The Theory of Evolution

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

I'm guessing u didn't read that article Opivy. They would answers your questions and doubts. The reason why I believe this article is good because the author is a Christian and makes no mention of evolution nor creationism. So how about you read the article before you speak about dating techniques. BTW, they don't assume the rate of decay is constant. In fact the author explains how the rate has increased due to the increase in the magnetic field.

What do you think these half mutated animals would look like? Do you think there should some dinosaur with a kneecap as his asshole? Only the best traits would be inherited b/c the organism that is weaker would die off and mostly likely wouldnt be able to reproduce and pass his shittiest ass genes. So these half mutated creatures wouldnt last too long and its not like they would look totally weird.

I don't know much about microbiology so i can't argue with you, but i know there are many theories. You should go look them up Opivy cuz i can't answer that question.

So honestly Opivy, would do you make of the of that fossil that was recently discovered? You think this fossils show nothing? If so, explain to me why then this fossil doesn't have any implications.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

I'm guessing u didn't read that article Opivy. They would answers your questions and doubts. The reason why I believe this article is good because the author is a Christian and makes no mention of evolution nor creationism. So how about you read the article before you speak about dating techniques. BTW, they don't assume the rate of decay is constant. In fact the author explains how the rate has increased due to the increase in the magnetic field.

Forgive me for trying to discuss dating techniques without reading info on a christian website how dare me, i'll go read them right away.



-I think the fossil that u4ia posted about is just more evidence showing microevolution. Its still a dinosaur is it not? Is it a higher evolved creature? No, its a dinosaur that eats plants instead of meat.

[Opivy]

What about the Big Bang Theory? Doesn't this contradict The First law of Thermodynamics?

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

I really don't know much about the Big Bang Theory so i dunno.

Evolution really deals with organisms, not how the universe and how life started started. Evolution doesn't deal with inorganic chemicals that are theorized to have been the building blocks of life. The theory of evolution in a nutshell is as follows: change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. Now there are other variations of this definition but it all says basically the same thing.

Opivy this thread isn't about how the universe and life as we no it was created b/c no one can be 100% percent sure.

[Opivy]

So where did the first organisms come from?

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Either they were created by some sort of diety or "intelligent desginer" if you will OR they were created w/o any spiritual and god like help. There are many theories regarding how life was started w/a god, but none of them really have too strong of an arguement yet. However, with all the recent discoveries and breakthrough in genetics and microbiology, i'm pretty sure some better evidence will appear. Short answer though.... i dunno?

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Sorry to double post, but evolution never ruled out an "intelligent designer" Opivy. Evolution just contradicts the bible which is a big no no in America because the bible is infallible.

[Opivy]

I get what your saying. Maybe god created evolution to evolve creatures? This is a thestic view on evolution. I think it could be possible, but i still don't see this complex galaxy and life on earth comeing from a whole bunch of lucky accidents involving chemicals. I understand what your saying, I just still don't see any way we could have all spawned from a common ancestor though.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Opivy, what do you think would happen if every single animal to have ever lived was all created at once as the bible says? What do you think would happen if man, the rest of the mammals, birds, etc lived together at once? Just imagine humans fending off dinosaurs and other large predators with spears and sling shots ( there was a lack of technology during the days of Adam and Eve). It seems like the larger predators and herbivores would be dominant. Why aren't there cave drawings with dinosaurs in it? Why would cave dwelling humans draw animals that don't stand out as much as dinosaurs?

[u4ia]

Originally Posted by Opivy

I get what your saying. Maybe god created evolution to evolve creatures? This is a thestic view on evolution. I think it could be possible, but i still don't see this complex galaxy and life on earth comeing from a whole bunch of lucky accidents involving chemicals. I understand what your saying, I just still don't see any way we could have all spawned from a common ancestor though.

Maybe it's hard for you to see because a) the process takes millions of years. and b) natural selection no longer really applies to humans, since we all pitch in to keep everyone alive. It's not like we let the weaker ones with inferior genes die off and let only the people with superior genes reproduce. In a way, we have derailed the natural selection process.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

I'm guessing u didn't read that article Opivy. They would answers your questions and doubts. The reason why I believe this article is good because the author is a Christian and makes no mention of evolution nor creationism. So how about you read the article before you speak about dating techniques. BTW, they don't assume the rate of decay is constant. In fact the author explains how the rate has increased due to the increase in the magnetic field.

What do you think these half mutated animals would look like? Do you think there should some dinosaur with a kneecap as his asshole? Only the best traits would be inherited b/c the organism that is weaker would die off and mostly likely wouldnt be able to reproduce and pass his shittiest ass genes. So these half mutated creatures wouldnt last too long and its not like they would look totally weird.

I don't know much about microbiology so i can't argue with you, but i know there are many theories. You should go look them up Opivy cuz i can't answer that question.

So honestly Opivy, would do you make of the of that fossil that was recently discovered? You think this fossils show nothing? If so, explain to me why then this fossil doesn't have any implications.

