Personaly, I dont know alot about it. Ill probably read up on it later though. But my biology teacher was saying that since the enviroment was much different then and so was the body structure....proving human adaptation. And he said the people around that height were probably more stable than todays giants, cause gerenaly, when your 7'6 or above your body isnt strong enough, as seen even in Yao Ming. Im not sure, I personaly read Goliath was about 7-8 foot, but other may say otherwise.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjcolpitts? @ May 16 2007, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You have to disprove Evolution using Science. Tell me, has any scientist ever found the "Missing Link" that connects chimps to man? The answer is no; thats the way you have to disprove the Evolution theory, the bible way wont work.</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ May 16 2007, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But Evolution does have a lot of holes in it, such as missing links ect.</div>One problem with this is that evolution is not linear. In other words, it does not always go single-celled organism --> multi-celled organism --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> ape --> human --> whatever. Now, obviously the first two are pretty undisputable since you'd doubt that the multi-celled organism would come first, but in other cases, people seem to misunderstand how evolution works. It can go in any direction... an population of a certain animal could gain a "positive" trait (like an opposable thumb) or a "negative" trait (like cancer). An animal could gain the ability to breath out of water or lose it... there's nothing in DNA that says that we will only get better and gain wings or anything. Anyway, I'm digressing a bit. The point is that it is not believed that we evolved from chimps or apes, but a common ancestor. That causes a problem, because if you are trying to find a link between us and apes, there is none. The link you would need to find is the one between us and said ancestor (which would also need to be found).
Yeah, theres alot of stuff that shows that human kind has evolved. Im not really denying that "survival of the fittest" or even some parts of evolution doesn't happen, cause theres a few things that proves we do change over time. For example, fetus's have gills, we end up losing them, but a human baby actually starts out with gills. Thats incredible to think about. I guess the real reason I argue evolution as a whole is because alotve people try to prove it, just to prove God wrong. Which my personal opinion is God works in a scientific manner. Thats me though, I understand why people would believe strictly in evolution. But I have my own reasons in believing in God...yet you cant deny the fact of science. I dont believe we all evolved from a common ancestor, but I do believe we evolve.
I find it funny when people say stuff about the bible like 'it's a series of stories to help us live our lives better' and 'it should be taken literally' becaue those are fairly modern ideas about religion. The bible did used to be taken as fact, people believed that the world was wiped out in a great flood bar Noah's family. As time has gone on people/religion tries to adapt so it doesn't sound so absolutely crazy that people would stop believing in god. Evolution is science, religion is just a crazy belief. Even if you don't think it's crazy, it is still just a belief that can't be proven in any way. I'm not going to say evolution is perfect, because it isn't, but at least a lot of it can be proven.
With all we know now I believe in evolution myself. If you think on a grander spectrum then just us as human beings you'd see we all are just a small insignificant part of the worlds cycle. someday people will look back on our civilizations like we do on dinosaurs and that's the way the earth is... always revolving and evolving. christianity is a creation of man, our era in time is very minoscule in comparison to the entire history of our planet much less time.
It's like those people who say "if people evolved from apes then why are there still apes?" Duh, people didn't evolve from apes, they are ancestors to apes but didn't directly evolve from them. I'm not well versed in this topic so I'll stop while I'm kinda ahead.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ May 18 2007, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's like those people who say "if people evolved from apes then why are there still apes?" Duh, people didn't evolve from apes, they are ancestors to apes but didn't directly evolve from them. I'm not well versed in this topic so I'll stop while I'm kinda ahead.</div>Well... the reason there are still apes is because there is a niche for apes. It's not like one day an ape wakes up and is like, "Durr, I'm a human!" Apes don't just stop existing due to other species arising from evolution... that's just silly.
exactly, there were still ancient crocodiles even when the dinosaurs existed. evolution arises because of a need, such as birds from different regions having different types of beaks. It doesn't mean that a species entirely changes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (austingriz @ May 16 2007, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>True, the Bible isnt proven fact, but there is alot of historical accurate stuff in there that we havent found out about until recently. But im not trying to prove science wrong..cause I believe that we DO "evolve", but not in the sense of evolution. Im just saying that evolution isnt a proven fact either. Like you said, there hasnt been a missing link found yet.</div>I think the Bible WAS a book of facts when Jesus first introduced it to, but when Peter and the others came and changed it...it wasn't. Well thats what I believe.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (desi tmac91 @ May 18 2007, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think the Bible WAS a book of facts when Jesus first introduced it to, but when Peter and the others came and changed it...it wasn't. Well thats what I believe.</div>Yeah but what is that even based on?I did read this really good book about evolution vs. creation, and it was pretty interesting. Too bad I don't remember what it was. It basically talked about how the Bible can be reliable for scientific information but it's odd that the creation and evolution, basically how we got here, is still up for debate. Also, a lot of scientists have admitted that they can't believe how this world came without a bigger thing (God).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (7Goat @ May 18 2007, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah but what is that even based on?I did read this really good book about evolution vs. creation, and it was pretty interesting. Too bad I don't remember what it was. It basically talked about how the Bible can be reliable for scientific information but it's odd that the creation and evolution, basically how we got here, is still up for debate. Also, a lot of scientists have admitted that they can't believe how this world came without a bigger thing (God).</div>My belief that it was based on the Quran since the two holy books are so similar, and that the Quran was never changed since it was written.Yeah and thats where we got scientists beat. How did we get here? I doubt cells or some stuff like that had nothing to do with it. There has to be a God, there is no other explanation from what I see it.
