Christian dun believe in Darwin's
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Can macroevolution be used to make predictions like the natural and social sciences? I'm not too sure.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a [b]group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. [/b]
Even the Miller experiment in the lab with abiogenesis? played cheat and is not an accurate replication of what happens in nature. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Btw .. dun be too smug yet.
According to biology, it is really much a scientific fact tat much of their studies is based on evolution. I just find it strange tat your only argument is tat evolution is named as "theory" and insist on your definition of "theory" instead of the definition made by the scientific field.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a [b]group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. [/b]
There might be a Law of Microevolution .. but no Law of Macroevolution yet. We refute the young universe's argument 'cos we have evidence utilizing our most cherished laws in science, like the speed of light. -
I find it quite strange tat people believe in microevolution and not macroevolution. U already believe species changes and evolved over time and these changes can be very great (comparing the chihuahua with the english mastiffs). The difference is only the scale of evolution, and is really microevolution over a greater time scale. A single small mutation is really the thing tat seperate between species...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
On evidence u can find the above website to be useful.
Some abstract from it
Macroevolution is controversial only outside the scientific community, and aspects of it are disputed by many movements such as creationism and intelligent design.
Single small mutations are sometimes the main difference between one species and another. Scientists have discovered very important genes, such as the homeobox, which regulate the growth of animals in their embryonic state. Scientists have managed to create new species of fly by irradiating the homeobox gene, causing a radical mutation in the development of the segments of the body. The fly may grow an extra thorax, or grow legs out of its eyestalks, all due to a single base pair alteration. The additional information needed for these structures did not arise from the mutation, of course, but existed elsewhere in the animal's DNA and was replicated at the novel location. It has been proposed that centipedes and millipedes originated from insect precursors, but their homeobox gene mutated and they ended up growing dozens of body segments instead of just one. A very small change, and an entire species is formed.
Microevolution can easily be demonstrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers. Whilst speciation events have been demonstrated in the laboratory and observed in the field, really dramatic differences between species do not usually occur in directly observable timescales (it occurs too quickly for the process to be shown in the fossil record.) It is argued that, since macroevolution can not be confirmed by a controlled experiment, it cannot be considered to be part of a scientific theory. However, evolutionists counter that astronomy, geology, archaeology and the other historical sciences, like macroevolution, have to check hypotheses through natural experiments. They confirm hypotheses by finding out if they conform or fit with the physical or observational evidence and can make valid predictions. In this way, macroevolution is testable and falsifiable. -
For people who do not believe in macroevolution, try to refute the below example of atavism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atavism
atavism
The reappearance of a characteristic in an organism after several generations of absence, usually caused by the chance recombination of genes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1
Many famous examples of atavisms exist, including (1) rare formation of extra toes (2nd and 4th digits) in horses, similar to what is seen in the archaic horses Mesohippus and Merychippus, (2) atavistic thigh muscles in Passeriform birds and sparrows, (3) hyoid muscles in dogs, (4) wings in earwigs (normally wingless), (5) atavistic fibulae in birds (the fibulae are normally extremely reduced), (6) extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders, (6) the atavistic dew claw in many dog breeds, and (7) various atavisms in humans (one described in detail below) (Hall 1984).
Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.
For example, Figure 2.2.1 shows the bones from the atavistic legs of a humpback whale. These bones are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919. Two officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company were understandably impressed by this discovery, and they removed one of the legs and presented the skeletal remains to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, B.C. (The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship). The museum's director, Francis Kermode, presented the bones to Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. Andrews reported the findings, along with photographs of the whale from the whaling crew, in American Museum Novitates, the journal of the AMNH. Andrews identified in the remains a shrunken cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal. Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin. For comparison, an average adult female humpback is around 45 feet long. The femur, composed of unossified cartilage, had shrunken from 15 inches to 4.5 inches. When attached to the whale, the femur was completely inside the body cavity and attached to the pelvic rudiments (humpback whales have vestiges of a pelvis inside the abdominal wall). This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966, after sixty years of uncontrolled human predation had decimated the population.
In short, whales with legs have been found and documented. It is believed in the scientific comunity tat tis occurs because sometime in the whale evolution it is a creature with legs but had evolved back into wat it is now. Otherwise please explain a reason for tis phenomenon -
so dinosaurs drown in a big big flood ?Originally posted by girlnextdoor:hello everybody.. just so everyone would like to know?
