Thread: Scientific Facts of the Bible...

Honestly, Rev, wise up. You're bordering on my father's understanding of evolution. According to him, if evolution was true we'd all look like Star Wars characters. I tried to explain to him, but gave up after a few hours of straight arguments.

Science never said humans popped out of an ape one day. Far from it. If you don't understand it, please go read about it. Origin of Species by Charles Darwin is a very good place to start.

Awaken, there are plenty of modern selective breeding experiments that show successive generations of animals looking and behaving remarkably differently from their ancestors.

Just look at dogs.

Originally posted by Tsen
Honestly, Rev, wise up. You're bordering on my father's understanding of evolution. According to him, if evolution was true we'd all look like Star Wars characters. I tried to explain to him, but gave up after a few hours of straight arguments.

Science never said humans popped out of an ape one day. Far from it. If you don't understand it, please go read about it. Origin of Species by Charles Darwin is a very good place to start.

From one day or billions of eons, it doesn't matter 'every animal produces after it own kind' and this is from the only authority who is the origin of every living thing.

Actually, Awaken, all animals are constructions of DNA and protein, so they really do take after their own kind.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
From one day or billions of eons, it doesn't matter 'every animal produces after it own kind' and this is from the only authority who is the origin of every living thing.

And what about the article I posted recently of a transition fossil clearly showing a link between dinosaur and bird?

So Rev, what do you have to say about the Florence Island finds? Humans there grew smaller and smaller the longer they stayed on the island, corresponding with evolutionary theory. (Minds sort of stuck on the Florence Island topic for the moment, as I'm arguing about it on another thread, but it suits this thread quite well.)

Science isn't saying that a dinosaur suddenly layed a chicken egg. It's saying that over millions of years, mutations that succeed in the world get passed on to the next generation. Mutations that fail don't. It's something that happens over incredibly LONG timespans. Creatures do inded produce of their own kind, but over time the kind changes.

Originally posted by Tsen
So Rev, what do you have to say about the Florence Island finds? Humans there grew smaller and smaller the longer they stayed on the island, corresponding with evolutionary theory. (Minds sort of stuck on the Florence Island topic for the moment, as I'm arguing about it on another thread, but it suits this thread quite well.)

Science isn't saying that a dinosaur suddenly layed a chicken egg. It's saying that over millions of years, mutations that succeed in the world get passed on to the next generation. Mutations that fail don't. It's something that happens over incredibly LONG timespans. Creatures do inded produce of their own kind, but over time the kind changes.

Still the same species but only a variation of that same kind, some refer to it as a (sub-species.)

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Still the same species but only a variation of that same kind, some refer to it as a (sub-species.)

And when the the variation becomes large enough that the seperate populations cannot bread with one other, they are classified as different species. It's called 'speciation'.

Originally posted by bradybaker

And when the the variation becomes large enough that the seperate populations cannot bread with one other, they are classified as different species. It's called 'speciation'.

That maybe but is you calling it a new species make it so? And is it in a true classification?

No, it just means man does not know the name of the kind the classification of species.

You're right. We just call chimps chimps and gorillas gorillas because we don't know their real name. But that doesn't change things--they're obviously two DIFFERENT species from one common ancestor.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
That maybe but is you calling it a new species make it so? And is it in a true classification?

No, it just means man does not know the name of the kind the classification of species.

You still aren't getting it...these 2 seperate population continue mutate over long periods of time, and eventually each species divides into 2 (or 3, or 4, or more) population, and those divide and those divide...and eventually the new ones are radically different than what you started with.

Originally posted by Tsen
You're right. We just call chimps chimps and gorillas gorillas because we don't know their real name. But that doesn't change things--they're obviously two DIFFERENT species from one common ancestor.

No, a bird is a bird
a cat is a cat
a moose is a moose
a fish is a fish
and on, and on, and on...
a they will always will be.

Originally posted by bradybaker

You still aren't getting it...these 2 seperate population continue mutate over long periods of time, and eventually each species divides into 2 (or 3, or 4, or more) population, and those divide and those divide...and eventually the new ones are radically different than what you started with.

Its still the same species, only a sub-species of the same kind.

It maybe a copy of the origional, but it is still of the same species.

Awaken, how might you account for the EVIDENCE supporting evolution?

Originally posted by Eric Estrada
Awaken, how might you account for the EVIDENCE supporting evolution?

There is none...Only an attempt to manipulate nature’s own adaptive ness through the environment, but it doesn't change the species.
.

