Gaseous emissions from dinosaurs may have warmed prehistoric earth

May 07, 2012
Schoolchildren at the "Walking with Dinosaurs" exhibition in London's O2 Arena in 2009. Giant dinosaurs that roamed the Earth millions of years ago may have warmed the planet with the gas they produced from eating leafy plants, British scientists say.

Sauropod dinosaurs could in principle have produced enough of the greenhouse gas methane to warm the climate many millions of years ago, at a time when the Earth was warm and wet. That's according to calculations reported in the May 8th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication.

The hulking sauropods, distinctive for their enormous size and unusually long necks, were widespread about 150 million years ago. As in , methane-producing aided the sauropods' digestion by fermenting their .

"A simple suggests that the microbes living in may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate," said Dave Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University. "Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources—both natural and man-made—put together."

Wilkinson and study coauthor Graeme Ruxton from the University of St Andrews were studying sauropod ecology when a question dawned on them: If modern cows produce enough methane gas to be of interest to climate scientists, what about sauropods? They teamed up with methane expert Euan Nisbet at the University of London to work out the numbers.

"Clearly, trying to estimate this for animals that are unlike anything living has to be a bit of an educated guess," Wilkinson said.

Animal physiologists have studied methane production from a range of modern animals to derive equations that predict methane production from animals of different sizes. It turns out that those calculations depend only on the total mass of the animals in question. A medium-sized sauropod weighed something like 20,000 kilograms, and sauropods lived in densities ranging from a few large adults to a few tens of individuals per square kilometer.

Wilkinson, Ruxton, and Nisbet therefore calculate global methane emissions from sauropods to have been 520 million tons (520 Tg) per year, comparable to total modern methane emissions. Before industry took off on modern about 150 years ago, methane emissions were roughly 200 Tg per year. By comparison, modern ruminant animals, including cows, goats, giraffes, and others, produce methane emission of 50 to 100 Tg per year.

The study's conclusions not only show "just how strange and wonderful the workings of the planet are" but also serve as a useful reminder for the importance of microbes and methane for global climate, the researchers say.

Explore further: Aging Africa

More information: Wilkinson et al.: "Could methane produced by sauropod dinosaurs have helped drive Mesozoic climate warmth?." Current Biology, May 8, 2012.

Related Stories

Methane gas from cows -- the proof is in the poo

Jun 06, 2011

Scientists could have a revolutionary new way of measuring how much of the potent greenhouse gas methane is produced by cows and other ruminants, thanks to a surprising discovery in their poo.

Traces of cow’s methane emissions in the milk

May 27, 2011

Wageningen University researchers in the Netherlands are able to determine cows' methane emissions using the composition of fatty acids in their milk. This opens up the prospect of a method for reducing methane production ...

Methane from microbes: a fuel for the future

Dec 10, 2007

Microbes could provide a clean, renewable energy source and use up carbon dioxide in the process, suggested Dr James Chong at a Science Media Centre press briefing today.

Just How Significant Is Methane On Titan?

Sep 12, 2005

Titan's second most abundant constituent, methane, is critical to the maintenance of an earth-like nitrogen atmosphere on this satellite. Without methane, Titan's nitrogen would condense, leaving behind a puny amount in ...

Australian scientists aim to reduce sheep burps

Nov 29, 2009

Australian scientists are working to breed a sheep that belches less, as they look for ways to reduce harmful methane emissions from the country's woolly flocks, a researcher said Sunday.

Recommended for you

Aging Africa

12 hours ago

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont–Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

13 hours ago

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

EU project sails off to study Arctic sea ice

18 hours ago

A one-of-a-kind scientific expedition is currently heading to the Arctic, aboard the South Korean icebreaker Araon. This joint initiative of the US and Korea will measure atmospheric, sea ice and ocean properties with technology ...

User comments : 252

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
May 07, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
okyesno
1 / 5 (32) May 07, 2012
This finding would contradict evolutionary assumptions. It is very unlikely that evolution would produce life forms that negatively effect the very selective environment that created them. Millions of years of random mutation and selection would have led to more energetic harmony. The findings are more consistent with creation in a fallen world.
fully attached
4.6 / 5 (20) May 07, 2012
@okyesno whats your point of coming here anyways? you cannot disprove all of science as much as common sense can disprove all of your religious bs. has the teachings of loneliness, fear and accepting authority twisted you in spending your time in this manner? it would be better for you religious to continue your conversions in backwater settings. you cant even explain events 2012 years ago and you want to get into a conversation about millions of years ago? you even entertaining the thought of millions years ago goes against all that you believe in.
Anorion
4.4 / 5 (20) May 07, 2012
This finding would contradict evolutionary assumptions. It is very unlikely that evolution would produce life forms that negatively effect the very selective environment that created them. Millions of years of random mutation and selection would have led to more energetic harmony. The findings are more consistent with creation in a fallen world.


negatively in your opinion.

article says that at time earth was much warmer.
Sauropod were very well adapted to that warm and humid climate witch is also beneficial to plants that feeds them.
only thing that is consistent with faith of magical creationism from lord of the rings and bible and other fairy tales like that , are sick religious brains who come proselytize they idiotic religions on science sites.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (25) May 07, 2012
This finding would contradict evolutionary assumptions.

No it does not. Evolution is not (despite your misconceptions about it) a system that looks to the future. The selection is always done NOW.
Whether the sepcimen that is selected for affects its environment adversely in the future (or even to the point where it itself goes extinct) is not part of the mechanism. Many species have gone extinct in the past because they could not adapt to changes in the environment.

Millions of years of random mutation and selection would have led to more energetic harmony.

No, because the environment isn't static. Stuff happens, you know? That species alter the environment e.g. by just grazing is well documented. Humans alter the environment all the time. So what was 'optimal' ten million years ago may not be optimal now - and what is optimal now may not be optimal tomorrow.

We live in a dynamic feedback system - not a static one.

okyesno
1.4 / 5 (33) May 07, 2012
Not at all. Evolution itself, if true, would be a profound piece of proof for the existence of God. For a blind natural process to arrive at human beings through countless twists and bottlenecks, it must be incredibly fine tuned. The thing is just that evolution never happened because it is logically and scientifically impossible. Man's greatest scientific gaffe is the belief in those speculative historial facts from literally billions of years ago. A belief in the Bible's mere 2000 year old well recorded account of Jesus is much, much more plausble than any zillion years old Darwinian twist.
fully attached
4.7 / 5 (3) May 07, 2012
I wonder if Dino Farts smell as bad as Rush Limbaugh.