Well, the Bible isn't just about a God that creates and let's things be. Similarly, the Quran also is an assertion about the nature of God. His desires and requirements. That's where the debate should be centered.The argument over evolution is just a method of politicizing spirituality against science.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (desi tmac91 @ May 19 2007, 04:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My belief that it was based on the Quran since the two holy books are so similar, and that the Quran was never changed since it was written.Yeah and thats where we got scientists beat. How did we get here? I doubt cells or some stuff like that had nothing to do with it. There has to be a God, there is no other explanation from what I see it.</div>OMG!?!Why? Why does there HAVE to be a god? Because you don't uderstand science? Because you have been told there was a god since you were a child?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ May 18 2007, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>OMG!?!Why? Why does there HAVE to be a god? Because you don't uderstand science? Because you have been told there was a god since you were a child?</div>Ok first chill out. Now tell me why you think there's no God or how we exist?
There is a god. I know he exists. I have a close relationship now with Jesus and God. Ever since I have been praying more and stuff, my life has gotten alot better. Call it corny, I know it sounds that way, but I don't care.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (desi tmac91 @ May 19 2007, 06:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ok first chill out. Now tell me why you think there's no God or how we exist?</div>There is no god, its an insane idea. If nobody believed in god and all of a sudden people started spouting this stuff then you would be called crazy. The only reason you're not is because people have been telling their children for years is true.I shouldn't have to prove their isn't a god, you should have to prove their is. Just like if I was to claim that there are invisible pink elephants flying around the world singing J-Lo songs I would expect you to disprove it, I would have to prove it. By the way IMO that idea is not even as crazy as there being a god.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ May 17 2007, 10:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>One problem with this is that evolution is not linear. In other words, it does not always go single-celled organism --> multi-celled organism --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> ape --> human --> whatever. Now, obviously the first two are pretty undisputable since you'd doubt that the multi-celled organism would come first, but in other cases, people seem to misunderstand how evolution works. It can go in any direction... an population of a certain animal could gain a "positive" trait (like an opposable thumb) or a "negative" trait (like cancer). An animal could gain the ability to breath out of water or lose it... there's nothing in DNA that says that we will only get better and gain wings or anything. Anyway, I'm digressing a bit. The point is that it is not believed that we evolved from chimps or apes, but a common ancestor. That causes a problem, because if you are trying to find a link between us and apes, there is none. The link you would need to find is the one between us and said ancestor (which would also need to be found).</div>See, I understand all that, but I can see how you could take what I've said the other way. I call it a "missing link" not because we're looking for the "ape-turned man", but the common ancestor like you said, which in turn is still a missing link. Anyways, glad you went into further detail than I did because you explained it a lot better than I could have.Also, I'd like to talk about the whole "Why do you believe in God and the Bible and whatnot" question. Some people are saying they believe in God, but are then asked "Well how do you prove the Bible with science; if you cant prove it with science, then its not real blah blah blah." Well, if you were able to prove things in the Bible true, then it wouldnt be faith, it'd be science. There is a reason why its called faith, because you just have to believe in it in your heart of hearts to be faith." To me, its quite a simple idea and logic.
