How tis planet earth started actually? and how life form
-
In fact slowmover's answer was quite true. For living thing to start in an uncontrolled environment from nothing to something and that the living thing doesn't die off instantanously is really... miracle of miracle which is statistically listed as impossible. Not to mention evolve to intelligent beings.Originally posted by slowmover:evolution theory states that life is started by chance in a uncontrolled environment.but with all the knowledge of a cell structure,protein,dna.rna,laboratory equipment and controlled environment human have we can't even generate a most simple complete bacteria(a living one that is)so i just could not accept the evolution theory
He listed quite number of very important point which the athetist think is just pure probabilities.
Putting aside probabilities, the formation of life is itself miracle. Why is this earth unable to produced life at this point of time from nothing? Some may argue it is the environment changed. But like slowmover had stated, even in an controlled environment we can't produce life.
Furthermore to enable to production of life is the requirement of certain aspect of component, which is either impossible to create or isn't available at this early stage of earth's birth. -
Since when Vestigial Organ is an assumption? It is a fact for goodness sake. Vestigial Organ specifically defines any anatomical structure that has lost much or all of their function. Since when this is an assumption? Geez.Originally posted by banzie:Finally stop using Vestigial organs etc with your assumption for the last time as far as we and even scientist see it is still assumption. It is quite intereting that you people like to use assumption on everything including Vestigial organs.
And one of the people talk about theory. Maybe I put the law as perfect could be flawed in the use of language. What I would mean is undeniable truth. How do we test gravity by throwing apple on the floor? Do you not be able to do that? Although the law may be limited to explain some circumstances.
There could be better way of testing but throwing apple of the floor is proving something too right?
Tell me how you prove evolution and stop telling me this and that? what test did the scientist take to proof evolution?
Carbon Dating?
Looking at a couple of skulls?
Looking at shared patents of species of animals?
If my dog died yesterday and my neighbour dogs died today, through dating can I determine that my dog evolved to my neighbour's dog? They are about the same right?
Carbon dating too has its limitation.
Unlike newton law we could had a brand new theory and overthrow the entire evolution theory to waste. But as for newton law, I don't think you can overthrow that part of apple falling from the sky.
Your dog story - paiseh, dunno what you talking about. Really stunned. You really living in Gnarnia lah.
-
After reading this post, i suddenly realized that you do not have the level of understanding on biological science to even debate about evolutionary theory.Originally posted by banzie:In fact slowmover's answer was quite true. For living thing to start in an uncontrolled environment from nothing to something and that the living thing doesn't die off instantanously is really... miracle of miracle which is statistically listed as impossible. Not to mention evolve to intelligent beings.
He listed quite number of very important point which the athetist think is just pure probabilities.
Putting aside probabilities, the formation of life is itself miracle. Why is this earth unable to produced life at this point of time from nothing? Some may argue it is the environment changed. But like slowmover had stated, even in an controlled environment we can't produce life.
Furthermore to enable to production of life is the requirement of certain aspect of component, which is either impossible to create or isn't available at this early stage of earth's birth.
I rest my case. Have fun in your miracle-filled Gnarnia. -
Yea I guess so... scientist couldn't find the use but our dear Augoeides, found the purpose of all these Vestigial Organ. SO when are you getting your nobel?Originally posted by AugoeideS:Since when Vestigial Organ is an assumption? It is a fact for goodness sake. Vestigial Organ specifically defines any anatomical structure that has lost much or all of their function. Since when this is an assumption? Geez.
Your dog story - paiseh, dunno what you talking about. Really stunned. You really living in Gnarnia lah.
Anyway good try on the hiccups... I'm more confident you can tell us something concrete on the Vestigial Organ or whatever that doesn't find the neccessity of evolution. So which stories are you making up now?