i know its a joke but not so funny that limbaugh is representative of people actually embracing the ideals of immature human desires on too wide a scale. he is representative of how too many humans have been convinced that there is something more important than the youth that will inherit the planet including the environment that will sustain future humans.
i am not a fan of this global warming debate. targeting known human violations of the environment would be more efficient expenditure of effort, ie; maliciously inconsiderate harvesting of resources, pollution/dumping, etc.
fully attached
4.6 / 5 (18) May 07, 2012
Not at all. Evolution itself, if true, would be a profound piece of proof for the existence of God. For a blind natural process to arrive at human beings through countless twists and bottlenecks, it must be incredibly fine tuned. The thing is just that evolution never happened because it is logically and scientifically impossible. Man's greatest scientific gaffe is the belief in those speculative historial facts from literally billions of years ago. A belief in the Bible's mere 2000 year old well recorded account of Jesus is much, much more plausble than any zillion years old Darwinian twist.


the bibles' recorded account of jesus? the stench of stupidity precedes you, either you are really this stupid or out to undermine human existence, not that there is a difference between the two.
the chinese have more history than smelly euro 2000 yr old mind control manuals.
nelsonguedes
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
This finding would contradict evolutionary assumptions. It is very unlikely that evolution would produce life forms that negatively effect the very selective environment that created them. Millions of years of random mutation and selection would have led to more energetic harmony. The findings are more consistent with creation in a fallen world.


Dude.... HUMANS. Do we negatively effect the very selective environment that created us?
okyesno
1.1 / 5 (28) May 07, 2012
Fullyattached,

No, you are refuted by your own argument. On what grounds would you reject Biblical records from multiple independent sources based on their age of 2000 years while at the same time gullably embracing a belief in something that happened billions of years ago without any eyewitness? That is just irrational.
Anorion
4.4 / 5 (20) May 07, 2012
@oky
oh yeah blind naked people living in a magical garden where grows magical tree with magical fruit, all made magically by an magical spirit for his entertainment, then a magical talking snake say to blind people to eat magical fruit, and they get banned from magical garden. and then come a magical guy to save them, who was his own father cause his mom was a virgin, and now we are saved magically after we die , if before we died we ate his flesh and drink his blood and read an magical book written about him by goat keepers, murderers and rapers , and people who magically caused seas to split and various disasters to kill as many people as possible to proof that its true, and if we didn't do what is required by magical book, then we go in magical place to suffer forever and ever and ever just cause some other people ate some magical fruit...
OH YEAH HALLELUIAH THAT IS SO LOGICAL ! LMAO
why come proselytize on science sites ? begon creationist
okyesno
1 / 5 (22) May 07, 2012
"Dude.... HUMANS. Do we negatively effect the very selective environment that created us?"

Human activity that could potentially threaten the environment has not started until a few hundred years ago. Evolution had formed humans many hundreds of thousands of years before, so no connection there. Besides, human activity has also dramatically improved land, air and water in recent years. There is no connection between biological evolutiuon and pollution in human history whatsoever.
fully attached
4.3 / 5 (11) May 07, 2012
Fullyattached,

No, you are refuted by your own argument. On what grounds would you reject Biblical records from multiple independent sources based on their age of 2000 years while at the same time gullably embracing a belief in something that happened billions of years ago without any eyewitness? That is just irrational.


you refute my argument with your own words, i never said that i believe anything. i have an open mind that has dismissed the bs of epytian book of dead, torah, bible versions 1-20, koran, etc for science that uses the best findings until something better comes along. in your mind there is nothing better than your religion which is why you are in perpetual war against other religions. religion has twisted humanity to need assurances and self-satisfying definitions of existence. science surely has freed me from your holy war and diverted my energies to those that would inherit the future.
okyesno
1 / 5 (18) May 07, 2012
Anorion,

It is obvious that you have never studied the Bible. The key biological claim of Genesis is twofold:

1. Life comes only from life
2. Every animal or plant can only generate offspring using it's own genetic material.

Both premises are completely consistent with every observation in nature. However if darwin is true then both premises must be false, which is just very implausible.
Anorion
5 / 5 (14) May 07, 2012
oky

it is obvious you never studied science
else you would know that gene transmission isn't perfect and that there are errors, you can observe mutation in every organism living today, and from fossils you can observe how accumulation of those mutation added and also from living organisms who have vestigial organs. without to forget environment pression and competition with other organisms and many other factors that can influence evolution. from all observation it is obvious that evolution is best and only explanation for diversity of life on earth.
on other hand from reading your comments here i start to know you, and im pretty sure you already heard all that from others and it is obvious that it is useless to try to reason with you, since you are an religious bigot who think that he is on divine mission and come on science sites to spread his filthy faith.
cant you see that no one here appreciate your proselytism ?
okyesno
1 / 5 (17) May 07, 2012
" i have an open mind that has dismissed ... "

That sounds more like a closed mind. The fact however is that in your world view, you are never sure of anything. Darwinian evolution happenend billions of years ago, and no-one was there. There is an element of faith required to embrace Darwinism. In that sense, you a "belieber" as well.
fully attached
5 / 5 (12) May 07, 2012
Anorion,

It is obvious that you have never studied the Bible. The key biological claim of Genesis is twofold:

1. Life comes only from life
2. Every animal or plant can only generate offspring using it's own genetic material.

Both premises are completely consistent with every observation in nature. However if darwin is true then both premises must be false, which is just very implausible.


wow, how wrong are you along with the book you read from and in a few keystrokes you have refuted your belief in the bs. "claim"? do you not believe it to be true?
religion is the antithesis of logic. your 2000 year old book cannot be wrong but yet throughout its history its been edited how many time? what about books older? ever buy new underwear? if the younger generation cannot find something better than what the old has, we should be moving backwards then to achieve more. just to be brief you are nothing new, nothing refreshing. just another dust brained ape/parrot wannabe human.
okyesno
1.2 / 5 (18) May 07, 2012
Anorion,

No one doubts that a limited form of variation can occur in any species. That is why we have poodles and great danes. Both are dogs (canis) however, just as jackals, dingo's and wolves. It just shows that all genetic material has an in built flexibility. What has never been observed however, is that the life form "dog" emerged through random mutations from a non-dog. To believe otherwise requires blind faith.
fully attached
4.3 / 5 (11) May 07, 2012
" i have an open mind that has dismissed ... "

That sounds more like a closed mind. The fact however is that in your world view, you are never sure of anything. Darwinian evolution happenend billions of years ago, and no-one was there. There is an element of faith required to embrace Darwinism. In that sense, you a "belieber" as well.


of course my open mind dismissed the bs, which is two letters more complete than your version. whats with the editing? why not show what i said in full? oh yeah, as ive said, the stench of religious tactics precedes you. editing is a well known thing with the myriad of people that worship the myriads of differing bibles.
okyesno
1 / 5 (15) May 07, 2012
Fullyattached,

So which of these premises you do not agree with and why? Again I repeat that the bible is the only religious text that got biology completely correct. In fact Linneaus used the Bible for his theory of taxonomy and Georg Mendels laws of genetics are also based on creation concepts. Mendels research showed that both Lamarck and Darwin were wrong with regards to inheritance of genetic traits.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (14) May 07, 2012
For a blind natural process to arrive at human beings through countless twists and bottlenecks, it must be incredibly fine tuned.

