and Eve had a choice, they did not know what they were going to choose until they had chosen, God knew, but still He created them, because it would all be worth it in the end, no matter what happened. This is an expression of His love, it is also part of the paradigm of Creation, that I believe in, so you must take that into consideration. =)
@Mekelsior You say you believe in this paradigm but you don't say why you believe it. I still don't understand why so much suffering had to happen if He does love us. I was not trying to be discourtious to your beliefs, I just find it hard to understand the whole logic of the situation.
@Mekelsior That is because Biogenesis touches on the subject of origin. Biogenesis is a recent scientific discipline and it has not got hundreds of years of research like most other disciplines. We do not know exactly how life originated...yet.
@geniusrepairman1 Biogenesis have existed for a very long time, just that scientist have been slow in picking it up.. and hesitant to investigate it.. anyway.. wish them all the best.. time is however running out of this world and this is to me a very strong indication that the earth is becoming like an old garment.. Japan just dumped 12000 tons of radiactive spill water into the oceans, causing more polution to the fish..
@Mekelsior Yes but the Earth has suffered much more than that over the eons including massive earthquakes, mass volcanic erruptions and meteorite strikes. Earth is still here even if entire Orders of life are now extinct. Our sun is middle ages so we should have 2 to 4 billion years left. We may not be here then but Earth should be. This is based on our understanding of the lifecucle of suns.
@Mekelsior If life was created supernaturaly then how does that work? What was the magic used? Was the clay important? Did women specificaly need to be created with a male human rib or would something else be just as good. If not why not? See, evolution on its own is not enough. To be accepted people had to discover a mechanism or way that it works. Once this was done evolution began to become accepted as mainstream science. Same with ID (but ID and C have flaws as I have shown already).
@geniusrepairman1 If you ask by what mechanism God created, by His Power, simple as that. We need to accept that some things is beyond our capabillities to even comprehend, we can`t even comprehend the size of the known universe how could we comprehend its Creator? We can discover how everything works within our sphere, such as biology, physiology, we can see how the earth functions as well, no probs there. We don`t need the knowledge of origin how God did it, in order to know it`s function.
@Mekelsior But where is the evidence of Adam and Eve? You are constantly telling me that all the evidence I have shown you are just assumptions that work on paper but not in real life but where is your empirical evidence of Creationism? Where is the Imperical evidence of The Bible being the word of God? You may have heard this before but Shakespeare wrote pretty profound stuff too. And The Lord Of The Rings has the mythology of an entire World within. Yet written by a man.
@geniusrepairman1 You want me to change my faith, based on assumptions that man kind have done about something that happened billion of years ago? Adam and Eve at least have the Bible, a written account, it is also shared with a many civs out there that have a similar story of creation. Emperical evidence for the Bible being the word of God, is the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, that explain perfectly what is happening today and what will happen in the future. =)
@Mekelsior But these prophecies have been used before and were wrong then. In 1000AD the people of Europe believed the end of the World was imminent, and here we are over 1000 years later. Just last week a Christian group said the World would end and they were amazed that we are all still here! And I don't want you to change your faith, but perhaps you could see that the Bible is not a history book but a text on morality and the nature of God.
@Mekelsior Assume God exists and He contacts Abraham and tells him He is the One True God. Abraham asks how the World was created and God goes into a very detailed explanation on the Laws of Physics, Cosmology, Evolutionary Theory, etc. Abraham, having a Bronze Age education, says "Huh?" God explains again in terminology Abraham can understand (he can't even use terms like millions of years) . Drastically simplifying and using metaphor to help clarify, the first chapter is written.
@Mekelsior Think about it, if God had explained the nature of the Universe accurately and scientifically He would not be understood. He had no choice but to simplify and use metaphors for his audience. Otherwise the firtst part of the book would be meaningless technobabble. The Adam and Eve story was included as a morality tale about obeying Him. It also helps to explain to Bronze Age folk the reason humans are self concious and animals seem not to be. We are now ready for sci exp.
@Mekelsior So I am not saying you cannot or should not believe in God (regardless of my own beliefs) but rather temper your belief to fit the evidence. Science cannot disprove God but it can show how Universal Laws can operate without divine intervention. Science cannot disprove the existence of Heaven and Hell either. So believe in God and have faith in Jesus and remember that even if the Bible was written by God, it was written a long time ago for a different audience.
@Mekelsior You will say that the Bible was written for EVERYONE past present and future so that all shall know God and embrace Him. Perhaps, but again, it still needed to be written down in a language understood by both the educated and uneducated alike. The Book Of Genesis had to be writrten for that criteria (again using the assumtion of it being the Word Of God). So Evolutionary Theory and Cosmology would overcomplicate and confuse too many people from getting the real message of God.
@geniusrepairman1 To come with a simple allegory, I do not need to know how the computer was made, or how the letters that I use was made, or how water was made, in order to know how to use the computer. Same way, we can simply study life and the complexities that is there and give credit where credit is due instead of claiming that No one made it, which is by level of quanity the same as saying God did it, not in quallity however, God makes more sense, to me at least. =)
@Mekelsior But if the computer breaks down you need someone who knows hw computer's are made to come and fix it. By knowing how letters were invented, (as we do), we learn about the psychology and languages of our ancestors and our lives are enriched. I read books on it and it is fascinating subject! If we want to live on the moon in the future it might be helpful to know how to combine Hydrogen and Oxygen together to make water, Knowing about Elements is v helpful with technology too!
@geniusrepairman1 Let me give you an example of what I mean, classifications and evolutionary trees and definition of species means little if nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. We all know that dogs come from the wolf. Yet the smallest dog and the biggest dog are not able to procreate normally, thus they are different species, however we KNOW they are not. Thus it is very possible that this occurs naturally in nature as well, and we have reclassified species as we learn more. =)
@Mekelsior The smallest and biggest dog can not procreate normaly because of their size differential, not their DNA,. Some very obese humans also have trouble procreating but they are still human beings. The thing is, DNA confirms the Tree Of Life because the % differences in DNA pan out according to taxominy which is exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. In otherwords, all the cat family are closer molecularly than they are with the dog family which is closer in DNA to the bear family
@Mekelsior This fits in with cat, dog and bear morphology and it fits in with their position in the taxonomic record. And not just these animals, but nearly all life on the planet has DNA consistant with where they fit on the tree. Bit much to be a coincidence seeing as Darwin knew nothing of DNA and now here it is fitting perfectly in the theory as if he knew all about it,.
@TheoryIsSpeculation what are you talking about? lol
kronz21 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation you just said that you believe in the big bang lol
kronz21 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation ok but what created or started the big bang?
kronz21 3 months ago
@kronz21 It's widely believed that there is a multi-verse full of different possible universes. The idea is that the fact that we (thinking beings) exist in this particular universe automatically proves that the laws of this universe happen to be fit for life. There may be universes where life can not exist but there is nobody there to observe those universes. It's believed that the big bang was an interesting event in the multi-verse. Read Stephen Hawking Grand Design.