Talking of which. How about some of the organs or things which only existed on human and not monkeys or apes? -
for me the land of evolution is also the land of miracle filled Gnarnia.
we will never be able to show who is right and who is wrong everyone have the freedom to think and believe what they want and what they think is right -
ok , people. I really dunno what kind of evidence you ppl want? Provide to you the evidence, u shrug it off. I mean c'mon how am I suppose to explain to you how life can magically appear AGAIN on Earth? Like shizzle nizzle? OF COURSE it cant appear again! Life starts from something simple and gets complex and more complex.
I have many Church friends who *debate* with me about flaws of evolution theory , flaws of carbon dating, flaws of this, flaws of that, flaws of all flaws etc etc. I always lose my energy in the end.+1
AND also, someone said that vestigial structures cannot be use as evidence (and shrug it off). Cannot use then how? Make up another evidence? NO WAI! It will probably shrug off again because it is lacking of some magical ingredient again!
I admit I lose OK, we Atheists lose . SO! People, this Earth is flat, and the sun orbits around us and we are 6000 yrs old. hmmmmmmmmm.And the fossils are there to test our faith...
Just because you have not encounter other species doesn't mean they do not exists.
Likewise, in another galaxy far far away, a scientist from another world gets burn on a stake for saying that there are other life forms out there
-------------------------------------------
On another matter : Me and AugoeideS and some others have already fulfilled our roles in explaining and re-explaining the matter to you guys! I (and maybe others) will not try to explain again.
The only thing we can't explain IS HOW LIFE IS CREATED which is the 2nd question posted by the TS.
Sorry TS for not answering your last qn.
-----Yea I guess so... scientist couldn't find the use but our dear Augoeides, found the purpose of all these Vestigial Organ. SO when are you getting your nobel?
Scientists are the ones who find the uses of the Vestigial organs.
Anyway good try on the hiccups... I'm more confident you can tell us something concrete on the Vestigial Organ or whatever that doesn't find the neccessity of evolution. So which stories are you making up now?
Talking of which. How about some of the organs or things which only existed on human and not monkeys or apes?
blah blah blah.How about some of the organs or things which only existed on human and not monkeys or apes?
I don't understand what's the purpose in all this... I have this organ means I have lohhhhh, what has that primate want that for?
The whole argument doesn't make sense already -
nope you did not lose nor did anyone win cause this is a discussion and not a debate competition.the earth is definitely not 6000 yrs old in my opinion and the fossils really never bring any evidence there's still so much of missing link when there should be abundance of itOriginally posted by kivine:I admit I lose OK, we Atheists lose . SO! People, this Earth is flat, and the sun orbits around us and we are 6000 yrs old. hmmmmmmmmm.And the fossils are there to test our faith... -
So what's the missing link about? Is it the transition period between cave-man and modern human? If so, can you care to explain evolution BEFORE modern human, that is the many different version of pre-historic man?Originally posted by slowmover:nope you did not lose nor did anyone win cause this is a discussion and not a debate competition.the earth is definitely not 6000 yrs old in my opinion and the fossils really never bring any evidence there's still so much of missing link when there should be abundance of it
What are you all trying to prove?
And banzieIf my dog died yesterday and my neighbour dogs died today, through dating can I determine that my dog evolved to my neighbour's dog? They are about the same right?
I dun understand once again. Let me try to explain to the best I can , forgive me if i misinterpret.
My dog died ytd, urs tmr. 1000 yrs later, carbon dating found out that they died around the same time.
SO it can be determined :
1. Someone hates our dogs and poison them
Sorry, I dun understand what point are you trying to put across about the dogs -
This missing link?Originally posted by kivine:So what's the missing link about? Is it the transition period between cave-man and modern human? If so, can you care to explain evolution BEFORE modern human, that is the many different version of pre-historic man?
What are you all trying to prove?
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?Â… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?Â… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
("Difficulties on Theory"By Charles Darwin)
i'm not trying to prove anything to anyone i always see this as a discussion since my 1st post on this thread -
I guess my english sucks, I dun quite understand.Originally posted by slowmover:This missing link?