Darwin admitted on his deathbed
that he regretted coming up with the evolution theory.yup.
and No. we didnt evolve from apes.
yes there were dinosaurs. in the bible they stated that there were magnificent creatures with great teeth and everything.
why did dinosaurs not eat up adam and eve? because before the fall of mankind.. man had dominance over the animals. and there was a flood remember? i dont think they got extinct by volcano eruptions. i think when the Earth was destroyed by the flood because of its wickedness, and all but Noah and his family were saved? they all died, hence the fossils. and remember God told Noah to take from each kind of species of animal a female and male?
yeah looks like the dinosaurs were't la. not that God forgot.
because after the fall of mankind, we would lose dominiance over them. dont u think having dinosaurs around defeats the purpose of salvation?
are all humans the descendants of Noah ? then where did all the different races come from ? -
Stop stop...i can't stand this silly discussion...!!!Originally posted by crazy monkey:so dinosaurs drown in a big big flood ?
are all humans the descendants of Noah ? then where did all the different races come from ? -
the reason there's human becoz of adam and eve....
dinosaurs were there b4 god created the adam and eve...
when the bible wrote about creating a new world, was after dinosaurs were destroyed....so god created a new world for adam and eve...
understand? -
Oh mi gort!!!Originally posted by leddy:the reason there's human becoz of adam and eve....
dinosaurs were there b4 god created the adam and eve...
when the bible wrote about creating a new world, was after dinosaurs were destroyed....so god created a new world for adam and eve...
understand?
It's getting worse! -
If nobody closes this thread, the discussion will go on and on and on and on and on.
For all you know, if you log in after a few hours, ppl will start saying that we are descendents of the mammoth. -
apes lah not mammoth lolOriginally posted by Honeybunz:If nobody closes this thread, the discussion will go on and on and on and on and on.
For all you know, if you log in after a few hours, ppl will start saying that we are descendents of the mammoth. -
They might end us up in the mosquito theory.Originally posted by Honeybunz:If nobody closes this thread, the discussion will go on and on and on and on and on.
For all you know, if you log in after a few hours, ppl will start saying that we are descendents of the mammoth. -
now is apes. 12 hours later, will be mammoth.Originally posted by crazy monkey:apes lah not mammoth lol -
ya, they will say humans are relatives of mosquitoes.Originally posted by M©+square:They might end us up in the mosquito theory. -
so whoever create adam and eve also create all the other creatures instantaneously ?Originally posted by leddy:the reason there's human becoz of adam and eve....
dinosaurs were there b4 god created the adam and eve...
when the bible wrote about creating a new world, was after dinosaurs were destroyed....so god created a new world for adam and eve...
understand? -
u sure?Originally posted by leddy:the reason there's human becoz of adam and eve....
dinosaurs were there b4 god created the adam and eve...
when the bible wrote about creating a new world, was after dinosaurs were destroyed....so god created a new world for adam and eve...
understand?
bible is written in greek rite? how come theres a lang known at tht time alr, ppl still drew pics to represent wht they want to say? -
Old testament was not in Greek. Only new testament used by the Roman Catholics.Originally posted by miaomiao11:u sure?
bible is written in greek rite? how come theres a lang known at tht time alr, ppl still drew pics to represent wht they want to say? -
who wrote the bible ?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Old testament was not in Greek. Only new testament used by the Roman Catholics. -
different book different author.Originally posted by crazy monkey:who wrote the bible ? -
then wht was the old testament written in? pics?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Old testament was not in Greek. Only new testament used by the Roman Catholics. -
According to a book I read there are many chapters in Genesis and in two of them it mention about creation of human like Adam and Eve. Is it true? In one of them the most common we know is how G*d created Adam and later take his rib out created Eve etc etc. In the other chapter it mention about G*ds (note the s behind) created Adam and Eve. This chapter is to some known as aliens (a group of them) creating life.
I am not an expert on this but anyone can point me out if indeed there are two chapters in Genesis talking about creation of life? If yes why is there a need to have 2 chapters on it unless it mean G*d created everything in the universe but for Adam and Eve the aliens took over for which aliens themselves are also created by G*d
PS Note I use the word alien as it could be just an advanced civilisation during those ancient times. -
Hebrew I think. Can't remember. But in early days, dun talk about bible lah. Even chinese characters were written in pictures.Originally posted by miaomiao11:then wht was the old testament written in? pics? -
hebrew?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Hebrew I think. Can't remember. But in early days, dun talk about bible lah. Even chinese characters were written in pictures.
anyway.. why god so perfect cannot invent lang.. need us human to do so? -
Originally posted by Honeybunz:different book different author.
there is no official version ? -
What is so imperfect about the languages that we use??Originally posted by miaomiao11:hebrew?
anyway.. why god so perfect cannot invent lang.. need us human to do so? -
simi si official version?Originally posted by crazy monkey: there is no official version ?