MorningwoodProductio 1 month ago
thats very interesting !!!!!!!!!!!!
DiscipleInstinct 4 months ago
The latest evidence suggests the big bang is just a series of infinite big bangs. The universe expands, stars and galaxies form. Less form over time. Stars burn out. The universe cools down. At the center of every galaxy is a super massive black hole that consumes stars and eventually the entire galaxy. SMBlack holes join together forming bigger black holes. All the black holes form into one, and all matter is consumed forming another singularity, and thus another big bang. Time is eternal.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation There isn't a "before" the big bang.
adam3251 5 months ago
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGIN??? THANK YOU.
2cool4skoolful 6 months ago
@2cool4skoolful Why do you think the universe has a begin? Big bang theory doesn't say that actually, it says that everything we see nowadays comes from a singularity, and that there's absolutely no way to tell what happened before that singularity. Maybe it's a pulsing universe, which explodes, comes back to a single point again, explodes again, etc.
bommobiel 6 months ago
can someone please explain to me how scientist proove that the universe had a begin?
2cool4skoolful 6 months ago
It is a non sequitur to think the big bang suggests a creator - a steady state universe would probably be more miraculous?
mutbutyt 7 months ago
Strobel knows that Christians don't want to hear, "God might exist, God might love you, you might live forever if you die while believing, you might be special, if you pray God might answer your prayers". No, they want ot hear, "God loves you, you will live forever, you are special" For some reason people think that being an evolved species makes you less special. No, it actually makes you more special, as you are a link in multi billion year long chain of life.
treysharkk 7 months ago 2
@treysharkk There is no doubt in my heart that God does exist, I may not be able to prove it to you, that is between you and God always. You make however a false statement, that evolution makes you more special than special creation. May I ask you then, what is your purpose? What is the point of you being a cellular thinking glob of plasma that makes it more special than the purpose God have made for you as a person? If your atheism is true then there is no point to our existence.
Mekelsior 7 months ago 2
@Mekelsior What is my purpose? Purpose is self defined, just like love, nice, tall, short, happy, angry and other emotions. The beautiful thing about existing in a world without a predetermined future is that one can create their own purpose in life. It's all perspective. You can look at yourself as nothing but a glob, or that you are a piece of the universe(which you are)and that before you even had a brain, the very cells that make up your body once raomed the vast distances of the universe.
treysharkk 7 months ago
@Mekelsior "the purpose God have made for you" First you have to figure out what purpose "He" made you for. He doesn't speak to anyone. Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus all find their own purpose through their Gods as well. I guess this is proof their Gods exist right? The ability to find ones purpose is without ourselves. We don't have to pretend to speak to a God in order to find our purpose. I have meditated before and experienced self transending love, but I don't make unjustified claims>
treysharkk 7 months ago
@Mekelsior >based on those experiences. I have found my purpose in life. While I work with many people every day, my life is insignificant because I am not in a position in power. No matter what I do my life will be this way in the grand scheme of things. However, understanding how insignificant, small, tiny and unspecial my life is gives me a certain type of freedom. I'm not self centered enough to believe that there is a grand plan JUST FOR ME. This is childish thinking.
treysharkk 7 months ago
@Mekelsior I think that not having to be the center of the universe makes life better. Now I'm not saying that life is worthless, just that it has no predetermined purpose. If it did then what's the purpose of aborted babies, disfuntional babies that die in the womb or shortly after death, blindness, worms that only live in the eye and cause blindess, a hole to breath and eat from that garuntees deaths each year and so on. There is alot to explain that only a scientific view can. God gives none
treysharkk 7 months ago
@Mekelsior You better be careful though. Most people devote their lives to the purpose of their religions and Gods. This is not a purpose they want themselves, but a purpose they have been convinced they want. Just think of the 19 Muslims in 9/11. There are 800 millions muslims who all have very strong faith. They devote their lives, sometimes to sarifice them, to their religion. You can let someone in a cheap suit or funny costume give you a purpose, or you can create your own.
treysharkk 7 months ago
@treysharkk Any Muslim will tell you that a truly faithful representative of Islam would never have killed those people in the Trade centre.Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not the religion's fault that it's practiced in such an aggressive and in some ways primitive region of the planet.Your loss of self and belief of your insignificance, how does that balance with self-esteem?Seems like you're accepting an average and uninspiring life for yourself.Even if not religious, everyone needs hope
Rodgerinho 2 months ago
@Rodgerinho If Islam is a peaceful religion, why was it founded with war and the creation of a greedy empire that conquered other countries, with its king and war hero being the very prophet worshipped today (Mohammed)?
Christianity, at least, honours Jesus Christ, a man who helped the meek and was against war, kingdoms, politics, reputation and greed. Christ believed all humans should live borderless and as a family. Mohammed created an empire and forced others to be ruled by him through war.
Armoterra 2 months ago
@Armoterra Bottom line, every single religion is peaceful at it's core, but unfortunately corrupt and violent people can try and manipulate religion to their benefit. If you look at South America and across Africa, there's a high christian following, and equally there is great violence and anger. You could say all Christians were violent and bad people if you were to focus on just those parts of the world. Look at muslims in the west, they're very peaceful happy people, just like the christians
Rodgerinho 2 months ago
@Rodgerinho The evils of religions are written right into the doctrines. If one truly believes and follows their holy book they will be immoral to today's standards. These are ancient philosophies from a time where people were wild. The fact that you are on the internet right now and not hacking away at a baby's genitals or being sacrificed for Yahweh or some other bearded god is due to secular values that disregard religion. Morality evolves as does man. Doctrine does not.
MorningwoodProductio 1 month ago
@MorningwoodProductio The "evils" of religion? That's way too vague and extreme, cant you give a more reasonable example that objectively demonstrates your point? What exactly are you referring to? And if you look at the 10 commandments, in what way do they fall short in modern society? In actual fact religion has shaped our moral and legal compass for centuries. I'm not saying you should have a religion but it's wrong to write it off, it has influenced our civilization for the better
Rodgerinho 1 month ago
@MorningwoodProductio You consider only 30% of people have an internalized moral compass and the rest need social pressure and boundaries to keep them from doing ill deeds. Then bear in mind how much the rich and powerful want to take for themselves, if we didn't have religion, if it didn't permeate society at the upper echelons, then you and I would most definitely be slaves in a totalitarian state, and human rights wouldn't even exist
Rodgerinho 1 month ago
@MorningwoodProductio All that being said, I'm not saying you should practice a religion, believe in a God, or have much interest in a religious text. However in the past, as a species, religion has had a hugely positive influence on us
Rodgerinho 1 month ago
@Armoterra - Muhammad also married 6 year old girls, consummating said marriage at the age of 9. Muhammad also partook in the beheading of innocent men; or women, point being, not the so called holy prophet that he so self-proclaimed. Islam is the only religion, globally, that is murdering others by the thousands; no, it is not a peaceful relgion. As a matter of fact it is an imperialistic system first and foremost...a religion (man made) second to serve its purposes.