No, because it will arrive at SOMTHING. To argue that then to arrive at that something it must be 'fine tuned' is false.

It's like throwing coins. You always get SOME specific sequence of heads/tails if you do it a thousand times. Was your throwing mechanism therefore fine tuned to produce just that specific sequence? Not at all. Each throw was random.

The thing is just that evolution never happened because it is logically and scientifically impossible.

It is neither logically nor scientifically impossible (if so please provide your rationale what exactly makes it impossible). It fits with all observations and experiments.

You can test evolution in the lab and whe have observed speciation/evolution in the wild.
fully attached
4.2 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
@okyesno how does it feel to base your existence on a singular book that is only 2000 years old and that has been edited countless times by humans of agenda? what were the chinese thinking 4600 years ago when they started their calendar count? jesus or ginseng?
fear, guilt, loneliness, afterlife... oh yeah, wtf kind of fantasy are you in thinking there is a existence after you die? heaven? really? we cant reasonably get beyond the moon but if you die you can move so fast you enter a plane beyond reason. where people of their own genetic material now can sprout wings anatomically placed incorrectly for flight. f off already.
okyesno
1 / 5 (16) May 07, 2012
"No, because it will arrive at SOMTHING"

It is far more likely that evolution would have led to either:

1. a dead end
2. very simple forms of life in complete harmony with the envorinment, such as microbes or algae

But instead we are here, and intelligent species unlike anything else on earth. That fact requires an explanation. Why us? We are hopelessly out of tune with the environment and would not survive 5 mins. Darwins explanation is just very implausible.

Evolution is logically impossible because of the two premises I gave. Read them and offer your refutation if you can.
Anorion
4.2 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
oky

no, it requires fossils and study of genetics and some logic , research and observation. vestigial hind limbs at whales and some snakes show that very good , and that is just few examples, if you want to know ( i suspect that you don't want to know more) more subscribe to biology and evolution curses.
btw dogs have been artificially selected by humans, like all domesticated animals and plants and are at best few thousand years old, much much less time than with what evolution works. the more drasticall changes the more time they take.
but im sure you already know a lot of that, your not interested by finding what it , you just want to spread your filthy faith, witch is not better than other religions, but somehow you think its the only true one. you just fail to see that harder you try to push your faith down our throats the less people like you. ( i say you, but it apply at any religious fanatic like you )
fully attached
4.7 / 5 (12) May 07, 2012
Fullyattached,

So which of these premises you do not agree with and why? Again I repeat that the bible is the only religious text that got biology completely correct. In fact Linneaus used the Bible for his theory of taxonomy and Georg Mendels laws of genetics are also based on creation concepts. Mendels research showed that both Lamarck and Darwin were wrong with regards to inheritance of genetic traits.

and you are "authority" to know and prove that the bible is correct biologically from 2000 years ago but didnt include how to fix the common cold or prevent the stds we have found along the way. you are comedy at best, its a good thing i am self empowering sitting here with good weed.
okyesno
1 / 5 (11) May 07, 2012
Fully attached,

A belief in the Bible is far more rational than a belief in evolution or atheism. One reason would be that it gets biology right. The Bible was not edited, but copied from itself. During copying sometimes small insignificant errors are introduced (as is with genetics). But the Bible is still the Bible, just like humans never evolved into anything else but humans. If you would one day have any children, they would also be humans, which proves the Bible and not Darwin.
Anorion
4.5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2012
oky
a dead end: yes that are called extinct species , we regularly find fossils of them
very simple forms of life in complete harmony with the envorinment, such as microbes or algae: yes its ecology , ecosystems are in balance unless environment or evolution in another organism disturb balance, and then others strive to keep up, aka natural selection and environment pression.

Why us? We are hopelessly out of tune with the environment and would not survive 5 mins. : talk for you, people lived for thousands of years in balance with nature, still today there are tribes in amazonia and africa and new guinea that do it. living in forst just from hunting and gathering
fully attached
4.4 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
Fully attached,

A belief in the Bible is far more rational than a belief in evolution or atheism. One reason would be that it gets biology right. The Bible was not edited, but copied. During copying sometimes small insignificant errors are introduced (as is with genetics). But the Bible is still the Bible, just like humans never evolved into anything else but humans. If you would one day have any children, they would also be humans, which proves the Bible and not Darwin.

old testament, new testament, king james, why call it different things if it is the same? small insignificant errors? is it that hard to copy? i mean they are smart enough to make biological revelations but so inept as to be borderline illiterate that they cannot perfectly copy what is already written. so there must be an original? what happened to it? they didnt know that biological fluids would erode the medium it was printed on? if there was no religion there would be 99% less issues of comedic value.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) May 07, 2012
It is far more likely that evolution would have led to either:

1. a dead end
2. very simple forms of life in complete harmony with the envorinment, such as microbes or algae

It did lead to LOTS of dead ends along the way. Over 90 percent of all species that ever existed are extinct.

and for a VERY long time it did lead to nothing more than algae (over a billion years) - until those algae did exactly that: alter their environment. They excreted oxygen as a waste product for a billion years. Oxygen is a potent catalyst/chemical agent and made it possible for high-energy-throughput species to evolve (plants, and animals).

But instead we are here, and intelligent species unlike anything else on earth.

Every species is 'unlike anything on Earth'. So? Our niche is intelligence. Others have other niches (speed, strength, numbers, survivability under extreme conditions, adaptation to a paticular food source, ... )
okyesno
1 / 5 (13) May 07, 2012
" talk for you, people lived for thousands of years in balance with nature"

In fact they are not. All these tribes would tell you that they at one point in the past were part of a great civilization, but have lost that and are now living day to day. Many have descended into polygamy, child sacrifice, witchcraft and kannibalism. Most are killed at a young age through desease and infections. That is not harmony, it is corruption.
Anorion
4.6 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
bible is a fairy tale, if you want strive to some philosophical ideal , that you extrapolate from those ancients myths and legends, fine. but leave study and description of material world to science. and not fairy tale bible.
okyesno
1 / 5 (13) May 07, 2012
" i am self empowering sitting here with good weed."