Let me rephrase this all.

Do you believe in genetics? Not necessarily evolution, just genetics. Do you believe that human beings, and indeed all animals, plants, etc, are based on genetic code?

That's the first step.

The second step is realizing that those genetics change over time. Curly hair in human beings for example. Straight hair is a genetic anomaly that over time dominated the curly hair trait. These small changes take place all in a long line--and they're undeniable. Still, we're not to macro-evolution, this is all very normal stuff that happens HERE AND NOW. Verifiable, if you want.
Now, some mutations don't affect survival. Curly/straight hair is an example of this. If the trait doesn't affect how survivable the species is, it will be passed on. If the trait benefits the survival and especially the reproductive ability and opportunity of the species, it will be passed on faster and to more offspring.
Still at small changes, mind you. As I used a long time ago, duck's wings. A duck who is born with awkward, unreliable wings due to a genetic anomaly won't live long. Won't be able to reproduce, either. But a duck with particularly long or efficient wings will live, and will get plenty of chances to reproduce. This duck's genes will be passed on. The other duck's genes won't. These small changes pile up until the difference is enough to note a change relative to other specimen of the same species who were kept isolated from the group in question. At this point, a new species is born.
NOW we're nearing macro-evolution.
These species undergo further specialization to better adapt themselves to their environment. Eventually, the species changes enough that it can't mate with species they once could have mated with. Specialization continues, bringing the species further and further apart, eventually branching off into more and more individual families and species.

Thus, evolution takes place.

(Note: No donkeys were birthed from elephants in the production of this post.)

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Its still the same species, only a sub-species of the same kind.

It maybe a copy of the origional, but it is still of the same species.

In that case, everything is the same species.

We don't share a common ancestor with apes, we ARE apes.

We don't share a common ancestor with trees, we ARE trees.

What you're saying is fine, its just means that we aren't human, we're just very complex multicellular organisms that we've decided to 'label' human

Actuallly, I agree 100% with what you're saying.

Shadows and dust, that's all we are. Or more scientifically, water, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and nucleic acids. Like everything else living in this world.

"Tsen"

Let me rephrase this all.

Do you believe in genetics? Not necessarily evolution, just genetics. Do you believe that human beings, and indeed all animals, plants, etc, are based on genetic code?
[/b]

Good post!

Specialization continues, bringing the species further and further apart, eventually branching off into more and more individual families and species. [/b]

The genetic proclivity of each species is embedded within the genetic code of any given animal. Which lies dormant until the activated genetic material within is awakened by the on-set of a drastic environmental change. The genetic change begins to bring forth subtle adaptive changes to the species, to cope with the environmental change,but does not change the species it self.

(Note: No donkeys were birthed from elephants in the production of this post.)
[/b]

But you can't say that about 'Politicians' though

I like that one!

The Rev.

Originally posted by bradybaker

In that case, everything is the same species.

We don't share a common ancestor with apes, we ARE apes.

We don't share a common ancestor with trees, we ARE trees.

What you're saying is fine, its just means that we aren't human, we're just very complex multicellular organisms that we've decided to 'label' human

Actuallly, I agree 100% with what you're saying.

Shadows and dust, that's all we are. Or more scientifically, water, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and nucleic acids. Like everything else living in this world.

I think that this is the truest statement you've every posted, but 'We are Man, not Apes'

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
I think that this is the truest statement you've every posted, but 'We are Man, not Apes'

Tomato tomoto (sp?), call it what you want. Apes are us, we are Apes...and trees and bees and fleas...etc.

ok faithbusters!!!- where is your yahoo group? I've got mine.

That's soooo cheesy.
In 24hrs faithbusters.com will be visible to the world - and have a full-fledged forum on it.

[/quote]

I am still trying to get my head around this faithbuster thing. I was only kidding when I asked where your yahoogroup is. Now you have one. You guys for real?

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed

I am still trying to get my head around this faithbuster thing. I was only kidding when I asked where your yahoogroup is. Now you have one. You guys for real?

You should see our Clubhouse.

Our discussion forum is getting "beautified" now.

The server is up and running, the forum software is up and running, the first two admins have been named and given accounts, ... It's only days away from being open to the public.

Originally posted by kimpossible
Our discussion forum is getting \"beautified\" now.

The server is up and running, the forum software is up and running, the first two admins have been named and given accounts, ... It's only days away from being open to the public.

That's Great, and I hope and pray that you send 'all' of your time over there!