kevinmelvillesimpson 1 week ago
@Armoterra - Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet, also, and supposedly, was given the way by his god (a moon god, allah), to deliver his final message to the world, which included approximately 13 lines only. That's it! Not to mention, 3 of those lines were degrading women. So the founder of our world, told his representative to deliver a final speech to the world, and it was a whole 13 lines, degrading women, and zip about life and how we were to live;;;NOT my vote.
kevinmelvillesimpson 1 week ago
@Armoterra - Lastly, and never in judgment, the two key scriptures that Muslims use to get Muhammad into the Holy Bible or discredit it are: John 14:16, in their attempt to say that the Bible is referring to there prophet, and in actual fact, it is referring to the Holy Spirit, the third part of the Holy Trinity; it is in writing. Second is John 10:30, where Muslims claim Jesus never claimed to be God, and He did, and it also is in plain writing. Romans 10:9 is needed by Muslims asap
kevinmelvillesimpson 1 week ago
@Mekelsior first of all, atheism can't be 'true', it's not a believe, it's a lack of one. Second, what is the purpose of worshipping God?
bommobiel 6 months ago
@bommobiel This is a christian speaking, and to answer your question, I guess we do it because we know we have someone to talk to.
kjayko1 3 months ago
@Meleksoir
Read the Quran, search with your heart, and Allah will be revealed to you no I'm not twisting any words that's exactly what your saying.
johnbgroovy 8 months ago
@Mekelsior I don't think you've searched as hard as I am STILL searching everyday to make sure my beliefs are correct. How hard have I really tried to search for God? Speak to a Buddhist, read the Quran, speak to Jehovah witnesses attend their services speak to Muslim. Their ideas are just as valid as yours if not more ! I don't trust you to tell me which god is real because you haven't truly searched the world out there with an open mind. To make an informed decision you need as much info a
johnbgroovy 8 months ago
@johnbgroovy I have been a JW for 17 years my friend so I have believed that Jesus was just a man, but the Bible is open and available for those that seek Him, the Bible is stating clearly that Jesus Christ is the Creator, that He is our God, that He is our Savior, our King and our Lord. I always seek that which is true, the entire world is denying Christ, JW, Islam, Buddism, most of Christianity as well as they refuse to obey the Commandments, such as the 7th day Sabbath. My <3 goes out to you.
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior
Your talking about absolutes. We will never know something 100% and yes thats true science doesn't deal with absolutes it deals with probabilities but it is utterly foolish to believe gravity might not work when you drop A ball. We can,t see, touch, taste, hear, or smell God nor has any scientific tool detected or undoubtedly pointed to a God THAT is not coincidence. If it were me I'd prefer a God but I don,t believe fairy tales that make me happy it's WRONG!
johnbgroovy 8 months ago
@johnbgroovy Hi John, there are many things we can`t see, touch, taste, hear or smell, yet we believe they exist based on the evidence that we see surrounding it. For example, there is no such thing as darkness, it is just absence of light. Nor can we identify a thought, yet if we hook a person up to a neurological device we are able to see that something is going on, yet we do not know what. Same with God, we see the evidence of His movings and from this evidence it is that we conclude. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@johnbgroovy I believe in God, based on the world I have around me, it is both philosophically sound to believe in a Creator even though we are unable to sense him by our imidate senses. God communicates to us differently and for those that do seek Him with all their heart, they WILL find Him. By careful study and contemplation of the Scriptures you will see that the Prophecies of Daniel and John in the book of Revelation speaks volumes on the existence of God. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mekelsoir
The theory however states that there is no God, or there is no need of God, that everything came from nothing. If this is the premise, then the only other option is God. <<< YOU
NO there's an option called " I don't know" the one that honest people use when they really don't know the answer. Only narrow minded presumptuous people will replace " I don't know for the "GOD" answer and forfeit any efforts to even contemplate investigation.
johnbgroovy 8 months ago
@johnbgroovy When you have only two options, either God exist or God does not exist, then it is impossible to state that "I don`t know" is a logical answer, if it is decided that it is false that God does not exist, ie Evolution is bunk.You could argue that you yourself is god but that is another discussion alltogether. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior
If you look back at history you will find that many people believed THOR, ZEUS, and JUPITER were the real GODS of the time that explained unknown phenomena. Now take the time to reflect on that point and ask your self are you doomed to repeat history?
I have an open mind to evidence and data that proves God's existence and so far everything has fallen short. I am patient enough to wait rather then put on a show of arrogance to having the answer already.
johnbgroovy 8 months ago
@johnbgroovy True, many did believe in many different things, but most of it was either Sun and moon worship and or the worship of the One Creator God also known as monotheism. When we look at the events happening in Egypt and Assyria after their confrontation with the Exodus and Jona the Prophet, we see entire sun worshiping civs converting to monotheism. For me this is very strong evidence that the Bible speaks the truth, then we have the time prophecies that no other religion have.
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior
At any rate I have taken the time and effort to at least look at these videos despite my atheism. All of the claims on these videos have been refuted many times over do the research ( like I did) and look for yourself. Even after reading the bible FAITH is still required for you to believe in GOD. Faith is believing something without evidence, I prefer to believe things based on empirical evidence.
johnbgroovy 8 months ago
@johnbgroovy It is always good to study and be open to new things and to challenge yourself and the paradigm that we have. Faith is based on evidence because it is not possible to obtain 100% knowledge of any single truth, Faith is needed in our everyday life as well. We have faith that we will be able to go down the stairs 5 in the morning to make breakfast, yet we do not know if we will be able to do so, perhaps we trip and stumble and then fall? It is possible to believe intelligently. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
Temperal Finitude?
DeathPunchGonebad 9 months ago
WATCH THE ARRIVALS!!
pinball281 9 months ago
This isn't a bad argument for the existence of a God, but it's certainly not a GOOD argument either.
Dennissays 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 My theory, is not really my theory but a shared understanding with a multitude of people, not that I argue that majority decides, yet it is worth noting that throughout history everything that has happend in the religious, political, and social aspects may be understood perfectly from the point of view of what we can call the Great Controversy between the forces of good and the forces of evil. If you are interested I can explain more about this?
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior I saw the vids you wanted me to see and the guy is very clever and to most non scientists it seems credible. But the vast majority of scientists aren't stupid. All the points raised about lead dating etc I am very sure has been looked at over the time dating methods have existed and taken into account. That's why we have multiple dating methods that are cross checked for accuracy. I hope everything is ok with you.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I`m doing very good thank you, thanks for asking. =) Professor Walter J Veith has thaught evolution for several years at a university of South Africa, he is a very credible scientist. There will always be scientists who stands firm on their believes regardless of the facts, and would thus argue for their position. Again this is a consequence of social factors rather than any conspiracy. Radiometric dating fails in all ways due to the premisses are not possible to verify.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior If your theory is about the Fall and about the Devil deliberatly giving us false information that sways us to the Dark Side and away from God then I am not interested. If it is something quite different that I probably haven't heard before, then sure, why not?