In order for any of today's dating techniques to be accurate, they have to assume a constant radioactive decay rate. Read my post on dating in the why evolution is wrong thread. There might be a bad example or two, but the stuff that talks about how rates could have been accelorated (or been given the appearance of being old, but without actually being old) is accurate. And there are multiple sources given as well.

"Only the best traits would be inherited b/c the organism that is weaker would die off and mostly likely wouldnt be able to reproduce and pass his shittiest ass genes. So these half mutated creatures wouldnt last too long and its not like they would look totally weird."

EXACTLY! That would be the reason that there should be far more inbetween fossils instead of completed ones... All those ones that had poopy genes and died must be somewhere, right? Why is it we can't find any if there'd be way more of them than of the final products.

And by the way, there may be fluctuations in the magnetic field from time tot ime, but overall it's decaying - not getting stronger, as the earth is decaying.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by u4ia

Maybe it's hard for you to see because a) the process takes millions of years. and b) natural selection no longer really applies to humans, since we all pitch in to keep everyone alive. It's not like we let the weaker ones with inferior genes die off and let only the people with superior genes reproduce. In a way, we have derailed the natural selection process.

Its not only hard for me to see. No one has ever seen a species evolve into another. So yea, it is hard for me to see. Especially because no one else has ever seen it.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConfuseD

Why aren't there cave drawings with dinosaurs in it? Why would cave dwelling humans draw animals that don't stand out as much as dinosaurs?

Ooh, didnt notice this part. There are numerous ancient paintings and tablets with drawings of specific dinosaurs on them. I have a list of them ofcourse theres no pictures or proof for them. I can list them out if you would like but I am going to do some hunting on the internet later tonight to hopefuly find some supporting links.

-Also, how bout dragon stories? These had to come from somewhere I bet. There are dragon stories through out the world. I have never read much into the Old Testament but I do know that Behemoth and Leviathan are mentioned many times. Most modern day bibles translate it into a crocodile or a hippo or something but In the original herbew text the word is 'Tanin'. Which translates into "Sea or land monster".



--Anyways, not trying to bring up another argument because I have no proof that dinosaurs lived along with humans. But as you can see I have my doubts and some evidence can really bring questions to your head.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Opivy

Ooh, didnt notice this part. There are numerous ancient paintings and tablets with drawings of specific dinosaurs on them. I have a list of them ofcourse theres no pictures or proof for them. I can list them out if you would like but I am going to do some hunting on the internet later tonight to hopefuly find some supporting links.

-Also, how bout dragon stories? These had to come from somewhere I bet. There are dragon stories through out the world. I have never read much into the Old Testament but I do know that Behemoth and Leviathan are mentioned many times. Most modern day bibles translate it into a crocodile or a hippo or something but In the original herbew text the word is 'Tanin'. Which translates into "Sea or land monster".



--Anyways, not trying to bring up another argument because I have no proof that dinosaurs lived along with humans. But as you can see I have my doubts and some evidence can really bring questions to your head.

In the King James Version, Leviathan is mentioned SEVERAL times And what about locke nesse? There's a good amount of people (scientists included) that believe the Locke Nesse monster is a dinosaur. They also believe that there's more than one.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Well then were are the rest of the dinosaurs? Surely what ever caused the extinction of dinosaurs would have caused the extinction of man and many other species? We know for a fact that there has been many meteorites that have hit the earth.

So cottons you believe you have more knowledge on dating techniques than a man who has a PhD in Physics and a minor in geology. It seems to me a flaw like this should be public. Quick cotton, be the first to go public and publish your findings on the flaws of our dating techniques!

I've never heard nor seen a debate on the flaws that would make at least a 4 billion year difference in the age of the world. It seems like this would be a triump for conservative christians to stick to those damn evolutionists, geologists, astrophyscists, the blasmphmers. To proclaim they were right and the bible is correct in that adam and eve are our great, great,... ,great grandparents. This would totally disprove evolution because evolution will only work with an old earth!

I dont hear the church bells ringing cottons... so i guess the earth is old and the bible is wrong if you want to interpret literally like u believe it should be.

There is a margin of error in dating techniques, but you know what cottons? Not all dating techniques use radioactuve decay! These techniques cant date back millions of years but can date far enough to prove the earth is older than 10000 years.

However, if you want to keep argueing how the dating techniques are flawed the answer me this: why are dating techniques still being used then?

If someone had evidence supporting the claim that these techniques are as flawed as you [ cottons] and opivy claim them to be then it would be tested to prove they are flawed. Then this would be tested by other scientists and so on so the claim can be varified, for this is the nature of science. This is what scientist call the scientific method. So science itself would correct the problem, but it hasn't done so yet. So that leaves two solutions: there is a conspiracy holding back the evidence that would debunk these dating techniques, thus disproving the old earth theory OR you and opivy are wrong and have exagerrated the fact that there is some margin of error or y'all were "tricked" into believing it.