There is a reason why you must calm your troubled and angry mind with drugs. Atheism is a void of the heart, and active supression of the knowledge of God. You will never find any happiness in dope. It just shows you have no life and no future. Jesus said: come to me all those who are weary and I will give you rest. No chemical can top that.
Anorion
4.6 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
bible approve polygamy
resorting to magical rites from magical book called bible to go in a magical place after death , that is witchcraft to me
humans and pre humans survived in tribal hunter gatherer groups for hundredths of thousands of years. yes invention agriculture did a lot of good to humans, but then again, agriculture was invented by observing nature (science) not by any spirit or god or other fairy tales
okyesno
1 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
Alias,

You have offered no explanation as to why this random process ended with humans, a unique and intelligent species. Why did it not stop with bacteria or even fish? The fact that it did not is best explained by creation, not chance, because the chance that we are here is infinitely smaller than either no life or very simple life.
Anorion
4.6 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
the only think that make us angry is religious fanatics like you, who try to impose their filthy faith on everyone. that is for you as much for talibans and any other religious fanatics for any other religion who are doing that since thousands of years.
STOP IT ! we don't want your religion
fully attached
4.6 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
@okyesno atheism? angry and troubled? you persist in this omnipotent display of knowledge but somehow i am neither of which you claim me to be. i am antitheist. i have broken the prescriptions of our societal structure because i will not lie to myself about the purpose of my existence. perfect example here, are you saying that a plant grown on "gods" earth, likely a material that the bible was written on, will be called a drug that makes for evil thoughts when used? is this the "adam eating the apple" story? you still with me?
does it anger you that your family has totally repressed your human development? what if there is no heaven for you to go to after all this? too heavily vested in bs? do the reassuring words of the wholly edited 2000 year old book bring you the same comfort that you think a plant on "gods" earth brings for me? the biological revelations of the bible compared to comedic values of thc enhanced perceptions?
okyesno
1 / 5 (12) May 07, 2012
Anorion,

I really do not care what you believe and I have no interest in converting you. All I can say is: you are dead wrong. Darwin is very much faith based as I have shown, and it is forced to deny the most basic facts of biology. Evolution most likely is a myth, and even if it isn't, it requires a Creator to get started and achieve its fine tuning towards human intelligence.
fully attached
4.2 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
Anorion,

I really do not care what you believe and I have no interest in converting you. All I can say is: you are dead wrong. Darwin is very much faith based as I have shown, and it is forced to deny the most basic facts of biology. Evolution most likely is a myth, and even if it isn't, it requires a Creator to get started and achieve its fine tuning towards human intelligence.


this belief in a creator, what does that get you? how does that benefit human existence? how does it benefit you? do you spend time on your knees? putting your hands together for x amount of time mumbling your desires to this creator? purpose?
Anorion
4.6 / 5 (11) May 07, 2012
you shown nothing, and its not because you said something that its true. and everyone agree that darwin was just the guy who came with the base idea, the basic principles , since then biology and evolution are much better understood, but of corse you have no interest in that. if your not interested in converting people, why you come post your bible shit here ? most of time just faith based opinion from your religion, and completely unrelated to articles, in end your opinion is:" science is wrong cause bible say other way.." . flash news for you: no one here care what bible says, else they would go read bible and not come on science site.
Maggie_Fusari
4.1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
Did the model take into account that the dinosaurs probably had metabolic rates lower than endotherms today; they probably had rates somewhere in between what would be expected for endotherms and ectotherms. That would make for a lower methane input.
Could we skip the off topic arguments please.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) May 07, 2012
You have offered no explanation as to why this random process ended with humans

It didn't 'end' with humans. We're just one of the latest additions to the mix. (And whether we'll be successful or go extinct in short order isn't yet decided - could go either way)
By any criterium you care to name that defines 'success' as a species we aren't numero uno... not by a long shot.

Why did it not stop with bacteria or even fish?

Because, as I explained: we're in a dynamic environment. Think about it: when fish developed, what new niche was suddenly available?
- Things that ate fish (at first mostly other fish).
- Parasites that live off of fish
- Bacteria that specialize in eating fish remains
- ...
Every new species is also a niche in an ecosystem. Humans won't be the 'end' of evolution. Evolution is going on all around us in many directions at once.
okyesno
1 / 5 (12) May 07, 2012
"Evolution is going on all around us in many directions at once."

That is a self-contradictory explanation. If a process is so multidirectional then why select for humans? Why did evolution produce only once species that is able to use things like language, abstract thought, build complex industrial societies and compose opera's? Regardless whether humans are the end of the chain, the mere emergence of the unique homo sapiens requires an explanation other than "just so". It is far more likely that blind evolution would have generated more single celled creatures. To deny that humans are special is just a cop out and makes the entire Darwinian story laughable.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) May 07, 2012
Why did evolution produce only once species that is able to use things like language

For a long time it didn't. While the dinosaurs ruled (some 130 million years, which is a damn sight better than we have done so far) intelligence didn't develop much.

Intelligence is just A trait - it is the trait for our niche. It is by no means THE trait.

Of course if you say "my species' best trait is X, so I will measure everything by X and ask why other species don't have X to the same degree" you're just engaging in a circular argument. You could ask (with the same justification) why elephants have the longest trunk, and should therefore be the crown of evolution because obviously no other animal has such a long trunk.

See how stupid such lines of reasoning are?

Elephants are AS unique as homo sapiens. EVERY species is as unique as homo sapiens. So? You're using untenable/indefensible definitions for superiority/uniqueness.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
This finding would contradict evolutionary assumptions. It is very unlikely that evolution would produce life forms that negatively effect the very selective environment that created them. Millions of years of random mutation and selection would have led to more energetic harmony. The findings are more consistent with creation in a fallen world.


This is stupid and indicates that you have no idea how selection or evolution in general works.
Anorion
5 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
I wonder if Dino Farts smell as bad as Rush Limbaugh.

they cant smell worst than creationists
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (11) May 07, 2012
1. Life comes only from life


Impossible unless life has always existed, but you argue fervently against an eternal reality.

2. Every animal or plant can only generate offspring using it's own genetic material.


What does this mean? Taken literally then yes this is true, but that genetic material is recombined with the partners genetic material in sexual reproduction and it is subject to mutation either way.

If darwin is true then both premises must be false, which is just very implausible.


No, the theory of evolution does not state that either of those must be true. For the first one, evolution says nothing about the ultimate origin of life. For the second one, it's true even in the context of evolutionary theory, clearly organisms pass on their own genetic material to their offspring, in fact that is called inheritance and it is REQUIRED by evolutionary theory.

You don't know what you are talking about.
Skepticus
4.1 / 5 (13) May 07, 2012
Don't feed the religitroll. He is a hypocrite of the worst kind, the ungrateful ones who eat then shat in the pot. He eats the foods that was grown in plenty by thousands of years of humans' hard work in discovering and improving knowledge in agriculture that didn't come from a cursed book; He wears cloths of all sorts of human-made materials,the know-how that didn't come from the cursed book; He drinks sanitized water treated by science knowledge that didn't come from the cursed book; He and his ilk parasites on the fruits of modern healthcare that come from hundreds of years of scientific studies in vaccination, antibiotics, and genetics researches that didn't come from a cursed book. He comes here, using modern computer tech that didn't come from the cursed book to spew his filthy wares, and questions the basics of sciences that made all the above possible. Even the expletives themselves will feel unclean when they are associated with such ungrateful git!
CHollman82
3.5 / 5 (11) May 07, 2012
Here is a forum you'd like okyesno, why don't go to this cesspool of ignorance instead of shitting up this website:

http://www.evolut...ndex.php
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (14) May 07, 2012
Guys... someone who bases their belief system on any religion or political ideology rather than facts cannot be convinced by data.

