Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.
No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.
6,000 years or 4.1 billion?
Here is one argument .....
How Old Is the Earth?
"The age of the earth debate ultimately comes down to this foundational question: Are we trusting man’s imperfect and changing ideas and assumptions about the past? Or are we trusting God’s perfectly accurate eyewitness account of the past, including the creation of the world, Noah’s global flood, and the age of the earth?"
So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.
So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.
A lot of things were made up in order to make the world more colorful and interesting.
Us humans are a creative bunch. That's a positive thing. Lying has been done since the world was created on August 9, 1613. People tell lies all around you. Half of the time they are telling the truth. Half of the time they are lying. You just don't know which half is which. Oh well. I guess you have to use your brain.
IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.
A lot of things were made up in order to make the world more colorful and interesting.
Us humans are a creative bunch. That's a positive thing. Lying has been done since the world was created on August 9, 1613. People tell lies all around you. Half of the time they are telling the truth. Half of the time they are lying. You just don't know which half is which. Oh well. I guess you have to use your brain.
Well we use the laws of physics to determine the age of rocks. But I guess the laws of physics lie? I'm thinking someone who says the world was created on August 9, 1613 is being, and let's try to be kind here, rather untruthful. Or funny, which is fine because it IS funny.
Did someone 'create' the Earth on August 9, 1613? By the way, August is a month named for Augustus Caesar, who ruled Rome from 27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E. or for those of a religious bent from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D. Roughly 2,000 years ago. But I'm sure they lied about that?
IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.
A lot of things were made up in order to make the world more colorful and interesting.
Us humans are a creative bunch. That's a positive thing. Lying has been done since the world was created on August 9, 1613. People tell lies all around you. Half of the time they are telling the truth. Half of the time they are lying. You just don't know which half is which. Oh well. I guess you have to use your brain.
Well we use the laws of physics to determine the age of rocks. But I guess the laws of physics lie? I'm thinking someone who says the world was created on August 9, 1613 is being, and let's try to be kind here, rather untruthful. Or funny, which is fine because it IS funny.
Did someone 'create' the Earth on August 9, 1613? By the way, August is a month named for Augustus Caesar, who ruled Rome from 27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E. or for those of a religious bent from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D. Roughly 2,000 years ago. But I'm sure they lied about that?
yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.
No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.
yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.
No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.
I do not understand why you are stuck on this idea that the individual's "mind" is the key to the possibility or lack there of in the theory of evolution. We do not know exactly why the giraffe developed a long neck and legs. It seems to me that "thinking" it needs to be taller would be one of the least likely reasons.
Males and females do make choices in breeding. Sometimes there is cross breeding. There are plenty of ex amples of freaks of nature. It is possible that short neck giraffes were considered "runts" and less desirable mating selections. In THAT sense the individuals "minds" would come into play as a determining factor.
Physical traits not common to all members of a group can and are multiplied by selection of the individuals in breeding. Availability or lack there of in breeding choices probably play into the rise of abnormal physical traits also.
It is possible that the giraffe had a specific diet and was confined to a specific area and short giraffes starved.
My point is that there are many possible reasons how and why physical changes occurred.
"God" designing the modern giraffe and plopping it down on the modern African Savannah is a silly possibility. At some point we should reject some theories because they are less science and more catering to the wishes and fantasies of some confused people.
IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.
Creating an alternate history doesn't make things true either.My point is that many things are beyond our understanding. Pretending to understand things doesn't make them true.IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.
yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.
No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.
I do not understand why you are stuck on this idea that the individual's "mind" is the key to the possibility or lack there of in the theory of evolution. We do not know exactly why the giraffe developed a long neck and legs. It seems to me that "thinking" it needs to be taller would be one of the least likely reasons.
Males and females do make choices in breeding. Sometimes there is cross breeding. There are plenty of ex amples of freaks of nature. It is possible that short neck giraffes were considered "runts" and less desirable mating selections. In THAT sense the individuals "minds" would come into play as a determining factor.
Physical traits not common to all members of a group can and are multiplied by selection of the individuals in breeding. Availability or lack there of in breeding choices probably play into the rise of abnormal physical traits also.
It is possible that the giraffe had a specific diet and was confined to a specific area and short giraffes starved.
My point is that there are many possible reasons how and why physical changes occurred.
"God" designing the modern giraffe and plopping it down on the modern African Savannah is a silly possibility. At some point we should reject some theories because they are less science and more catering to the wishes and fantasies of some confused people.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
[Creating an alternate history doesn't make things true either.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
Unlikely.
Evolution is too specialized to be random chance. More likely the giraffe developed over successive generations craning their neck upwards toward higher branches, causing physiological changes that eventually altered their genetics.
That's not how evolution by natural selection works /\/\
What happened is that the giraffes who were most ideally suited to reach food sources tended to survive while those who couldn't died off prior to reproducing. Over thousands and thousands of generations, this left only DNA in the gene pool that supported the phenotype of longer and longer necks.
Giraffes didn't "change" to suit their environment. Long-necked giraffes were "selected" by nature to survive and flourish.
Well you can label people however you want, I think it's sort of intellectually cheap to attach "-ers" as a suffix and dismiss what someone is saying. It shows lack of imagination if nothing else.
I am intrigued by the "young earth theory" because I wonder about these calculations they've made to come up with the 6,000 years. How are they measuring years before there was a Julian Calendar? The Hebrew translation for the creation story uses the word "yom" for days. Well, studying Hebrew texts, we find that "yom" is a word which simply means "period of time." It can mean a day, a moon cycle, a season or epoch/era. Now since the advent of the Julian Calendar, most 'modern' Hebrew uses "yom" to mean day. But even then, Yom Kippur is celebrated for 25 hours... that's not precisely a day. So there is at least some ambiguity with regard to the words we've come to know as the Scriptures and an actual number of years it proscribes. I don't understand how anyone could calculate an accurate time this way.
On the other side is Science. Carbon dating tells us things are as old as they are, but carbon dating is still a relatively new technology and we don't know everything. It could be that carbon dating is not as accurate as we believe? It's not like Science is never wrong.
