|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 11/15/2003 7:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 62249
Cany you send me your sources ofr this please?  |
Date: 11/15/2003 7:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 25756
That's very interesting information. What you're talking about is why everyone's always looking for the "missing link" between us and monkeys. I'm not sure either way on evolution. I like to hear both sides of the debate, because it's not exactly 100 percent sure at this point how things came to be.   |
Date: 11/15/2003 8:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
No, it doesn't. Now-can you provide the links & where you got your "facts" from? I believe Fairy Tale may describe either a God made Man & Then Woman from the rib of Man, or Apes becoming Humans. You might want to think twice, before you sling that label, you know?   |
Date: 11/15/2003 10:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I'd much rather believe that God made me from the rib of MAN, than just being another monkey. Sits back, waits for the fire works on this one. LOL, the LINK is still missing after all these years, ummmmmmmm you would think that after all this TIME some would figure out , its NOT going to SHOW up. Good post DP.  |
|
Date: 11/15/2003 11:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
oh, DP-can we see those links? |
|
Date: 11/15/2003 11:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
actually-I believe in a combination of a form of divine creation, and evolution. And, FB, careful, some do act a bit more- shall we say -primative? than others! (LOL.....apes can be VERY territorial. They also make a lot of noise.) |
|
Date: 11/15/2003 11:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
LSG, I don't recall addressing you. |
Date: 11/16/2003 4:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 160
Whenever people can't explain why they believe the way they do they chalk it off to being a mystery (ie,the trinity doctrine). There is no doubt that we were CREATED by an intelligent CREATOR who then makes us in his image in the best way that he can by giving us emotions and the ability to love one another. This is something the animals cannot experience. Thank you Jehovah for the many wonderful gifts that you have given us, may we learn to use them the way that you intended them to be used.  |
|
Date: 11/16/2003 9:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
A big amen to that pammy jo. |
Date: 11/16/2003 9:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
PammyJo are you really saying that animals don't have emotions and the ability to love one another? This is so untrue. Do you have a pet? Have you watched animals? I am willing to accept evidence that disproves evolution. However, when it is used to bolster a belief that a woman was made from Adam's rib, then I just turn off. When it is used as proof of a biblical god, then no! It would be like saying that parents don't buy their kids xmas presents - Father Christmas does! LOL.  |
Date: 11/16/2003 9:51:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36967
If you look at any textbook will describe genetics. It talks about why we have misscariages. Any Biology textbook will have something in there. The one I have, I will post a link by the Publisher.  |
|
Date: 11/16/2003 9:52:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36967
I will remind you, that just because it is proof against Evolution, is NOT proof for Creation. |
Date: 11/16/2003 11:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
Science is constantly devoloping - it took centuries for the world realise the Earth isn't flat. If you take this analogy, a person, say, about 1000 years ago, would laugh at the idea of Earth being round. Such is the case now. The idea of the 'great and wonderful' human species evolving from 'just another monkey'? Laughable...  |
Date: 11/16/2003 12:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 52140
I dunno, but I've heard that there are too many species varieties for the rate that a mutation can survive. I've also seen a thingy on TV that showed the 'ancestors' of humans. It showed silhouette monkey-thing and then it showed the bones they have found that link us to these other species. Anyway, on some of these creatures, they only have a tooth, or part of a skull that is supposedly a creature we evolved from. I would think that they should have the FULL skeleton before they can say it was a creature we evolved from. But thats just what I've seen. Have a Great day, Alisha  |
|
Date: 11/16/2003 1:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 160
Do animals have emotions or instincts? And if they did have emotions they are certainly not to the degree that humans have them. No the bible is clear in that humans were made in Gods image not the animals. |
Date: 11/16/2003 4:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
LOL@FB........ emember that post? Combative Christians? I bookmarked that one. It is one of the best posts I have ever read on USM. ***BTW-DP, I have posted scientific evidence to the contrary about the type of Divine Creation as taught in the Bible. I also provided links & a bibliography. We will not know the truth until we get to the other side. Not unless science can prove evolution, or Divine Creation, conclusively |
|
Date: 11/16/2003 4:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36967
LSG, if you were to say that this does not prove that there is a creator, there you will be correct. But this does cause problems in Evolution. Where even Evolutionist themselves can't explain this. Mutations cannot survive, there are like 99.999 percent harmful, the other 0.001 is just netural, which is no effects at all. |
|
Date: 11/16/2003 5:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
YES LSG I do remember that post, and it leads me to believe that all people on here must therefore be christians. LOL |
Date: 11/16/2003 5:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 54111