They simply do not have the ability to consider any data that contradicts their world view. I understand that this is quite confusing to those that have a science based belief system. Most of us with a reality system based on science are quite comfortable changing what we think to be true when new data is presented to them.

I suspect it is simply because faith based systems never require answering any hard questions. It attracts both the intellectually lazy and the intellectually challenged.
okyesno
1.3 / 5 (13) May 07, 2012
Hollman,

Both premises still stand:

1. Only life can create life
2. Every species can only pass it's own genetic material to it's offspring.

Both are consistent with what we observe in nature. Mutations occur but are mostly copy errors, and do not invalidate premise 2. No new genes can be created spontaneously, but existing genes can be passed on, corrupted or lost.

Of course life is eternal. It must be, otherwise life cannot exist. Life does not arise out of dead matter. The original life source must be God and not dead matter if premise 1 is true (and we observe it to be true).
Anorion
5 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
Hollman,

Both premises still stand:

1. Only life can create life
2. Every species can only pass it's own genetic material to it's offspring.

Both are consistent with what we observe in nature. Mutations occur but are mostly copy errors, and do not invalidate premise 2. No new genes can be created spontaneously, but existing genes can be passed on, corrupted or lost.

Of course life is eternal. It must be, otherwise life cannot exist. Life does not arise out of dead matter. The original life source must be God and not dead matter if premise 1 is true (and we observe it to be true).

we never observed any god create anything, living or no
okyesno
1 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
Skepticus,

Knowledge of engineering or agriculture has nothing to do with Darwins historical hypothesis about the origin of species billions of years ago. It is very difficult to know such distant history accurately, so it cannot be compared to modern operational science. One can design a spaceship perfectly well without Darwin. Modern science and medicine in fact does not need evolution at all to be successful.

The Bible says bless, but curse not. So be blessed my friend.
okyesno
1 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
"we never observed any god create anything, living or no"

That is true for modern man, but we draw logical inferences to arrive at real knowledge. If premise 1 and 2 are true, Darwinism is very implausible. But there certainly was one witness of God's creation, and that was Adam. His account is still in the Bible and is positive evidence for creation.
Anorion
5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2012
"we never observed any god create anything, living or no"

That is true for modern man, but we draw logical inferences to arrive at real knowledge. If premise 1 and 2 are true, Darwinism is very implausible. But there certainly was one witness of God's creation, and that was Adam. His account is still in the Bible and is positive evidence for creation.

there isn't any evidence or proof for existence of adam.
human transcribed accounts trough myths and legends aren't reliable source of information, specially as translated and copied like bible witch isn't an evidence for anything since 96% of things in it are false. bible is a collection of ancient myths and legends and other fairy tales that is all what it is.
there is not any observation of creation by anyone, not now not ever
Yellowdart
1.3 / 5 (14) May 07, 2012
No, because it will arrive at SOMTHING. To argue that then to arrive at that something it must be 'fine tuned' is false.

It's like throwing coins. You always get SOME specific sequence of heads/tails if you do it a thousand times


This is true, anti. That's part of the problem though. With a coin you are limited to the results of two options. Either heads or tails. Flipping the coin will never produce a 4th or 5th option. DNA works no different, you have a range of options, and thus limitations by the same note. This is why flies still give birth to flies no matter how many times reproduced, mutated, or even artificially selected for.

CHollman82
4.1 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
Both premises still stand:

1. Only life can create life
2. Every species can only pass it's own genetic material to it's offspring.


I've already addressed this, you ignored me and simply stated that the premise still stands. I will not talk to a wall, either read what I wrote and respond to it or I will consider you unworthy of consideration.

Both are consistent with what we observe in nature. Mutations occur but are mostly copy errors, and do not invalidate premise 2. No new genes can be created spontaneously, but existing genes can be passed on, corrupted or lost.


You just contradicted yourself. Mutations are MOSTLY detrimental yes, but regardless they do produce new genetic information.

Of course life is eternal, otherwise life cannot exist. Life does not arise out of dead matter. The original life source must be God and not dead matter if premise 1 is true (and we observe it to be true)


But you don't believe reality is eternal, another contradiction.
Yellowdart
1.3 / 5 (14) May 07, 2012
there isn't any evidence or proof for existence of adam


Well, actually, the Y chromosome can be traced back to a single male. Same with mDNA and females. You honestly should read published papers rather than just take hear say or editorial spins.

But there certainly was one witness of God's creation, and that was Adam. His account is still in the Bible and is positive evidence for creation


The other glaring witness would be Jesus himself.

bible is a collection of ancient myths and legends and other fairy tales that is all what it is.


Dinos becoming birds and men and monkeys sharing the same grandpappy is the modern fanciful fairy tale.

CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
If premise 1 and 2 are true, Darwinism is very implausible.


I already explained why this is not true, you ignored me. Why should I continue talking to you?
CHollman82
3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
Well, actually, the Y chromosome can be traced back to a single male. Same with mDNA and females.


This is evidence of a common ancestor, yes, but that ancestor was not homo sapien sapien...

Dinos becoming birds and men and monkeys sharing the same grandpappy is the modern fanciful fairy tale.


Dinos did not eventually lead to monkeys or men, you're an idiot and you don't understand that which you deny, just like henrik/okyesno
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 07, 2012
just an unrelated question, if adam existed what skin color / ethnicity he was ?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2012
Dinos did not eventually lead to monkeys or men, you're an idiot


My apologies for leaving out the comma. I meant to separate groups, not that dinos led to men.

Although, it's odd you get flustered with this considering I've yet to see what that common ancestor looked like...

And at one point, the dino and the man had a common ancestor as well....

This is evidence of a common ancestor, yes, but that ancestor was not homo sapien sapien


Careful when you talk about things you lack knowledge in. mito Eve lived about 6k ago...

See: Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol. 279, 2 January 1998

and Thomas J. Parsons et al., A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region, Nature Genetics, Vol. 15 April 1997
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
You weren't talking about Mitochondrial Eve... you were talking about Adam, remember?
Anorion
5 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
The date when Mitochondrial Eve lived is estimated by determining the MRCA of a sample of mtDNA lineages. In 1980, Brown first proposed that modern humans possessed a mitochondrial common ancestor that may have lived as recently as 180,000 years ago. In 1987, Cann et al. suggested that mitochondrial Eve may have lived between 140-280 thousand years ago.

One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time. Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women alive at Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line
CHollman82
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2012
Thanks for taking the time to look that up anorion (I certainly don't have that memorized anyway)
Yellowdart
1.1 / 5 (11) May 07, 2012
just an unrelated question, if adam existed what skin color / ethnicity he was ?