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 It has nothing to do with the devil giving us false information, but simply how humans works as a collective. We see it in religion, in politics and in certain areas of science, such as big pharma, where the idea is preserved more so due to conflicts of interrests rather than a pursuit of truth. A good example is the documentary called Indoctrination. Another one is to study the big food industries such as Monsanto and then lastly dermathology industry.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior OK.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I must pardon my late responds but I have been busy and needed to focus my attention to personal matters. I do agree that many religions have had a kind of evolution going on where they have progressed from simple into more complex but this is known as a sosiological phenomenon, it also works within political structures and scientifical structures. This is a very complex science but it can explain why there is such a dicothomy and controversy within the realm of science.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior You know we evolve in our lifetime. Soon after conception we are a sphere, then we become fish like, frog like, mammal like and finally human like. Then when we are born we have stunted arms and legs nothing like the proportions we have later. Our brain grows and develops, we get bigger and harier then we begin to asge and our skin wrinkles, hair can fall out and we even shrink. Day to day it is unnoticable but it happens.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 It is one thing to argue that we look like something and therefor we must be from whatever we look like, it could be simply good imagination, like seeing simular shapes in clouds for example. I do not think I agree with you that humans from birth to death is an adequate example of evolution, it could function allegorically but it would not address the core of the discussion namely.. where is the evidence without bias that everyone has to say.. yes that is true? :)
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Yes the way we change over time within our lifetime was not meant to be taken as the way organisms evolve. I was really trying to show that major changes in an organism are not at all unusual and if an organism like a frog (which is totally different as a juvenile) can change so much in a short time then it is no great leap to see a lizard become a snake, a dinosaur a bird or an ape into a human (eventually over small variations through generations).
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I believe it is still a great leap to see a lizard become a snake, or a dinosaur a bird, and ape into a human because the comparrison with the life cycle of a single organism such as the frog does not match. I believe Dr Berlinski made an estimate on how many changes had to be done from the hypotetical cow to the whale, there had to be at least 50 000 changes. If such a change were to happen the fossil record had to be filled with such evidence, this is not the case.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Well we do have transitional fossils of whales from terrestrial carnivores, to aquatic hunters, to primitive whales, to modern whales. I think it took something like 40 or 50 million years, but it did happen. Anyhow, most organisms do not fossilise. It is generally a very rare process and certain conditions must arise before it can occur,. We will never find more than a fraction of all life on Earth.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 It is estimated that you need about 50 000 changes or transitional forms in order to create the chain of events as you described, how many transitional forms have you found? Perhaps a dozen... so you are missing most of the chain. How then can you safely extrapolate that A lead to B in this case? From what we know of the fossil record is that in the past there was far greater variety than there is today, we are loosing more and more species every second.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior This is not strictly true. Yes there have been many more species in the past than what we see today but there are also more dead people than people currently alive. The fossil record covers over a Billion years of life. But over this time there have been population crashes as well as explosions. I think there was a massive one in the Permian and more than 90% of sp[ecies were wiped out. Another pop crash occured at the end of the Cretaceous.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 See evolution fits all the known facts. What needs to happen to show evolution is wrong would be to find a fossil or living animal that is a mix of different classes. Example: A bear like animal with antennae, fur, feathers and scales that has both lungs and gills and catches deer by spinning vast sticky webs. Find something like that and evolutionary theory as we know it will fly out the window.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 They have found just that, it is called fossil graveyards, all manners of species all bundled together.. what you wont find is a mix of all animals in one animal, creation does not make such predictions. Truth is there is nothing that can disprove evolution because there is nothing that can prove it. If we consider semantics. Evolution is not possible to falsify because it is based only on assumptions attached to a very low % of truth, organisms change and they adapt.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Organisms change and adapt. Yes that is evolution. That is it. If you and I are standing in a field and you move away by a metre you can still here me. Move another metre and you can still hear and see me. Make every metre a generation. Seamlessly, 1 metre at a time you move away, stop and talk. Eventually it is a struggle to hear eachother. Eventually you go over the horizon and no longer can be seen or heard. Its still moving just 1 metre at a time.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 When you move away from me 1 metre at a time you are simply walking. Its not micro walking or macro walking, its just walking. And the effect of walking, even though it is a slow process, is that you move away from A and end up at B. Small changes in DNA over generations slowly moves an organism from A to B. Then B to C and so on. And that's it. If you can accept squirrels slowly adapting and becoming new species of squirrel, just keep going and get a chipmunk!
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 What if there is a huge chasm or a unpassable wall between the squirrel and the chipmunks? Sean Pitman MD claims that this barrier lies about 1000 aminoacids, anything above this is simply impossible for natural selection and random mutations to overcome. Neo Darwinism agrees that the mechanism explained in gradualism is insufficient and thus concocted the "hopeful monster" theory or rather "Punctuated Equilibrium" on which side do you stand, neo or old? :)
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior It was just an example. I'm not saying chipmunks evolved from squirrels It might be vice versa. I was describing the way evolution works. No I don't believe there is an impassable wall. I have seen no evidence of this so I guess I'm old school. But gradualism is not always the case. I have no problem with occasional large leaps (depending how large) occuring that although usually fatal can very rarely lead to something useful.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I understand the fundamentals of evolutionary theory I just don`t accept it based on its explainatory value alone, I require more in order to change my current paradigm. One of the more interresting problems with the theory is its lack of present day evidence, yes we can show to small changes in nylonase digestion of bacterias but in the end the organism is still a bacteria and has limited evolutionary potential, this is the fact of every organism in this world.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior To see a bacteria become something else just isn't going to happen. Bacteria have been around for billions of years and as far as we are aware only once has a relative of bacteria evolved into multi cellular beings that ultimately gave rise to animals plants and fungi. You aren't talking about a change in species or even genera or family, you're talking about evolution from one kingdom to another!