I never believed in evolution either because it doesn't add up. I beleive in Jesus. Scientist will always run into the unexplainable as that is proof that they don't hold the answers. Great post DP.  |
|
Date: 11/16/2003 8:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
"... just because it is proof against Evolution, is NOT proof for Creation." Thanks Dkptrs for making that clear. I agree with most people on here that there are problems with evolution, and these problems are not being addressed. I still think that the ancient astronauts, i.e. the Annunaki theory, had something to do with our dna makeup. |
Date: 11/17/2003 6:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
JF brought up a point that few think of. There are mutations in species, which are often times carried on through the species. These mutations, be they naturally occuring to deal with enviroment, or caused by outside influence, such as exposure to radiation, are evolutions of the original species. Also, how does science explain childen born with birth defects caused by genetic anomalies. By the original thought process of this post, a Down's child should not ever be born, but be miscarried. So should children with other defects. Genetics is a science that is still in it's infancy. As more is learned, the old thesis is thrown out, in exchange for new knowledge learned.  |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 7:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 160
I'm going to take a gander at this but I am entirely speaking from my own experiences and am not refering to any ones elses thoughts on the matter although to me there is no higher authority than Gods written word the Bible. Mutations have occured, of this we have seen. Remember the elephant man in the latter half of the 19th century? His deformities were so severe that it caused many health problems (not to mention social problems) He died at an early age and I can't remember what he died of but the point is that even though he survived and was born his deformities were such that it caused his death. Also, where mutations do exist they are unable to reproduce. Everything produces that of it's own kind. Plants make more plants and animals produce more of their own kind. People, the highest from of life has dominion over all of Gods creation. This is because it was meant to be that way. A God who thought these things through placed everything in it's proper order, and no one change that. Nor should they want to. |
Date: 11/17/2003 7:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 61928
What a joke. If you ever took the time to understand the scientific method of disproving a theory, you would understand how amusing this is. Since you obviously have no desire in comprehending the logical way of looking at the world, you will revel in your ignorance indefinitely while we all sit back and laugh. Works for me.  |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 7:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 61928
Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe in four paragraphs you just disproved something that genuine scientists have been trying to disprove for 150 years. In that case, BRAVO!!!! |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 7:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
PammyJo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that mutations can reproduce. It is amazing how people want to turn debates on science into religous debates. You beleive the Bible to be the ultimate word. I do not. Let's stick to the facts concerning the original post, and leave religous beleifs to their respective posts. Of course, few can do that. |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 8:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 160
I'm confused, how does Nagasaki and Hiroshima prove that mutations can reproduce? Were these not victims of the atomic bombs and not born that way? Maybe I'm missing something here but the DNA in each of us will produce that of it's own kind. Their DNA was not damaged in the process of their obvious disfigurements. And I was thinking more on the lines of mules being bred from horses and Donkeys. They cannot re-produce. As far as religion goes all that I can say is that when push comes to shove I will take my side on what I know to be reliable and science has not proven their case. |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 8:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 160
ok, after some research I found the following, taken from "Life-how did it get here? by evolution or creation" published by the "Watchtower Bible and Tract society of New York" Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new. 12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.”16 But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else. 13 Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever. The Fruit Fly Experiments: Few mutation experiments can equal the extensive ones conducted on the common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal...After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”17 Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed...The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.” Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.” |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 11:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 61928
Wow, look. Data collected over a WHOLE century. That's 100 BIG OL' YEARS. When you're discussing evolution, you're speaking in terms of millions of years. That's 1000 X 100, in case you don't know what a million is. Continue those experiments for 1000 times that amount of time you've spent and then try and use that as evidence. |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 1:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Since I do not subscribe to the beleifs of those who put out the Watchtower, I do not accept their research as being factual. |
Date: 11/17/2003 3:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 21867
...interesting way of looking at it TwoSpirit...only accepting 'evidence' if the provider of that 'evidence' holds the same beliefs as you...hmmm...  |