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?Â… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?Â… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
("Difficulties on Theory"By Charles Darwin)
i'm not trying to prove anything to anyone i always see this as a discussion since my 1st post on this thread
I guessed what Darwin meant, is that why do we not find the different points of transition the animals evolved
Here's some possible explanation:
1. Some Turn to oil therefore missing link ( Lousy way of explanation)
2. Species evolve via a branching way.like this - (Let's use Species A as an EXAMPLE)
| -> Stage 1 : Has a bone covering the appendix
| | -> Stage 2: Has a soft bone covering the appendix
| | | - > Stage 3 : Multiple layers of tissue covering the appendix
| | | | - > Stage 4 :No tissue covering the appendix
Through decomposition we can only compare fossils of stage 1 vs Stage 2/3/4.
Why? Because the soft bones and tissue are likely to decompose by then. Therefore subtle changes cant be detected
Such intermediate subtle transition cannot be properly studied because we are basically studying the bones, and cant fully examined the body. Only noticeable structural difference seen via examining the bone lends evidence to theory of evolution
that's my reasoning anyway, it is still pretty flawed in anyway.
But why bother about the missing links
We know the alphabet starts with A and end with Z. We got the fundamentals right. What's left is the missing link which doesn't really matter, but is still impt. -
Not sure...
-
yep
From wat i know
MY ex church told me
tat GOd created everything big or small
He is very powerful
But seriously where is GOd
till now i dun know
I only know
no money no talks
-
NPNT!Originally posted by noahnoah:yep
From wat i know
MY ex church told me
tat GOd created everything big or small
He is very powerful
But seriously where is GOd
till now i dun know
I only know
no money no talks -
no problem my english sux more than u i drop out frm sec 2 rememberOriginally posted by kivine:I guess my english sucks, I dun quite understand.
I guessed what Darwin meant, is that why do we not find the different points of transition the animals evolved
Here's some possible explanation:
1. Some Turn to oil therefore missing link ( Lousy way of explanation)
2. Species evolve via a branching way.like this - (Let's use Species A as an EXAMPLE)
| -> Stage 1 : Has a bone covering the appendix
| | -> Stage 2: Has a soft bone covering the appendix
| | | - > Stage 3 : Multiple layers of tissue covering the appendix
| | | | - > Stage 4 :No tissue covering the appendix
Through decomposition we can only compare fossils of stage 1 vs Stage 2/3/4.
Why? Because the soft bones and tissue are likely to decompose by then. Therefore subtle changes cant be detected
Such intermediate subtle transition cannot be properly studied because we are basically studying the bones, and cant fully examined the body. Only noticeable structural difference seen via examining the bone lends evidence to theory of evolution
that's my reasoning anyway, it is still pretty flawed in anyway.
But why bother about the missing links
We know the alphabet starts with A and end with Z. We got the fundamentals right. What's left is the missing link which doesn't really matter, but is still impt.
like i say i can't prove u wrong neither can you prove me wrong.wat we believe or think is true is base on our own deduction(is that the correct word)from wat we read,see and think which will differ individually.
but(why is there always a but )this theory does have it harm on mankind
(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]Â… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.
Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."(describe by historian Hickman)
and
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.
This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man".
Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science".6
Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."(Alan Woods and Ted Grant, Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science) -
I do not know alot about theories of evolution like vestiges and stuff though i have come across them in a book called "the blind watch maker" by richard darkwin which talks about evolution. I have not really read it.
There are many theories within evolution. some of it is widely accepted within scientific community while some components they are disagreement.
Evolution theory is not at the theory stage only. there are many research centres around the world storing samples of bones and cells and they uses alot of tests and experiment using high end microscope and chemical knowledge couple with knowledge from other fields.
scientist also share information through peer reviewed thesis and journals.
Evolution is the direction that is most consistent with reality right now compared to creationist theories and it is still an ongoing thing.
