Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[d_brennen]

This thread needs to be closed. You cannot argue with the fanatical atheists.

I would just ask people to read the evidence that has been presented and make their own minds up. There are numerous inconsistencies in evolution. These exist because, in my opinion, evolution did not happen. We look around us and see devolution, and not evolution. All things are winding down. And that includes the universe.

This thread needs to be closed. You cannot argue with the fanatical theists.

I would just ask people to read the evidence that has been presented and make their own minds up. There are numerous inconsistencies in Creation. These exist because, in my opinion, Creation did not happen. We look around us and see evolution, and not miracles. All things are in a state of change. And that includes the universe.

 

[Nitefly]

This thread needs to be closed. You cannot argue with the fanatical atheists.

I would just ask people to read the evidence that has been presented and make their own minds up. There are numerous inconsistencies in evolution. These exist because, in my opinion, evolution did not happen. We look around us and see devolution, and not evolution. All things are winding down. And that includes the universe.

Well, there you go.

 

[kedge]

in order for the eye to be able to function.

In order for the eye to work it has to have all its complex parts all at the right time and all those parts in the right orde otherwise it won't function properly.

 

[The Running Man]

But when the first eyes evolved they were much less complex, requiring much less complex parts to be developed at the same time, no?

 

[d_brennen]

But when the first eyes evolved they were much less complex, requiring much less complex parts to be developed at the same time, no?

Don't come along with your fancy reason and logic, it won't wash here boyo

 

[The Running Man]

Where did these photosensitive cells originate from?

Have you ever heard of my friend? he's called Mr Google. Hook it up sometime, it might help you to get the answers you do (or don't want) much easier than asking on here...

"
The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot allows the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,[17"

 

[kedge]

So these don't qualify then?

Juravenator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Juravenator_BW.jpg
Does this look like it has dinosaur like features to you? Key points being the long tail and lizard like head. However can you also see the feathers? Yes I know its an artists impression but I'm going to have to trust an experts opinion as we don't have access to the fossils ourselves to look for traces of feathers.

You're correct, it is only the creative imagination of the artist/s who think that is probably what they would have looked like, but again there should be lots of evidence in the fossil record, it would help imho. Experts? i don't know about that to be honest with you.

Anchiornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anchiornis_BW.jpg
Similar shaped body (slim with a long tail), but now also has a beaked head and long feathers coming from its "arms" which have now become crude wings.

For me that is questionable evidence, i don't believe that but if someone does want to then that is there choice, everybody is entitled to a belief system and an opinion.

Confuciusornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confuciusornis_sanctus_mmartyniuk.png
One of the earliest fossils we have that has most of the classic features associated with birds. More developed wings to allows flying rather than gliding. A "fatter" body shape due to skeletal changes to allow larger pectoral muscles, so that the "bird" can flap it's wings for powered flight.

It looks just like a bird to me in all honesty.

 

[Shayper]

Kedge, these points need answering please:

That is a MASSIVE contradiction. You cannot adhere to the scientific method of observation and believe in a creator. There is absolutely zero scientific proof of a creator.



It has been constantly said in this thread that micro evolution is no different to macro evolution, it is simply on a smaller time scale.

What do you mean by a higher order? Are you claiming that humans are somehow special?

I'd say an eagle is much more special than a human. Pinpoint accuracy, stunningly sharp eyesight and the ability to fly. True beauty in nature. Humans, on the other hand, are blind, deaf and clumsy in comparison the the majest of a Golden Eagle.

Thankyou

 

[Urgannagru]

This thread needs to be closed. You cannot argue with the fanatical atheists.

I would just ask people to read the evidence that has been presented and make their own minds up. There are numerous inconsistencies in evolution. These exist because, in my opinion, evolution did not happen. We look around us and see devolution, and not evolution. All things are winding down. And that includes the universe.

Wow ok now this I'm interested in. Could you give me some examples of biological devolution? I've never heard of this as a scientific concept and would like to learn more.

Also I would like to hear your view on the present flaws in the theory of gravity, as I'd like to understand how some gaps in our knowledge invalidate one theory more than another when both have experimental and observational evidence from the natural world supporting the greater bulk of the theory.

 

[D.P.]

In order for the eye to work it has to have all its complex parts all at the right time and all those parts in the right orde otherwise it won't function properly.

