Creationists

[Gadawg73]

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
"Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.

A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?


I know better?

Better than what?

You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.

Psalm 118:8

Better than your made up story that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also.
You are a stick in the mud Lonestar. Lighten up, that story was funny.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
"Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.

A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?


I know better?

Better than what?

You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.

Psalm 118:8

Better than your made up story that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also.
You are a stick in the mud Lonestar. Lighten up, that story was funny.

I have no made up story. When have I said that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also?

Humor is subjective. Good to see you laugh at your own perceived humor.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are equivocating on the meaning of the word "faith", which is the only thing that allows you make statements like this.

Equivocating? Is this Hoki Loki? Seriously, you go on to give both applications of the word faith the same definition so you deny your own claim of equivocation.

Trust in an unseen entity, for which there is no evidence aside from personal interpretation of reality, is not justifiable to anyone except the person making those interpretations.

Congratulations! You've just described a better part of the Theory of Evolution!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

That's a matter of opinion.

Yes my God has.

My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.

You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.

Your claims to gods are precisely the same bellicose claims to gods that others make.

My reaction is that your beliefs being held as sacrosanct suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)

If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).

If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.

Oh no! Here we go again. Hollie's got her pocket Thesaurus out again.

 

[UltimateReality]

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.

Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.

Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.

 

[Hollie]

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.

Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.

Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.

What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.

 

[Hollie]

That's a matter of opinion.

Yes my God has.

My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.

You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.

Your claims to gods are precisely the same bellicose claims to gods that others make.

My reaction is that your beliefs being held as sacrosanct suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)

If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).

If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.

Oh no! Here we go again. Hollie's got her pocket Thesaurus out again.

Here we go again. My stalker is babbling incoherently with no ability to form meaningful sentences.

 

[Hollie]

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.

Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.

Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.

As usual, you're sweeping incorrect.

Faith is not needed to understand science. Free yourself from fear and superstition.

 

[UltimateReality]

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.

Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.

Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.

What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.

Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.

 

[daws101]

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do what other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, “Humans only use 10% of their brain.” Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.

FURTHER READING:


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)

one more just for fun 3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
you ignorant asshat!

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?

1.apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
once again your willful ignorance shines.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006) — Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.


"We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'

"During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."

By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.

"Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."

The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.

Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.

"When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."

Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.

Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.

"If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."

Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge


origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.

 

[daws101]

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, “Humans only use 10% of their brain.” Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.

FURTHER READING:


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)

one more just for fun 3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
you ignorant asshat!

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.

only if ywc was fucked up on some thing!

 

[daws101]

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that "the present is the key to the past." Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation."

Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.

Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.

So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."

Nonsensical cut and paste.

Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.

You really have no clue what you are talking about do you? Your posts have become totally irrelevant.

really? your answer screams desperation and that is highly relevant.......

 

[daws101]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

bullshit!

: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.

Panelist Responses: < back to intro page


Francisco Ayala

First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.

But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.


Robert Pollack

As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.

Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.

The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.

Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

 

[daws101]

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.

You seem to have evolved the brain of a man, or is it a woman, or a man, or a woman?

By the way, Hoki, where did you and Lollie go to college?

then your (UR) brain must be damaged or genetically inferior because you keep asking the same totally irrelevant question.
maybe you have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
saying or doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is solid proof of mental illness...

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

You need a reason for these traits to form and/or increase in quality. They will not simply develop because you think they are better. There is no objective mind here guiding this process, as far as the theory goes. You would need a selective pressure, whether it is natural selection, or sexual selection, or a combination of the two. If members of a species are able to survive with a given set of traits, and there is no pressure to increase the quality of those traits, then this is as evolved as the species will become, until a greater selective pressure arises, simply because those that survive are passing on their DNA. It is all about the passage of DNA to the next generation. Hence, why I asked, how do you propose these animals simply get faster, when the gene pool is dominated by individuals with genes encoding for traits that allow survival. Animals, including humans, can simply be seen as vehicles for passing on DNA. If that animal is fit enough to pass on its DNA, then that genetic information stays. You wouldn't expect cheetahs to simply get faster and faster because to you, being faster is better. The question is, are those that run at 60 mph surviving and passing on their DNA? If yes, then there is no pressure to make them increase their speed. By "pressure," i basically mean death to any that no longer fall within trait parameters that allow survival, and hence, the passage of DNA. It is all about the presence of the information held in the DNA. . There is no objective "fitness." It is all relatively to the organisms environment. You are coming at this as if it a calculated by a mind, and this is because you are subconsciously harboring this notion as a presupposition, which is disallowing you to asses evolution on its own grounds. This is my guess, anyways, inferred form your expectations here about evolution.

Traits that better allow an organism to adapt to pass on their traits.


natural selection
&#8194;

noun
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

Now do you understand why I ask the question ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of. Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

Yes your faith in science.

Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct? I didn't think so.

We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.

Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
"Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.

A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?


I know better?

Better than what?

You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.

Psalm 118:8

Better than your made up story that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also.
You are a stick in the mud Lonestar. Lighten up, that story was funny.

Pathetic but typical response..

 

[daws101]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.

wrong! the bible has no intrinsic power it's an inanimate (Definition of INANIMATE
1: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body>
object.
any actions or thoughts attributed to it are in them mind of the reader.
by definition a supernatural view of evidence is NOT rational.