If a single male existed he would have carried the genetic info for all descendant races, so in essence he would be the father of all other ethnicities. As to his personal color, most likely darker skinned like tan or red considering he didn't live indoors much.
Anorion
5 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
just an unrelated question, if adam existed what skin color / ethnicity he was ?


If a single male existed he would have carried the genetic info for all descendant races, so in essence he would be the father of all other ethnicities. As to his personal color, most likely darker skinned like tan or red considering he didn't live indoors much.

so if he was created perfect in image of that god of yours and he was dark skinned or red or pinto, means your god is dark skinned , hence all the other ethnicity today are aberrations / monsters ?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
You weren't talking about Mitochondrial Eve... you were talking about Adam, remember?


I mentioned both.

But if you'd like more.

See Robert L. Dorit et al., Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y Chromosome, Science, Vol. 268, 26 May 1995

Human males should have had multiple mutations in the Y chrome if we've been around for 100k in years. They found none in the above study across multiple ethnic groups. Means either the clock rate is wrong or man hasn't been around that long. Coupled with females i'd say it's the latter.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
In 1980, Brown first proposed that modern humans possessed a mitochondrial common ancestor that may have lived as recently as 180,000 years ago. In 1987, Cann et al. suggested that mitochondrial Eve may have lived between 140-280 thousand years ago.


Yes, but in more recent studies, Cann's clock was said to be wrong.

so if he was created perfect in image of that god


God doesn't have a body. Being made in his image isn't necessarily a reflection of physical traits or that God has DNA as an example.

Anorion
5 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
In 1980, Brown first proposed that modern humans possessed a mitochondrial common ancestor that may have lived as recently as 180,000 years ago. In 1987, Cann et al. suggested that mitochondrial Eve may have lived between 140-280 thousand years ago.


Yes, but in more recent studies, Cann's clock was said to be wrong.

so if he was created perfect in image of that god


God doesn't have a body. Being made in his image isn't necessarily a reflection of physical traits or that God has DNA as an example.


sayd by who ? young earth creationists ?
of corse he has no body or dna , since he dont exist, except the idea of it in human minds. man created god(s), not other way round.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
hence all the other ethnicity today are aberrations / monsters


Adam and Eve never gave birth to clones, so why would one expect a color variation to be an aberration or monster or less of God's image, even prior to the Fall.

Are you just trying to raise a strawman or is your understanding of basic christian views that far off?

MandoZink
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
So which of these premises you do not agree with and why? Again I repeat that the bible is the only religious text that got biology completely correct.
- okyesno

I can't even begin to point out how the bible got biology COMPLETELY WRONG! There are so many absurd assumptions from ignorance it reads like a movie script in which you MUST suspend disbelieve just to tolerate the show.

For one thing, why did it NOT have a clue about disease and bacteria? Illnesses always had supernatural causes in biblical text. People STILL make the news for praying over sick children and letting them die when current medical care will suffice.

In that respect alone the bible is ignorant, if not plain deadly.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
sayd by who ? young earth creationists ?


No, I posted several published articles from journals like Science. See above. Go read them.

man created god(s), not other way round.


Man creating it's own false gods doesn't negate the possibility that one created man.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
For one thing, why did it NOT have a clue about disease and bacteria? Illnesses always had supernatural causes in biblical text.


Most bacteria are not harmful, only about 5-10% are pathogenic. Kinda the thorns and thistles of the micro world.

Simply because it's not stated, like your name for instance, doesn't mean it had to. It's purpose isn't a science book. It's a history book, and from that at most you can get are possible initial conditions.

MandoZink
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
My old roommate once proposed this test:

Place one man in front of a church full of devout people, place a second man in front of an emergency trauma center. Then shoot each of the two men in the stomach with a 45. Then let the entire church pray relentlessly and sincerely for their guy, and let the trauma center take care of the other. See who fares better. That should sort out the difference between real science and biblical notions of biology.

My old roommate was veritable wellspring of ideas to awaken the slumbering intellect.
Anorion
4.4 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
hence all the other ethnicity today are aberrations / monsters


Adam and Eve never gave birth to clones, so why would one expect a color variation to be an aberration or monster or less of God's image, even prior to the Fall.

Are you just trying to raise a strawman or is your understanding of basic christian views that far off?


show me two black people give birth to an japanese and we can talk about adam and eve giving birth to clones or not.
not to mention incest problem in your tale, if it start with just 2 people.
and already told you bible is a story, not history.
btw magic doesn't exist, so god did it is not an answer to anything , not now and will never be. all you creationists have to offer are lies.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
Man creating it's own false gods doesn't negate the possibility that one created man.

I also doesn't negate the supernatural possibility that when my dog barks, an angel loses its fleas. What the hell kind of logic is that?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
That should sort out the difference between real science and biblical notions of biology.

My old roommate was veritable wellspring of ideas to awaken the slumbering intellect.


Except if your roommate had gone to just about any church at random, including devout, they'd have taken the wounded to the ER as well as prayed.

The small sect that refuses modern medical treatment is practically considered a cult. Scientology isn't recognized by any protestant or catholic denomination. And I'm not even sure they wouldn't tend to a bullet wound, considering people use to get sword and arrow injuries.

Hang on a minute while I count the number of cult evolutionists who think that aliens planted DNA here on earth and then stereotype that to all of you.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
I also love the omnipotence of a god who wants fruit from a fig tree which is out of season. When he cannot get his fig, he KILLS the damned tree.

What happened to his omniscience? He should have known!
What happened to his patience? He got angry at a TREE?
What happened to his omnipotence? He could have made it bloom!
What happened to his compassion? He could have left the tree to bloom again and feed others!

WHY, WHY, WHY do we have to point out the myriad of absolutely illogical and utterly stupid things that the bible reeks of from beginning to end? DO you not EVER stop and think? EVER? AT ALL?

You people will nitpick science articles and yet completely miss the ELEPHANT in the room!

Can we all just be scientific here? Can we? After all, the web is full of site with various opposing mythological missions. Why not argue with them which is the TRUE belief system? Science is about discussing facts, verifiable evidence, experiments and results.

Still, we have to live with you.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
show me two black people give birth to an japanese


At some point this occurs even by evolutionary standard, that an ancestor gives birth to a variation in color and some variation in physiology. Standard speciation does this all the time, esp for isolated populations and color variations.

not to mention incest problem in your tale, if it start with just 2 people.


Initially, not necessarily. If that is a major problem initially, then the intial life past the cell which reproduces sexually is going to have just as many problems esp by evolutionary standards. Everyone is a sister/brother at that point all the same.

Assuming Eve and Adam started with no corruptions/coding errors etc, their offspring would reproduce with little if no possibility for major flaws we see today. The chance would begin to increase though as decendents increased through the generations.

and already told you bible is a story, not history.


Dinos becoming birds is a story.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
DO you not EVER stop and think?


If you prefer being the brother of a monkey go right ahead.

Can we all just be scientific here?