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Any change we can see in our lifetime is not going to be big. Some examples of evolution: rabbits introduced to Australia 170 years ago are now bigger and tougher than european rabbits and are more resistant to myxamatosis. Cane toads inroduced to Australia in the 1930's are bigger too and some carry a leg deformaty (bad mutation) allowed to sweep through the population as the result of a lack of predation by other animals.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@Mekelsior But if you have a scientific tool that explains the variety of modern biology, prehistoric biology and can predict futre biology and can be used in medicine that actually works then why not accept it? Darwin knew that genetic information had to be passed on and predicted some form of "genes" before they had been discovered. DNA was discovered later and fits in perfectly with the theory. Too many coincidences methinks for it not to be at least largely true.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Creation science also fits with all the facts, you just need to change your paradigm, ie how you interpret the data and what explaination you accept as plausible. Watch all the presentations of Pr. Walter J Veith, he was a professor of Zoology for many years, he explains very readily a different explaination that covers most of the current conclusions that is made from the evolutionist point of view. Then consider the age of coal and the existance of compressed polonium halos.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 A little diversion: Notice how mythical creatures usually don't fit evolutionary theory? Giant reptiles that fly and breathe fire, horses with 1 horn, griffons both lion and eagle, medusa:a woman who can turn people to stone and has snakes instead of hair. Fairies only 6 inches long, strange people whose feet are on backwards... the list goes on and anyone of these creatures if real would challenge evolution (ecx unicorn, it could happen through mutation)
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Interestingly enough, it is difficult to find out if a creature that is fossil could breath fire or not. No, none of these if they existed would make a dent in the theory, simply because the theory itself is evolving and are adapting new environments.. it is still my understanding and analyze of it all to be a concept that have grown out of control.
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior The fire would not dent the theory but the dragon as a whole would. But if you really understand the way evolution works you will realise that if you mix certain characteristics together you destroy the sense of everything. And if that happens then you have to start again. Evolution as we know it would no longer explain the life we see.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Dragons are easily explained as dinosaurs, giant lizards, if they could fly or not that is not up to me and decide, although we do have a flying dinosaur the terraroptorix or something? ;) (reminds me of obelix anyway.. ) I believe that the requirement for falsification of evolution need to be so extraordinary as it is borderline fantasy and thus can we really talk about falsification at all? If the tenets are based on a little truth that the rest hangs on how can we falsify?
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Oh you can falsify. The piltdown man was a fake fossil and there have been others. I'm not talking about faking stuff, I'm talking about nature you take for granted. Why do bears have fur not feathers. Because it would not be right if they did. Their other features are mamallian, specificially of the Order Carnivora. No mammal has feathers. Feathers evolved on a different branch of the tree of life after the mammal line had already begun.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@Mekelsior That fits in perfectly with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory predicts we will never find a fossil with features of bird and fish for example. Zoologists use it to predict they will never find a new type of monkey with scales and a beak. And we don't. We never do. When we find something new we can compare it to known organisms and after some debate, fit it neatly within the catalogue of known organisms. It is a powerful tool to explain what we find in the Natural World.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 To predict what kind of animals you would find in the various habbitats is not really rocket science. It is easy to predict that you will find beavers and otters near the oceans and rivers close to trees and so on, it is ecology the study of habitats, you do not need evolutionary theory here to explain anything. Creation Science equally does not predict you will find a bird with scales, so there really is no difference between the two paradigms when it comes to this. =)
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior But evolutionary theory explains WHY birds have feathers (and they do have scales, on their legs - evidence of their link with dinosaurs) and bats don't whereas creationism does not explain WHY. It is just God's Will, and that is it.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Funnily enough in Australia you do not find beavers in forest rivers and they do not have otters near the sea. Nothing like the otter or beaver exist in Australia. The platypus does not cut down trees and fur seals are very different to otters. Guess what scientific theory explains that too?
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 True, it is easy to come with explainations but as I have said previously, explaination is not evidence of reality. It may be, but it is not that by default. For me, there is no scientifical reason why I should believe in evolution rather than creation, as there are to many questions that evolutionary theories does not explain, for example, why is the creb (spelling) cycle in pretty much every living organism, when NS could not influence its creation?
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior When you can derive hundreds and thousands of explanations all consistant with eachother and the available evidence, the chances that the tool you use (evolution through Natural Selection in this case) is wrong is incredibly unlikely. We do not have complete 100% proof positive that the Theory is correct but we do know that the likliehood is 99.99999999999999% and that is because if we had it wrong then some of our explanations should contradict other explanations.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Natural Selection is not the only mechanism that drives evolution. Sexual Selection is another (peacock feathers for example) But its all evolution. Now what is this Creb Cycle you write of? I have not heard of it so I can give no comment on it.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I`m not a zoologist nor have I studied what animals are on the various continents, but I`m sure there are many, and in each continent it would be easy to predict that animals living near the water would be able to swim and to be able to walk on land. The name of the initial animal is not really important. =)
Mekelsior 9 months ago
@Mekelsior That's because animals in a particular habitat are adapted to fit in it. But what particular type of animal is the one that in an environment IS important. If God created everything then it would make sense for beavers to be worldwide, for otters to be worldwide for squirrels to be worldwide, but instead we have vastly different types of animals performing similar roles in similar environments. God does not logically explain this.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 To give an example, the humble squirrel you would think, would inhabit tpretty much every forest Worldwide, and it does get pretty close to this but suddenly in Australia instead of squirrels (which are rodents) we have various possums fulfilling a similar role of the squirrel (which are marsupials - they have pouches like kangaroos.) And whereas deer or similar are also found nearly everywhere, in Australia the kangaroo fills that niche,
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@Mekelsior Before you say you do not accept evolution you probably should study the distribution of animal life across the continents because if you do that you will realize just how well the theory explains the distribution while creationism just leaves you with a puzzled head as to why elephants are found in Africa and Asia but not New Zealand, why there are penguins only in the Southern Hemosphere and polar bears only in the Northern Hemosphere,and so much more.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 You say Creation theory explains the fact as well as Evolutionary Theory. But it does not. The answer it will give why penguins are only in the South and polar bears in the North is that God has His reasons and it is not for us to know them. That is not an explanation. I do not have a puzzled head because using the tool of evolution consistant with the evidence of the distribution of bears etc, I know why this is so.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@Mekelsior It is easy to see why you are skeptical about evolution because without an understanding of the different Orders and Classes of animals and their geographical distribution you would be blind to the importance of evolutionary theory to explain the World around us. I think you should do some basic research, Wiki Placental Mammals then Wiki Marsupial Mammals. You will find they are enormously different despite external appearances.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of how evolution works but I can only see it working in theory and not in real life or practicallity. The points I made was simply that to argue that evolution only happens in populations and then refer to some individuals in the populations changed and then a split occured kinda defeats the premise. We do see populations split and change but just because they are unable to reproduce at a later state does not mean evolution. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Yes it does because that is basically the definition of specism. If two organisms that look practically identical are not able to reproduce then by definition they are different species.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 The argument is then as follows, because we KNOW that all dogs are in the same family, such as wolves, jackals, coyoties, foxes and all dogs including wild dogs. This same argumentation is possible to take with you when looking at other groups who have been classified as different species but in reality it is just a variations within the "kind". Thus the term kind is in this case more accurate. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior So are bears of the same KIND as dogs? Fossils have been found with features of both dogs and bears, and genetically dogs and bears are closer than dogs and cats. But dogs and cats are closer than cats and squirrels, And squirrels and mice are closer genetically than mice and moles. Are they all of the same KIND? No they are very different, but they do have morphological structures in common and the DNA confirms their relationship.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 How do you know they are features of both? Could it be that dogs and bears were burried together and thus confused? It is probable.. Morphology is based on inference of the scientist and the imagination of the artist. DNA, again we have mapped some of the genes, that make up a miniscule % of the entire DNA, I do not understand how people can accept this argument from ignorance. Map the entire DNA then it could be taken as evidence. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Probable? Do you really think that little of anatomists that they can't tell the difference between the bones of dogs and bears and the bones of a transitional form between the two?!? Even I could tell the difference if only because of the huge size difference between dog and bear bones! Besides, the bones had to fit together so they were obviously compatable in size. And the "dog" features were huge because these animals were big. Other scientists examine also and verify fossils