So far, it is the most realistic theory that is why scientist are still progress along the direction. If there is a better and different thing that is consistent with reality, scientist will study these things.
creationist theories is not accepted particularly if you have learn philosophy before and it will commit logical fallacies of philosophy.
Period. -
1000 is near and probably easy to date using carbon dating... but anything beyond 3000 hmm... why don't you read out about carbon dating?Originally posted by kivine:I dun understand once again. Let me try to explain to the best I can , forgive me if i misinterpret.
My dog died ytd, urs tmr. 1000 yrs later, carbon dating found out that they died around the same time.
SO it can be determined :
1. Someone hates our dogs and poison them
Sorry, I dun understand what point are you trying to put across about the dogs
What did they took reference on? -
Finally I SAID for the last time.
Evolution is just an another explaination theory created by someone. And all the reader should recognised it and its weakness of the theory. Whether you choose to believe it is up to you. It is not as wonderful as the untimate theory that as long a it appear on sch textbook it must be true. May and may not, not what those narrow athetist would ahve you believe. Keep an open mind, there is alot of things our limited knowledge knows. Who knows one day someone did create a device that can sense angel. You never knows.
So PERIOD!!! -
I can't believe I missed out this topic. I mean, MY FAVOURITE SUBJECT!
-----
The evolution theory is flawed, yes. That's because it's a theory. It's a theory that is supported by certain evidence. Everything in science is a theory. Some are supposed by concrete evidence, others by uncertain ones.
Evolution is one supposed by uncertain evidences, but the truth is there. The fossils.
The hundred million years old fossils. The fossils of the dinosaurs. How can man have co-existed with dinosaurs? Scientists has more or less "proven" a portion of evolution, from chickens. They did an experiment, and found that the chickens slightly evolved.
What proof does the creationism conspiracy have? The bible? A fictional book written by men claiming to be "divinely inspired"?
The supposed mathematically impossible thing about our world, how the atoms, if slightly varied in size or mass, would not support life. That doesn't hold itself up as even an argument.
The fact that we have ALREADY existed negates all the argument.
It doesn't matter if the atoms are so damn accurate, because WE ARE ALREADY HERE. Our existence is BECAUSE of the accurate atomic mass. The universe could have gone through millions of big bangs, each with different atomic mass, before finally reaching this particular configuration.
That said, I do believe in the big bang, but have my doubts. -
So what do you believe my broad-minded friend? A bible/religion or the scientific facts out there based empirically?Originally posted by banzie:Finally I SAID for the last time.
Evolution is just an another explaination theory created by someone. And all the reader should recognised it and its weakness of the theory. Whether you choose to believe it is up to you. It is not as wonderful as the untimate theory that as long a it appear on sch textbook it must be true. May and may not, not what those narrow athetist would ahve you believe. Keep an open mind, there is alot of things our limited knowledge knows. Who knows one day someone did create a device that can sense angel. You never knows.
So PERIOD!!!
I was joking about the dates, remember it is an example. Carbon dating is the decaying of carbon-14. If carbon dating is so fundamentally flawed, I can bet you, that it will never see the light in the very first place.
1000 is near and probably easy to date using carbon dating... but anything beyond 3000 hmm... why don't you read out about carbon dating?
What did they took reference on? -
Carbon dating is accurate to a certain point.Originally posted by kivine:I was joking about the dates, remember it is an example. Carbon dating is the decaying of carbon-14. If carbon dating is so fundamentally flawed, I can bet you, that it will never see the light in the first place.
It took reference to eyptian mummy.
There is alot of queries to things longer than the age.
Example of rate of decay etc... The rate of decay is different in different environment and situation. For example comparing one from in a tomb and in the open. Dinosauer and human could have a different amount of carbon content in our bones. You can't compare a dinosaucr today. Most of what we know of dinosaucer is based on structure of the bones and etc. But the world in the past and today is totaly different. Different plants etc etc.