Date: 11/17/2003 3:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 5886
Well, when you've got millions of years, then even those tiny percantages in changes can add up. Such a sudden change in a single generation of course would result in a miscarriage, but small changes over many generations isn't a problem at all. See, that wasn't so hard to refute, it was simply a logical flaw.  |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 3:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Actually Agent Smith, I had some involvement with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the group behind the Watchtower, many years ago. I learned fast how truth can be twisted and hidden and things that are not true can be made to appear true. Credibility is often built, and can be just as easily destroyed, and they destroyed their credibility with me over 30 years ago. Besides, I have a hard time believing anything a group says that comes to your door and tells you "x" number of people are going to heaven to try and get you to join their church, when their membership alreadys far exceeds that number. Why join a church where I know I am already destined to Hell. |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 3:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
I would add that anytime religous groups become involved in "scientific research", it is not for the purpose of pure research, but to find evidence to support their position or to disprove another group's position, and the ONLY evindece they will submit is evidence that does just that. I recently wrote a three page letter to a chirstian conservative group for doing just that, while ignoring work that had been done and proven by some of the top researchers in the field they were discussing. The only repsonse I recieved from that letter was a statement saying "We stand behind our researchers". That was their words, "OUR RESEARCHERS". |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 5:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 160
I'm confused by your attitude so it is high time for me to exit this debate. All that I can do is show why I believe the way that I do. I think I have done just that. |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 5:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
And I believe also the way I do, and that is that man far outdates any of the religions presently known to man, or spoken of any religous documents. In other words, man and animal has been around for longer than any history documents, therefore the possibility for evolution over hundreds of centuries is possible. Given the above thesis, if life has been around for 10 generations, with as small as a .0005 change in each generation, that is a one half percent change. Ten generations only spans a couple of hundred years. When one figures hundreds or thousands of generations, the basis for evolution is apparent. |
Date: 11/17/2003 7:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
and creationism is proven?  |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 9:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 21867
...so people twist the truth TwoSpirit...thats kinda what humans do...regardless of their religious leanings or not, we ALL twist it to some extent. I do it, they do it, YOU do it too...to deny that is to twist it even more. My point is why immediately count out any 'evidence' provided by any group you don't agree with. Evidence is evidence is evidence...you still have to ascertain whether that 'evidence' is truth regardless of it coming from your worst enemy or your greatest friend. Just because they talk with venom does not inherently mean everything that comes out of their mouths is not 'truth'. You have hinted you have an issue with a response letter back to you stating "We stand behind our researchers"...yet you yourself, by dismissing 'researchers' who you don't agree with then must conversely stand behind only 'your' researchers...is that not merely operating with the same reasoning? Peace, |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 9:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Agent Smith, the group I wrote to is using research material that has already been proven to be inaccurate, yet they contnue to use it because it meets their needs. The fact is that on this particular subject, which is transgenderism, most people are very unknowledgable of the facts, so they take what they read as truth on the matter. This particular group knows that, so they have no problem with presenting wrong facts to those who view their site. |
|
Date: 11/17/2003 9:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
If you go back and read my other repsonse, which discusses the number of generations possible given man's life on Earth, with the slightest change in each generation, the probablity for evolution is very high. Evolution does not happen overnight, but with time. Based on an average of 5 generations per 100 years, and given a time frame of 500 years, at .05% change per generation, the difference comes to 1.25% during that time. In 1000 years, it equeals 2.5%, the same difference noted between man and chimpanzee. If one goes back 5000 years, then the probability for difference even at such a low figure is 12.5%. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 7:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Thats a cool answer TwoSpirits and certainly puts things in perspective. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 11:40:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36967
Look at any Biology Textbook, Atleast the ones used in Pennsylvania, will teach that if an Offspring has a cetain difference genetically than the ancestors, the offspring will not surive. Not just the Parents, but all way back. Evolutions themeselves will admit to this, and this is a problem. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 11:41:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36967