Can you? Or must you resort to nitpicking the Bible instead?
Anorion
5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2012
what ? yellow admitted evolution and speciation occurs and that are living organisms are related to some extend ?
gratz yellow maybe there is some hope for you , maybe with time you even abandon that insane bible fairy tale and start consider material world trough rational thinking and not magic and spirit and god and other shit like that ^^
MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
Hang on a minute while I count the number of cult evolutionists who think that aliens planted DNA here on earth and then stereotype that to all of you.

Oh yes. These people exist too! They see UFOs everywhere too! They are also NOT SCIENTISTS!

DO you not know the difference between gullible theists and gullible readers of science-fiction?

Oh, right. You don't.
Anorion
5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2012
DO you not EVER stop and think?


If you prefer being the brother of a monkey go right ahead.

Can we all just be scientific here?


Can you? Or must you resort to nitpicking the Bible instead?

how funny creationists get offended if they told that they have common ancestors with apes, but not if you told them that some magical being took some bunch of dirt and made it magicaly out of it, and then took one of his ribs and make a female to serve him lmao
MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
Can you? Or must you resort to nitpicking the Bible instead?

Exposure of blatant absurdities is NOT nitpicking. But now I also wouldn't nitpick Harry Potter or Batman.

By the way, do you even have an answer for just one of the "fig tree" questions I asked. No. You just attack the guy who asked completely rational questions. You DON'T have an answer do you? Do you? Why aren't YOU questioning that story? Explain.
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 07, 2012
Can you? Or must you resort to nitpicking the Bible instead?

Exposure of blatant absurdities is NOT nitpicking. But now I also wouldn't nitpick Harry Potter or Batman.

By the way, do you even have an answer for just one of the "fig tree" questions I asked. No. You just attack the guy who asked completely rational questions. You DON'T have an answer do you? Do you? Why aren't YOU questioning that story? Explain.


i have fig answer, figs are delicious , i love figs, fresh and also in jam and dried or any other form, yummy fig ! hell if i were hungry maybe i would kill for a fig too oO
Yellowdart
1.8 / 5 (10) May 07, 2012
what ? yellow admitted evolution and speciation occurs and that are living organisms are related to some extend ?


What you read?? If you had read earlier, you'd also have noted where I said it is limited...and that I don't find dino's becoming birds to be anything other than a story.

I'm afraid that after all the fly and bacteria breeding that's been published, I can't seem to find any reason to think that flies or bacteria will be anything different than flies and bacteria. They can diversify to an extent, but that's it.

In essence, observational studies show it's impossible to get birds from dinos.
Anorion
5 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
what ? yellow admitted evolution and speciation occurs and that are living organisms are related to some extend ?


What you read?? If you had read earlier, you'd also have noted where I said it is limited...and that I don't find dino's becoming birds to be anything other than a story.

I'm afraid that after all the fly and bacteria breeding that's been published, I can't seem to find any reason to think that flies or bacteria will be anything different than flies and bacteria. They can diversify to an extent, but that's it.

In essence, observational studies show it's impossible to get birds from dinos.

oh sorry , my bad, there is no hope for you, you will die like all creationists.... 80 years old people with 3 year old child like understanding of the world they live in, filled with magic and gods and spirits and fairy tales....i dont mind, if only if you could stop to try get involved in science, and leave this site and all the others, go in church, forget us
Yellowdart
1.1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
DO you not know the difference between gullible theists and gullible readers of science-fiction?


You mean guys like Dawkins? I'll agree with you there. And please note my sarcasm from the whole hang on a minute. I try not to project group think onto an individual, and nor should you.

By the way, do you even have an answer for just one of the "fig tree" questions I asked.


Yes, actually I do. You should first look at how a fig tree grows though. Fig trees produce a precurser to figs called tasqh. Figs weren't in season yet, because they were due in a few weeks. Finding NO tasqh though indicates there will be no figs. You can eat a tasqh. It's another parable/example by Christ. Also, Christ is never said to have full omniscience. He clearly states not knowing when he'll return. So not knowing from a distance that a tree has fruit is also plausible until closer inspection.

Caliban
5 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
hence all the other ethnicity today are aberrations / monsters


Adam and Eve never gave birth to clones, so why would one expect a color variation to be an aberration or monster or less of God's image, even prior to the Fall.

Are you just trying to raise a strawman or is your understanding of basic christian views that far off?


Can't have it both ways, yellow.

If there is variation and mutation, then there is evolution.

If there is no variation or mutation, then it is as you creationists would have it ONE KIND FOREVER.

Damned out of your own mouth.

Now pissoff.

Yellowdart
1.4 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
You just attack the guy who asked completely rational questions.


And if I responded uncordially please state where. I've only tried to answer politely and yet directly, even to those who have not returned the same.

You should also give people a chance to answer, rather than attack them before they do.
Yellowdart
1.4 / 5 (9) May 07, 2012
If there is variation and mutation, then there is evolution.


I don't disagree with you. My disagreements are the assumptions that evolution has no limitations and is from one common ancestor.

Do you understand the difference I'm getting at? To an evolutionist they consider them the same. Understand to someone like me, I do not.

I refuse to extrapolate evolution where we can not see and where science experiments have not shown even the possibility of it.

But it is a profound mechanism for stability and order.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
Also, Christ is never said to have full omniscience.

Apparently he was too stupid to even know what every commoner knew back then as a simple matter of survival - when figs have fruit. Then he got mad. But as your story goes, he did have the power to kill the tree.

What in the hell kind of lesson is that?
Anorion
4.9 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
well its past midnight here, i go sleep, tomorrow when i come back , we can keep this very "constructive" talking. sometime is funny to mock all those old superstitions like bible and others. tomorrow we can discuss how some old guy put millions of different species of animals and plants and fungi and others, on some artisanal wood ship to save them from some imaginary flood, and how he accommodated different climates and environments and food and fresh water they each demand to survive , and how fresh/salt water fishes survived depending if flood was fresh or salt water. and what makes you think your religion / god is only true one, and not islam /quran , or zeus or jupiter or shiva or whatever..and im tired to be polite to creationists , you people seem reason immune , always bringing up magical reasons and bible and such, you call it creation science, there is nothing scientifical about creation. creation magic is more appropriate term. and as someone said already, begon creationist
Yellowdart
1.5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2012
how funny creationists get offended if they told that they have common ancestors with apes


Where was I offended? I'm fine if you prefer monkey fairy tales over god fairy tales.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
Apparently he was too stupid to even know what every commoner knew back then as a simple matter of survival - when figs have fruit. Then he got mad. But as your story goes, he did have the power to kill the tree.


He also had the power to heal and raise the dead. So withering a tree in comparison is light weight.

One must recognize everything he does was with purpose, even if he knows it has no fruit beforehand, he's still going to make a point out of it. Many equate this as a sign to Israel's coming destruction. A fruit tree that bears no fruit is worthless. If you can't grasp any lesson out of it, I'm not sure that I can help you. Feel free to google those questions, you aren't the first to ask about it.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
how some old guy put millions of different species of animals and plants and fungi and others, on some artisanal wood ship


Why would he need millions? You'd only need representatives of land animals including birds. Pay attention, evolution is a great mechanism for post flood repopulation of diversity.