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Since I do not know the story I was simply asking a question, is it not good to ask questions? :) To assume that dogs and bears are related based again on homology is again based on inference. Let me ask you this, on what basis and grounds do you want to demonstrate such? DNA testing perhaps? So dogs or wolves, were huge in the past, sure but does that not go in the face of evoluton who states from small to big? :)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior No problem in asking questions. Maybe the word "probable" was a poor choice and was meant to be "possible." :) Dogs and bears have been shown to be closely related based on morphology, the fossil record which has many different transitional species and indeed DNA. Detailed molecular relationships amongst all the carniviores (that includes dogs and bears) have been conducted and we have excellent knowledge of the relationships of all (or most) species in the entire Order. :)
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior An elephant colony can get stranded on a small island and evolve into a smaller form (like the Dwarf Elephant Stegadon fossils of which have been found on the island of Flores in Indonesia, now extinct). so that it does not run out of food sources. There is no rule that says a small form must become big and no big animal can become small. It all depends on the environment. The pygmy people of the Congo jungles are around 4 feet or so but they evolved from larger ancestors.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I would argue that it is not evolution that decide the size of an organism, but rather the food source. Evolution does however state that we all evolved from a single cell, which is rather small.. and then became more and more complex. If there are some variations between the various scientists that profess evolution, sure. Some would argue from small to big, some would pay less attention. In text books it is presented as small to bigt, in many cases anyway. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior All life evolved from single celled organisms so in that sense we have evolved from small to big, but once you have multicellular forms like animals, plants and fungi, you can go from big to small or small to big repeatedly no problem. Now you are right, the scarcity of food does play a big role in the morphology of species and that is all part of Natural Selection. Maybe you need to know more about what NS actually is?
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior This genetic relationship consistant with particular anatomical markers is consistant throughout life from bacteria to plants and animals. Flowering plants of the greatest variety are all closer genetically than they are with ferns for example. Squids are closer to ants. Fish are closer to birds. Squids and humans are equally close with cabbages, explained because we both share a common ancestor destined to father the entire Animal Kingdom.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 They may be closer in gene count but as we have only mapped 2% of the genes it would be dishonest to say that ants produced squids, especially since they are contemporary. If we are to consider the layers they are found common sense would dictate that if they were burried in a flood, ants would be higher up due to its habbitat. Now.. here is a thing, bee hive fossils.. explain that? They should not be there at all. How old is bees according to evolutonary thinking?
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Who is talking about ants becoming squids?!? You claim you have an understanding of evolutionary theory then you make a statement that seems to show lapses in understanding. Ants and squids are more closely related genetically than squids and humans primarily because ants and squids are inverterbrates and we are verterbrates. By no means did celaphapods become insectoria or vice versa. They do share a common ancestor way back in time before insects or celaphopods existed!
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I do not believe I have said that ants evolved into squids, or that evolutionists believe that, perhaps you can give me the quote? My argument have been always that it is easy to make an assumption based on your paradigm, and such transitional stories are just that, it is based on inference and the paradigm of the beholder. Now, you have still not talked about the kreb cycle and other complex systems or how these things came about or anything like that. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Yes I have unless Youtube ate it. Complex systems like cells etc did evolve but the science is highly technical and books fill entire chapters explaining it. It is not in my ability to easily explain how this happened with this limited space, I reccomend you Google these and read up on them on wiki or biology websites. I used the city metaphor remember? You didn't like it! :) Well, lI tried...
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I asked by what mechanism did it evolve when natural selection does not work on the genotype? It should be easy to just mention the mechanism. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior The cells did evolve through Natural Selection. As always, the best adapted cells survive in a particular environme\nt while the less well adapted die out. As particular environments change those cells that adapt to this change continue to survive while the others die out. That is the basic mechanism. The enviromental factors include competiition, energy efficiency, faster reproduction or stronger offspring etc.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior You said that it would be dishonest to say that ants produced squids. I took that to mean you thought Evolutionary Theory says that.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Yeah, lack of space to write comments here in youtube may result in loss of meaning and then often loss of argument.
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Yes in trying to condense we can make things hard to understand correctly :)
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Insects have been around since long before the dinosaurs. Bees would have evolved sometime after the evolution of flowering plants, probably during the Cretaceous. That's over 65 million years ago. No problem with hive fossils or termite fossils or other insect fossils.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Then you have fossils of bees that were living outside the hive? The hive have to evolve as well, how did this happen and what evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior The hive is very interesting. There are many species of bees and hive complexity varies greatly as well. Although the hive of the honeybee is mathematically perfect other bee species have hives not as perfect in having that hexagon pattern, But one species's hive was expertly studied by a mathematician who realised that it was only 1 decimal place away from the perfect design of the honeybee! 1 behavioural gene mutation could give this species hexaganal hives too!
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 How old is the oldest hive fossil that is found? How did it evolve and do you have any fossils that display this?
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Complex hives evolved from simpler hives. We can see how this occured because as I said there are many species of bees that have hives that range from the very basic to the complex. Presumably it was the bees facing the greatest evolutionary pressure that ended up becoming our honey bees. I don't know how old the earliest fossil hive found was but I could look it up if you really want to know. Does not mean there are not older ones waiting to be discovered though.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior The oldest bee so far is 100million years old and has features of both bees and wasps so it is another transitional form! Its also about 15 million years older than the oldest bee found before then which places hives at the time I said above. This 100 000000 y old bee is unlikely to have had a hive and probably had a nest like wasps as it is so primitive a bee. Or it had a hive much like a nest. So bees evolved from wasps as we thought! We have proof!
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Now if God designed the bee why did He make different species; only 1 of which has the perfect mathematical hive design? And why do some bee species not make honey at all? Also, bees, wasps and ants are all quite similar in many ways. Are they all of one Kind or not according to Creationism?
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 All bee species were one kind yeah, it is the most logical conclusion, and we see that over time variations within the genes does happen and thus speciation occur. If ants, wasps, bees are one kind i can`t answer. With time we may learn the truth by more study of the organisms, but because of evolutionary theory we may never learn the truth, because it is not even considered that they may be the same.