TWO SPIRIT, I do not follow on Scientific Research done by Religious Organizations, I do not take it seriously, with this Exception, if they are only copying the work of a true scientific research. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 12:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
It's also time to update your numbers, Drkptrs. It's 99.4% http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993744 |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 12:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
Chimps should be listed under the "homo" genus. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 12:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36967
Even, so, it is still the same principal, just not as much, but still the same principal will apply. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 1:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Derek, look at the figures I posted. I did those figures with the most minute of changes in each generation. Changes so minuscle they would not be picked up in just a few generations, but over several hundred or a thousand years, could be profound. As I said, evolution does not occur overnight, but over an extended period of time. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 2:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 5886
What would help (or perhaps hurt?) your arguement, Drkptrs, is if you quoted from your book instead of saying "Any Biology textbook will say..." or that "Evolutionists admit that..." when I've never read any biology book or met an evolutionist who'd agree with your points, except maybe the single-generation miscarriage thing. That seems to be the only "fact" you've presented. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 5:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Well it was a chimp that beat man into space LOL. |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 5:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
His name was Ham and was buried with honors at Alamogorda. If he could speak he might have said, "A small step for mankind, a big step for chimps!" |
Date: 11/18/2003 6:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 15998
I am a product of evolution, lol. I was born with 3 wisdom teeth, rather than 4. I know of other people that have been too. We no longer have a need, or room, for wisdom teeth with the "re-shaping" (so to speak) of our mouths, so evolution has started to take its course in that area.  |
|
Date: 11/18/2003 6:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
scooter has a point, also with people having children later people are living longer and women are going into that m word i cant spell(lol) later, on top of that if you goto europe you'll see doors are small or the tools of some native americans are small, why is this? cause our ancestors were short but with better food and such we evolved to be larger |
|
Date: 11/21/2003 12:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
I'm probably completely wrong here, but aren't some forms of cancer mutation a bi-product of humans themselves mutating and evolving? |
|
Date: 11/24/2003 1:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
Scooter was born with wisdom teeth. That's weird. |
|
Date: 11/24/2003 3:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 15998
Why is that weird? It isn't like you're secondary teeth just decide to sprout and grow one day lol... They are always there.... which is why if you don't take care of a baby's teeth and they get all gross, the secondary teeth may also be very gross and unhealthy.... |
|
Date: 11/24/2003 3:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 15998
w/e idk what i'm talking about. I'm just going by what my dentist told me... |
|
Date: 11/24/2003 3:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 15998
I'm sorry I keep leaving so many messages, but I don't think what I said made any sense. Wen I said they just don't just sprout and grow one day, I mean that that don't just grow from nothing. They grow from a root or w/e. |
|
Date: 12/1/2003 3:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
Calm down. You didn't say root, you said you were born with 3 wisdom teeth. A momentary vision of a baby with big huge wisdom teeth (which generally tend to assert themselves near maturity) in his mouth was momentarily amusing to me and figured I'd favor everyone else with a glimpse of my amusement. If I offended, I am EVER SO sorry and in the future I will attempt to avoid even interacting with your hypersensitive self, as I'd hate to give you a complex or something. |
Date: 12/5/2003 7:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
Evolution is a crock. Everybody knows that, they just won't admit it. Certain aspects of the theory are plausible, but the idea that we evolved from monkeys is absurd. At the time of the end of the age of dinosaurs there were at least 40 varieties of primates similar to homo sapiens sapiens. Only six survived to this day, or so we've been told. The fact that we share little in common with the great apes and more in common with sea mammals is another thing. We have a sunken larynx which enables us to both conciously control our breathing and to speak. Sea mammals have this feature, the great apes do not. Secondly, leaving the forests and jungles in favour of the savanna is absolute suicide for a slow species. Apes move rather quickly on four limbs but on two legs they don't have a prayer against such savanna predators like cheetahs and lions. Dumb move there, sport. The loss of body hair. Doesn't make sense. All mammals that live on the savannas and plains of Africa are covered in hair. It protects their skin from the sun during the day and keeps them warm throughout the rather cold nights. There's more but I'm feeling lazy right now. But I will say that the fossil record doesn't even support evolution. And I would like to make it clear that although evolution is lacking and is by no means a credible theory, it still makes a lot more sense than any creationist theory you could come up with.  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