This stuff really interests me. I personally don't believe in evolution, it doesn't make sense to me. Creationism makes more sense. What I actually believe, I am not completely sure- but I like to keep an open mind. When I was researching creationism vs. evolution one time, I came across some interesting stuff. I am going to share with you guys some of it (by the way, when I say creationism, I am more so talking about christianity since that is what the stuff I found was based on). More than 90% of this stuff will come from the resources I found and my earth and space class at school. Even if you don't believe in this stuff, I am not 100% that I do, it is still interesting if you actually care about finding out where we actually came from. You have to have an open mind.______The Big Bang theoryFirst of all, a lot of people think the "Big Bang" theory supports evolution and not creationism, when in fact, it does support creationism. The theory states that the entire universe began as a super-hot, super massive "explosive point," and that the universe continues to expand. The first chapter of Genesis (in the Bible) says that God created the universe out of nothing. The Big Bang theory also says that the universe was created out of nothing. If the universe was created the way the Big Bang theory says it was, we should see stars and galaxies moving away from each other (and away from us). We should be able to detect cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang's fiery explosion. Both of these things have been observed as the theory predicts.The Big Bang theory is actually bad news for evolution. Why? Darwin's theory requires extremely large amounts of time to produce the necessary changes in living forms. However, the Big Bang theory says that there was a beginning, a point in time when the universe was created, and that point in time wasn't long ago- not long enough for any organism to evolve. According to most matchematicl calculations, a universe even 100 billion years old is not old enough for the development of a single cell.Some scientists dislike the Big Bang idea because it sounds too much like biblical Creation.In the 1920s, Albert Einstein said that the universe was infinitely large and infinitely old- with no beginning. Later, Einstein said this was, "..the greatest mistake of my life." He understood that there was a beginning.Is there any proof that evolution happend?It depends on what you mean by "evolution." The term "evolution" basically means "change," and is too broad to be very useful in a discussion. There are four basic ways the word evolution is used: Microevolution, Macroevolution, Universal Common Descent, and Natural Selection (survival of the fittest).Darwin's followers say that life forms became more and more complex through a gradual process. However some scientists have given up on that notion of gradual change. They insist that there simply is not enough time since the beginning of the universe for all of the required changes to have taken place gradually. Darwin's theory of evolution does not account for the beginning of life on earth.Darwin even said, "Not one chang of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1 Page 210 1905)Can molecules of non-living matter be transformed by a natural process into the organic building blocks of life (proteins)?It is virtually impossible to produce important life molecules, such as proteins, from simple molecules. Proteins in all living things are assembled from basic "alphabet" of 20 amino acids. Each different type of protein is formed from a unique arrangement of these chemical "letters." To form a protein that actually works, the amino acid letters must be arranged in precise sequences, like letters of a sentence. This precise sequence creates a certain protein that has a specific function in the cell. The odds that all of these factors will occur on their own is statistically impossible.Does the Miller-Urey experiment prove that organic life can be built by a natural process?No, the conclusions drawn from the Miller-Urey experiment are no longer considered relevant by the scientific community. For those of you that know the experiment (you learned it in school), I will move on. There are two main problems with the experiment:1- Scientists agree that the atmosphere of early Earth was not at all like what the Miller-Urey experiment used. In fact, if Miller's experiment were preformed with a realistic atmosphere, no amino acids would form.2- Connection amino acids to form a useful protein is a lot harder than just making an amino acid. Hooking amino acids together requires removing a molecule of water for each amino acid added to the chain, but amino acids are highly water-soluble. This means that although water is a necessary part of the Miller-Urey theory, the presence of water also keeps amino acids from forming proteins.Do the changes in Galapago's finch beaks, or changes through the selective breeding, prove that evolution takes place?The answer is no, if you would wish me to explain why, I will. It is just a lot of typing and I doubt many people actually read through this whole thing.Does the fossil record support Darwin's theory?No, Darwin predicted that if his theory were correct, there should be evidence that simple life forms gradually developed into more and more complex creatures.Paleontologists generally state that the fossil record does not support Darwin's theory in two major ways:1- Animal types tend to appear suddenly in the fossil record (not gradually, as Darwin predicted). Therefore, each animal type is "missing" the "link" to its former ancestor.2- Animals tend to remain relatively unchanged throughout their time on earth (not slowly developing into new forms as Darwin predicted).Does the Cambrian Explosion prove Darwin's theory?No. In fact, Darwin predicted that we would find evidence that life began simply and progressed into big differences. Instead, fossils from the Cambrian layer show multiple animal types with huge differences appearing at once.Ape to Man, Eohippus to modern horse, and punctuated equilibrium.If anyone wants me to post about these, I can. But like I said, I don't even know if anyone is going to read this whole post._______I found all of this interesting, and it is factual. I mean, people act like evolution is fact, it isn't. The theory of evolution has not been proven and cannot be replicated in a laboratory. Darwin even thought it was a little out there when he came up with it, he said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species). It isn't like evolution has all of this proof, it doesn't. People like to say that "I don't believe in creationism because you can't test it." Well, you can't test evolution either. You can find out things about both that help solve the puzzle (like what I posted about the Big Bang). Am I saying either one is right or wrong? No, not really. I am saying that evolution has a lot of holes, and to me creationism makes more sense. What I believe, I am not sure yet. But I have evolution on the bottom of things I am considering truth.