Finally there are cases of carbon dating that dates dinosaucr to 40.000 years instead of 1.4 billions. But was counted as errornous.
If accuracy of carbon dating is flawed.
in fact carbon dating should not be used to date dinosauer as it is not accurate beyond a certain period. As short as few hundreds to few thousand depending on the items dated.
If carbon dating is the only tools to determine the date of the evidence to support evolution... I doubt I would really believe in evolution. I'll just take it as another explaination in an open mind. -
Finally earth does goes through a couple of tramatic experience. Asteriod hitting earth and such... Flood? So how accurate is the carbon content? if you could find something proven to be this old and had a reference to it. Maybe it could share a little light. But even so, the accuracy could be doubted. A little different could range in tens of thousands of years or much much more, although to earth these years are probably neligible.
Yes I believe in God and the bible didn't say earth was created 6000 years ago. But It has nothing to do with this subject of debate. So stop changing the attention. -
ok, Banzie, first, sorry about the 6000 years thinggy it doesnt really matter in the context.
Anyway to debunk on your different amount of carbon in each and every living things:
The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant.
AND ALSO, the only thing that affects the decaying of an isotope is when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started( anything that dies after the 1940s) changing things thus it will be harder to date precisely.
Even then, it can be roughly gauge
Can give me any real reference about the egypt mummy...? -
banzie:
We have only found human fossils which date back to 40,000 years ago. Thus, logically, it is likely we've only survived for 40,000 years ago.
But that is impossible, because before homo sapiens, we have a previous "pre-evolved" species, known as the homo erectus. These are found to be at about 1.1 million years ago, to about 40,000 years ago.
So, if this is the case, we now push our assumption that humans are "created" about 1.1 million years ago.
But by accepting that, you've accepted evolution.
What many people do not know, however, is that dinosaur fossils are not dated using carbon-14. They are dated by studying how deep the fossils are buried. Because they're usually buried in sedimentary rock, the rock layers can accurately measure the age of the fossil, with a slight error margin of one million years.
And in response to your last paragraph, actually that has ALL to do with the topic. Read the title. -
Do you not study even nuclear physics in secondary level? The rate of radio decaying does not change with the environment. It is fixed, as long as it is exposed to the nature in a natural way.Originally posted by banzie:Carbon dating is accurate to a certain point.
It took reference to eyptian mummy.
There is alot of queries to things longer than the age.
Example of rate of decay etc... The rate of decay is different in different environment and situation. For example comparing one from in a tomb and in the open. Dinosauer and human could have a different amount of carbon content in our bones. You can't compare a dinosaucr today. Most of what we know of dinosaucer is based on structure of the bones and etc. But the world in the past and today is totaly different. Different plants etc etc.
Finally there are cases of carbon dating that dates dinosaucr to 40.000 years instead of 1.4 billions. But was counted as errornous.
If accuracy of carbon dating is flawed.
in fact carbon dating should not be used to date dinosauer as it is not accurate beyond a certain period. As short as few hundreds to few thousand depending on the items dated.
If carbon dating is the only tools to determine the date of the evidence to support evolution... I doubt I would really believe in evolution. I'll just take it as another explaination in an open mind.
Despite the world being different, bones are all made up primarily of calcium. That is an undeniable fact. If you've read my previous post, you would have seen my post about how they date dinosaurs' fossils.
How the plants are different, is irrelevant, really. -
AGE: 155 million years
TERM: Jurassic
LOCATION: Solnhofen, Eichstatt, Germany
SIZE: 75 mm long. Matrix: 208 mm x 216 mm.
OTHER INFORMATION:
After decades of research, Darwinists have been unable to find a single fossil showing that evolution took place, though millions of fossil specimens show that it never did so. Every fossil obtained shows that there has been no change in living things' structures over the course of their existence, and that despite the passage of hundreds of millions of years, they remain exactly the same. The fossil pictured is proof that there is no difference between shrimp living today and those alive 155 million years ago.