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior I have loved animals since I was a kid and I always wanted to know how they got here. I heard the story of Adam and Eve but it never really impressed me. I was also skeptical of scientists digging up a jaw bone and declaring it to be a mammal or reptile etc. How could they tell? But when I got older I began investigating all of this and now I know how they can tell. It all does make sense when you know the facts. You need to read some books on prehistoric life.
geniusrepairman1 9 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 I have read some and I know the arguments very well, and I see also the danger of indoctrination by this study and by accepting the semantics of scientists. I have said several times that it is important to remove the assumptions and then see if the theory has any merit. What I have read so far is filled with assumption, remove them and everything falls in on itself. But by all means, it is important to study everything, to be critical and to be willing to accept truth.
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior The theory has merit because it concicely explains the Natural World of Life On Earth.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Well, so does that of intelligent design and creationism, both explain concicely the natural world of life on earth. =) There is no difference between the two paradigms in quallity of explaination, the same evidence is looked at the paradigm decide the meaning of the evidence. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Neither theory explains how its done. If ID involved technology then what were the tools and how does it work? Also why are there so many designs in different animals that do the same thing, like eyesight? Octopi have more efficient vision than we do in that the optic nerve connects to the front of their brain, why we need a much longer nerve stretching right to the back of our brain.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Octopi would be blind in an instant if they were landborn with those eyes. So functionallity would be my guess. It was designed to be in the water, humans were designed to be on land. =) Again, I do not need to know the process of how to make a hammer in order to use it, I do not need to know how God created us in order to study how we function. Evolution does not even touch on origin and there is no problem there for any scientist. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior The advantage of an optic nerve attached to the visual processers of the brain right behind the eyes has nothing to do with being aquatic or land based. It is vastly better because the optic nerve does not have to travel right through the brain like it has to do in all vertebrates so less can go wrong. Its like an extension cord. The longer the cord the more the chance one part will get damaged. This happens in humans often.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 So you are arguing that if humans had the eye of the squidd we would be better off? But if you do take the squid up, how would the sun affect it`s eyes?
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior No I am arguing that if we had the part of the brain that processed vision at the FRONT of the brain rather than the BACK as octopi do then we would have faster vision processing because the nerve impulses would not have to travel so far and less complications due to having a shorter optic nerve. The eyes themselves would need to be adapted for land.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 But then you argue that we actually need faster vision in order to be humans? I manage just fine with whatever i do, and I even use glasses. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Of course if we had eyes that saw the right way up (our eyes see upside down and our brain vision processor has to turn the picture the right way round!) like a squid would be helpful too. If Octopi could play Online games against us they would beat us every time because they can process what they see faster than we can. So why did God give us eyes that see upside down? And octopi eyes that see the right way up? By the way, fish see upside down too, and they live in the sea too...
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Do you have any problem seeing anything upside down? I don`t so how can argue it would help to see everything the right way? We already do bro. =) I do not argue that our eyes are better, I argue that they are good enough. =) Big difference there, and again to ask why God did this and why He didn`t do this is a logical fallacy. Does our eyes work, are we able to see in this world we are in?
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Yes our eyes work ok but they are hardly the construct of an intelligent designer because they are set up illogically and rather shoddily. There are many more problems with our eyes including blind spots, and easily detached retinas. Our brain has to "photoshop" everything we see by filling in details based on guesswork of the image we do see! As well as our blind spot the brain has to filter out blood vessels that block our vision. Otherwise we would see veins everywhere!
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior If the eyes were professionaly built it would be easy to fix most of these problems but our ancestor that had the basics of our eyes was a slug like creature (not an actual slug) with a basic spinal cord. And because evolution can only build on what isalready there we are stuck wth a bad system that only really works because of a good brain processor (that uses up energy that could have been used for other things).
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 @geniusrepairman1 If the eyes were professionaly built? My challenge to you is to build some eyes or refer me to anyone that has done so, that are better than the human eyes and maybe you have an argument. =) Remove the assumption of evolution, how then is your view on the eyes? if your not able to do something better then how can you argue they are bad, do you have problems with focusing in on an object, do you have a need to be able to see atoms?
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Better eyes have been built and they belong to Octopi. So if it's possible to have "professionally designed eyes" then why don't any backboned animals have them? Even eagles with their great vision have to waste processing power to turn the images they see the right way up.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 But we are not octopi? And again, the eyes of the octopi would burn out on land.. or so they say. Were we designed by God to be an eagle or an octopi, is this your argument? We are humans, let the eagle be the eagle :) I do believe you are asking the wrong question, if you compare the human eye with the perhaps most technological device we humans have made, the hubble telescope, you will find that the human eye is far superior. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Again, I was not talking about the eye itself, but its underlying structure. And I am not talking about vision eoither. I am talking about evidence of Intelligent Design, and considering that the architecture of our eyes is seriously illogical especially when other another phylum has eyes that ARE logical, the theory of ID over ET is seriously compromised. Unless a very smart God designed the octopus and a fairly average God was assigned the task of designing humans.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior The other point is if humans are meant to be the pinnicle of creation then why did he put the eye equivilent of the Rolls Royce in the octopus and give us eyes equivilent of a mini minor?
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 From where do you get the notion that being the crown of creation means that we are the strongest (blue whale), fastest (cheeta?) the most dexterious or most gracious? just curious, we are the smartest, we have the abillity to decide and to say no, we have free will.. we are made in the image of God as to experience what it means to be creative, we can create music and art and so on. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior We may not be the strongest or fastest but surely we should be the best designed. That means having 100% efficiency. Otherwise why plonk a great brain into an average animal that has serious design flaws? We should use 100% of our fuel (food) but we waste (excrete) a lot of valuable nutrients. We see well but waste a lot of energy doing so. We have hair that always needs to be cut. We have useless wisdom teeth that often cause trouble, the appendix... inefficient, mediocre.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Do you know.. if we the humans ran on gasoline, we would be able to run for 18000 miles on 1 gallon.. is that not efficent? what else would you ask for.. "Ah no.. thats not good enough.. make it a billion miles.. or make it infinite miles.." how about if we needed no food? Would that not be efficient? What if we did not die.. or what if we could fly? How many excuses are you going to make friend? I`m not ridiculing your positon here, I just don`t see your argument. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Let me be clearer. Why do we excrete valuable nutrients? We eat and drink to gain vitamins and minerals for our cells in our body so we can continue to function effectively. If we were Intelligently Designed then it should have been possible to make a system that allowed us to extract all the nutrients from our food, or at least all of it except for a trace. But a lot of those nutrients end up getting flushed and we consequently must eat more than we should need to.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Show me one human created device that is more efficient than the human body, running on gas or diesell or anything.. then you got my attention. The rest is easily explained as we are fallen mankind and are not functioning according to the original design. We die and waste away because of Sin.