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ May 19 2007, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There is no god, its an insane idea. If nobody believed in god and all of a sudden people started spouting this stuff then you would be called crazy. The only reason you're not is because people have been telling their children for years is true.I shouldn't have to prove their isn't a god, you should have to prove their is. Just like if I was to claim that there are invisible pink elephants flying around the world singing J-Lo songs I would expect you to disprove it, I would have to prove it. By the way IMO that idea is not even as crazy as there being a god.</div>Here's what I always say...I've never seen a book but the Qur'an do this (read on)...and that's why I think Islam seperates itself from the rest of the 3 major religons. The Qur'an has many chapters in it that are purely scientific. I believe God works with science...the things that go on in this world, that make life possible, are made possible because of God...the reason I believe there to be a God is because of the Qur'an's detail and accuracy. In most religious scriptures/books, there isn't anything you can touch base with in today's time. Most of the writings are outdated, and don't bear any meaning to the current situation because things have changed over time. The thing that differentiates the Qur'an from the other books, is that it has parts to it that still are relevant to our time. My way of proving there IS a God (Islamic God), is through his writings in the Qur'an. Muslims believe that the Qur'an came straight from God. Also, the Qur'an has never been changed - it is the same exact in every single copy you can ever find - dating from the oldest Qur'an to the newest Qur'an off the prints. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an does not have versions - so interpretations are not different in different countries because of language. The Qur'an is written in only one language - and that is Arabic. Now - in the Qur'an - there are many chapters that specifically point out details that could never be known at the time the Qur'an was introduced. Things like how a child is created - from conception, to birth - it reads with detail that could never be known at that time. How can someone like the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) know what a fetus was, and how it developed. How would he ever know that sperm and egg came together to form a zygote which later multiplies to a fetus, and than over 9 months grows. In the Qur'an - there is a chapter that, in detail, chronologically lists each step of how a baby is created in the womb of a mother. Not only that - but there are multiple chapters that deal with Astronomy, Botany, Anatomy, and many more scientific subjects. In my defense, I beleive in God (Islamic God) for many reasons, not only because of science; however, to someone who does not believe in God...this way of proving that God exists through science is, in my opinion, the best way. So....there is a God, and I do believe in evolution, but evolution could not be possible without the will and power of God.
I would like to have the source cited that states that the Big Bang couldn't have happened long enough ago for evolution to occur. That seems like it would be rather incalculable... we only can see the limits of the universe through spectroscopy. The limits would show up as a red, which has been getting farther away.To say that evolution has never been proven and shown in experiments is... at the very least misleading. Several scientists have added or removed chromosomes in plant life. I would say that it's a pretty good validation of a theory when you can actually manipulate the building blocks of genetic code. Mutations are something that we can see in the world around us. People don't realize that it's a big part of evolution... new genetic code (most mutations are negative to survival, and many times are eliminated from the gene pool, but that doesn't mean none of them survive) creates new phenotypes. We can also see evolution in bacteria... people have been using all these damn antibiotics for years because doctors prescribe them to anybody. Then what happens? You guessed it, suddenly all the bacteria can survive.edit: I also wanted to say something about genetic engineering. Hitler basically had it right with the whole superhumans thing. Years after the Nazi regime, the Germans pretty much killed us at swimming after being useless in previous Olympics. Just an example of us being able to manipulate genetic code.I don't take Darwin as gospel. The guy made some strides in learning about how populations change, but he by no means knew what we know today about evolution and biology. Not only that, but there were other scientists around the world that were also looking into evolution when he was writing The Origin of Species. It's not like he was this one guy that had a crazy idea. It was something that was found by many people through science and logic.I will give you the part about the creation of life. Fact is, we don't know how life could have been created. However, that doesn't really directly relate to evolution... evolution describes the genetic changes of our genetic material, not how it was created. The interesting part of that experiment is just that something resembling DNA could even be created from a bunch of chemicals.And for the last time, man didn't evolve from apes. another edit: I'd also like to know how freaking pretentious humans are. Christians really think that we are SO well designed, which is pretty... interesting to say the least. The mortality rate in many foreign countries is about 1/10 or even 1/5. That only includes babies that are actually born, not miscarriages. A lot of our anatomy is either unnecessary or poorly designed, assuming it was designed. We aren't particularly agile compared to most animals. Our knees are not the most efficient things imaginable. Anyway, most animals can survive, and I guess that's what matters to Christians. However, some of them are downright retarded. If they were designed, well then, heh heh, God has some sense of humor.