But a simpler eye has less parts and each part is simpler. Older eyes that were even simpler had even less parts, and each part was even more simpler. And even earlier animals eyes were even simpler with almost no parts.
And then you end up with something as simple as a bacteria which is photosensitive.

http://www.bchs.uh.edu/~yeo/doc/BCHS6229/Presentation Totics Papers/6.PNAS-2011-Nash-9449-54.pdf

 

[D.P.]

Wow ok now this I'm interested in. Could you give me some examples of biological devolution? I've never heard of this as a scientific concept and would like to learn more.

Also I would like to hear your view on the present flaws in the theory of gravity, as I'd like to understand how some gaps in our knowledge invalidate one theory more than another when both have experimental and observational evidence from the natural world supporting the greater bulk of the theory.

Jason2 has basic,all just Edomite that he witnesses evolution. Devolution IS evolution, only an misconception that evolution works towards a goal but in reality it is a directionless process. The fact that he admits to observing devolution is fact that he admits to observing evolution.

 

[Raikiri]

Wow ok now this I'm interested in. Could you give me some examples of biological devolution? I've never heard of this as a scientific concept and would like to learn more.

There is no such thing as devolution in biology. It's still evolution, even if the animal simplifies or gains something superfluous.

He's talking about something he knows nothing about again.

 

[The Running Man]

What kedge and co don't seem to understand is that they are asking US to prove theory's that WE didn't write, but that are generally accepted in the scientific community.

We cannot add or take away from these theories only provide resources on them to kedge and co so that they can read them and learn them for themselves to get a better understanding of these topics.


On the other hand Kedge, Jason2 purport the belief of God in a religious sense based upon their own opinion that it is real because they really believe that it is real.

Had they never read the book (the bible) and had they studied science it is extremely unlikely that they would have come to the conclusion that the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago and that a man was positioned on earth and given a wife and they both lived for 900 years.

That is not a logical conclusion to draw from the evidence we have today. It is only the corruption of the bible upon their minds that even gives them the possible belief that creation story (as is) could even be a possibility. And just because a book is old, does not mean it is correct, factual, or anything along those lines.

 

[Nitefly]

You only have to go to speakers corner to see various OCUK 'veterans' battle with kedge to the death before we all give up. He refuses to concede anything and will jump immediately onto a new topic, then another one, before eventually recycling back to the same points. He's even been banned for it - you have been warned!

The most sensible thing you can do is just ignore him.

 

[Angilion]

[..] This is my opinion, i never state that God and creation is an observable fact but i do adhere to the real scientific method of observation which is in harmony with my worldview.
[..]

No, you do not. You're just wrongly claiming to do so because you know that the scientific method has earned a reputation for reliability and you want to leech off it.

You start from a baseless assumption completely devoid of any evidence (your faith).

You "observe" only irrelevant things that you can force into your assumption in a superficial way.

You strenuously ignore everything else, no matter how obvious it is.


That is not the scientific method. You are making a false claim in order to cover your faith in a veneer of reliability and knowledge that it doesn't actually have, while simulaneously harming science. Your approach is parasitical, not scientific.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

This is the thread GD deserves but not the one it needs right now.

 

[Shayper]

You only have to go to speakers corner to see various OCUK 'veterans' battle with kedge to the death before we all give up. He refuses to concede anything and will jump immediately onto a new topic, then another one, before eventually recycling back to the same points. He's even been banned for it - you have been warned!

The most sensible thing you can do is just ignore him.

I feared as such I thought up a good point as well with the eagle, shame to have wasted it

 

[The Running Man]

This is the thread GD deserves but not the one it needs right now.

Of course the proof is right there. man evolved into the BATMAN! ITS ON TV!

 

[estebanrey]

Sarcasm aside, it is important when addressing someone's views in an objective and fair way that you have the ability to understand not only the words spoken, but also under which context and authority they are spoken.

Oh the ironing

 

[Castiel]

Oh the ironing

I have never evaded a question when asked as to my position on something. If I have no position or have yet to decide what my position is then I will also say so.

There is no irony in my statement, despite your obvious allusion to your habit of altering the context and content of your statements when they are found to be less than accurate and my criticism of it when it is directed at me.

This is also off topic.