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Anyway, to clarify.. the reason why we are falling a part is many, one is diet and exercise, if we live according to the health laws of God we are able to live more fully and to be more healthy. The second is why are we decaying in the first place? The answer here is sin, we lost our immortallity when we rebelled against God and decided to live without Him. Then since we are a copy of a copy of a copy our stature are accordingly. Im amazed of how well the design is really. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Original Sin. All the suffering of the World stems from this even though no non human life (apart from the snake) had anything to do with Eve eating the apple. What a terrible crime, to disobey God just once when clearly His understanding of psychology would be that sooner or later Adam and Eve would not be able to resist temptation. He must have known that so we never had a chance. Why would you want to believe this story? I do not understand this.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 It is not a matter of original sin, it is a matter of human choice. You mention psycology, our picture of that is also faulty, Adam and Eve had a choice, they did not know what they were going to choose until they had chosen, God knew, but still He created them, because it would all be worth it in the end, no matter what happened. This is an expression of His love, it is also part of the paradigm of Creation, that I believe in, so you must take that into consideration. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior You say you believe in this paradigm but you don't say why you believe it. I still don't understand why so much suffering had to happen if He does love us. I was not trying to be discourtious to your beliefs, I just find it hard to understand the whole logic of the situation.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior That is because Biogenesis touches on the subject of origin. Biogenesis is a recent scientific discipline and it has not got hundreds of years of research like most other disciplines. We do not know exactly how life originated...yet.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Biogenesis have existed for a very long time, just that scientist have been slow in picking it up.. and hesitant to investigate it.. anyway.. wish them all the best.. time is however running out of this world and this is to me a very strong indication that the earth is becoming like an old garment.. Japan just dumped 12000 tons of radiactive spill water into the oceans, causing more polution to the fish..
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Yes but the Earth has suffered much more than that over the eons including massive earthquakes, mass volcanic erruptions and meteorite strikes. Earth is still here even if entire Orders of life are now extinct. Our sun is middle ages so we should have 2 to 4 billion years left. We may not be here then but Earth should be. This is based on our understanding of the lifecucle of suns.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior If life was created supernaturaly then how does that work? What was the magic used? Was the clay important? Did women specificaly need to be created with a male human rib or would something else be just as good. If not why not? See, evolution on its own is not enough. To be accepted people had to discover a mechanism or way that it works. Once this was done evolution began to become accepted as mainstream science. Same with ID (but ID and C have flaws as I have shown already).
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 If you ask by what mechanism God created, by His Power, simple as that. We need to accept that some things is beyond our capabillities to even comprehend, we can`t even comprehend the size of the known universe how could we comprehend its Creator? We can discover how everything works within our sphere, such as biology, physiology, we can see how the earth functions as well, no probs there. We don`t need the knowledge of origin how God did it, in order to know it`s function.
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior But where is the evidence of Adam and Eve? You are constantly telling me that all the evidence I have shown you are just assumptions that work on paper but not in real life but where is your empirical evidence of Creationism? Where is the Imperical evidence of The Bible being the word of God? You may have heard this before but Shakespeare wrote pretty profound stuff too. And The Lord Of The Rings has the mythology of an entire World within. Yet written by a man.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 You want me to change my faith, based on assumptions that man kind have done about something that happened billion of years ago? Adam and Eve at least have the Bible, a written account, it is also shared with a many civs out there that have a similar story of creation. Emperical evidence for the Bible being the word of God, is the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, that explain perfectly what is happening today and what will happen in the future. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior But these prophecies have been used before and were wrong then. In 1000AD the people of Europe believed the end of the World was imminent, and here we are over 1000 years later. Just last week a Christian group said the World would end and they were amazed that we are all still here! And I don't want you to change your faith, but perhaps you could see that the Bible is not a history book but a text on morality and the nature of God.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Assume God exists and He contacts Abraham and tells him He is the One True God. Abraham asks how the World was created and God goes into a very detailed explanation on the Laws of Physics, Cosmology, Evolutionary Theory, etc. Abraham, having a Bronze Age education, says "Huh?" God explains again in terminology Abraham can understand (he can't even use terms like millions of years) . Drastically simplifying and using metaphor to help clarify, the first chapter is written.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior Think about it, if God had explained the nature of the Universe accurately and scientifically He would not be understood. He had no choice but to simplify and use metaphors for his audience. Otherwise the firtst part of the book would be meaningless technobabble. The Adam and Eve story was included as a morality tale about obeying Him. It also helps to explain to Bronze Age folk the reason humans are self concious and animals seem not to be. We are now ready for sci exp.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior So I am not saying you cannot or should not believe in God (regardless of my own beliefs) but rather temper your belief to fit the evidence. Science cannot disprove God but it can show how Universal Laws can operate without divine intervention. Science cannot disprove the existence of Heaven and Hell either. So believe in God and have faith in Jesus and remember that even if the Bible was written by God, it was written a long time ago for a different audience.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior You will say that the Bible was written for EVERYONE past present and future so that all shall know God and embrace Him. Perhaps, but again, it still needed to be written down in a language understood by both the educated and uneducated alike. The Book Of Genesis had to be writrten for that criteria (again using the assumtion of it being the Word Of God). So Evolutionary Theory and Cosmology would overcomplicate and confuse too many people from getting the real message of God.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 To come with a simple allegory, I do not need to know how the computer was made, or how the letters that I use was made, or how water was made, in order to know how to use the computer. Same way, we can simply study life and the complexities that is there and give credit where credit is due instead of claiming that No one made it, which is by level of quanity the same as saying God did it, not in quallity however, God makes more sense, to me at least. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior But if the computer breaks down you need someone who knows hw computer's are made to come and fix it. By knowing how letters were invented, (as we do), we learn about the psychology and languages of our ancestors and our lives are enriched. I read books on it and it is fascinating subject! If we want to live on the moon in the future it might be helpful to know how to combine Hydrogen and Oxygen together to make water, Knowing about Elements is v helpful with technology too!
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@geniusrepairman1 Let me give you an example of what I mean, classifications and evolutionary trees and definition of species means little if nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. We all know that dogs come from the wolf. Yet the smallest dog and the biggest dog are not able to procreate normally, thus they are different species, however we KNOW they are not. Thus it is very possible that this occurs naturally in nature as well, and we have reclassified species as we learn more. =)
Mekelsior 8 months ago
@Mekelsior The smallest and biggest dog can not procreate normaly because of their size differential, not their DNA,. Some very obese humans also have trouble procreating but they are still human beings. The thing is, DNA confirms the Tree Of Life because the % differences in DNA pan out according to taxominy which is exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. In otherwords, all the cat family are closer molecularly than they are with the dog family which is closer in DNA to the bear family
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago
@Mekelsior This fits in with cat, dog and bear morphology and it fits in with their position in the taxonomic record. And not just these animals, but nearly all life on the planet has DNA consistant with where they fit on the tree. Bit much to be a coincidence seeing as Darwin knew nothing of DNA and now here it is fitting perfectly in the theory as if he knew all about it,.
geniusrepairman1 8 months ago