Feel free to PM me tomorrow if you prefer, since you rolled off about 20 questions there.

what makes you think your religion / god is only true one


Every other religion posits meritable salvation. Christianity and the Bible is the only one that posits salvation is upon Christ alone. It's not a religion that man can write himself for man always wants to make God under man's judgement.
simplicio
5 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
The small sect that refuses modern medical treatment is practically considered a cult.

What is difference between sect, cult, religion? None. It is all the same, just number of followers and time makes the difference.
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
If you prefer being the brother of a monkey go right ahead.


This is a misrepresentation of human origin. Every human is the distant ancestor of a distant ancestor of every monkey, that's really the most accurate way to put it.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
show me two black people give birth to a japanese


At some point this occurs even by evolutionary standard, that an ancestor gives birth to a variation in color and some variation in physiology. Standard speciation does this all the time, esp for isolated populations and color variations.


What? No, you're stupid.

If a couple that is fully African in heritage has 100 children then those children will have a variety of features and skin tones but NONE of them will look Japanese... the changes required to go from African features to Japanese features could not occur in a single generation.

You don't know anything about evolution, I don't know why you think you can argue against something that you are ignorant of.
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) May 07, 2012
I don't disagree with you. My disagreements are the assumptions that evolution has no limitations and is from one common ancestor.

Do you understand the difference I'm getting at? To an evolutionist they consider them the same. Understand to someone like me, I do not.

I refuse to extrapolate evolution where we can not see and where science experiments have not shown even the possibility of it.

But it is a profound mechanism for stability and order.


So what you're saying is since you can see volcano's you believe in them, but since you can't watch them form island chains like Hawaii you cannot believe that they did?

If you can only believe what you can witness firsthand then I feel bad for you, I don't know how you believe in any of your religious myths, it must a terrible burden to carry around such cognitive dissonance.
Milou
5 / 5 (3) May 07, 2012
Our present day dinosaurs (SUVs) are doing the same thing. Exhaust vs fart almost the same.
simplicio
5 / 5 (3) May 07, 2012
If you can only believe what you can witness firsthand then I feel bad for you

Ha, I am wondering how they would react to optical illusion and magician tricks. It is seeing, yes?

A2G
2.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
I skipped the article and went right to the comments and expecting a lot of jokes. Instead I found a huge rukus and name calling...Good thing we are not really together in one room. There would be blood everywhere.

Hev
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
why have farting dinosaurs brought out all the religious nutters
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
Only life can create life

No. This does not follow. (and the term 'life' is also not well defined)
There are self replicating stuctures other than those that are DNA based (e.g. prions). Life could well have arisen fom a precursor such as that - though we don't really know.
But the statetment that life CANNOT arise other than from previous life is not merited in any way.

Every species can only pass it's own genetic material to it's offspring.

Wrong. Many bacteria are able to incorporate snippets of others' genes. Viruses (and some bacteria) are able to inject genetic infomation into their hosts. We use these mechanisms all the time in laboratory settings for genetic experiments (e.g. to make bacteria like E. Coli produce various proteins that the original form does not produce.)

, corrupted or lost.

How do you explain somthing like the AIDS virus? It adapts BECAUSE out of the many mutation errors occasionally one is beneficial to it.
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
why have farting dinosaurs brought out all the religious nutters

cause dinosaurs fart is like god, invisible but you can feel its presence
Peteri
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
But there certainly was one witness of God's creation, and that was Adam. His account is still in the Bible and is positive evidence for creation.


The problem with the old Adam and Eve myth is that this would logically mean that all of humanity is the result of an endless series of incestuous relationships - and yet the bible, supposedly the teachings of this very same god who produced Adam and Eve, also condemns incest. So it seems like this god figure just can't make up his omnipotent mind about which rules to follow and turns a blind eye whenever it's convenient!
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
I wonder if Dino Farts smell as bad as Rush Limbaugh.

You are giving Dino farts a bad name.
Shootist
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
I wonder if Dino Farts smell as bad as Rush Limbaugh.


Are you in the habit of smelling Rush Limbaugh?
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
Anorion,

No one doubts that a limited form of variation can occur in any species. That is why we have poodles and great danes. Both are dogs (canis) however.


and what of donkeys and horses? They can reproduce to make mules, but mules are infertile and cannot make more mules. This is an example of speciation in progress.

You want evidence, it's all around you in the animal kingdom as it exists right now, you're just too stupid and brainwashed to understand it.
Jimee
5 / 5 (7) May 08, 2012
Anyone who has studied the bible knows that it is a mishmash of contradictions, absurdities, and obvious lies meant to enslave the populace for the enrichment of religion and its authoritarian masters. Religion will say anything in order to maintain its power. Nothing more.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
The problem with the old Adam and Eve myth is that this would logically mean that all of humanity is the result of an endless series of incestuous relationships


That's still a problem for any common decent, especially if it's from one common ancestor originally. If you want an initial species to continue to populate, the first offspring will be sleeping with their brothers/sisters.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
They can reproduce to make mules, but mules are infertile and cannot make more mules. This is an example of speciation in progress.


Or a dead end.
Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
The problem with the old Adam and Eve myth is that this would logically mean that all of humanity is the result of an endless series of incestuous relationships


That's still a problem for any common decent, especially if it's from one common ancestor originally. If you want an initial species to continue to populate, the first offspring will be sleeping with their brothers/sisters.

not really, if the "good" gene is recessive, for example like blue eyes, its enough that one parent have blue eyes, and all kids will have blue eyes, even if other parent have brown eyes and parents arent related.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
That's still a problem for any common decent

Not really, since without the bible there is no problem for incest populations. There are many examples of populations which have been extremely limited in their environment for a long time (e.g. cave fish) but which are still viable.

not really, if the "good" gene is recessive, for example like blue eyes, its enough that one parent have blue eyes, and all kids will have blue eyes,

Recessivs only show up if both parents have it (blue eyes are polygenic, but the effect is close to being recessive). That is why incest is said to be a problem: Because the likelyhood of recessive genes being paired up increases.

While this may seem like a recipe for desaster it isn't. Traits can depend on several genes (like blue eyes). So even small/incestuous populations can have a robust gene pool (it is estimated that the human species once went through a bottleneck of 2000 to 15000 individuals)
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (10) May 08, 2012
They can reproduce to make mules, but mules are infertile and cannot make more mules. This is an example of speciation in progress.


Or a dead end.


It's the horse and donkey that are the example of speciation BECAUSE their offspring is a dead end.

Like I said, too uneducated to understand it.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
the changes required to go from African features to Japanese features could not occur in a single generation.


I never said a single generation. I said at some point.

Are you saying homo sapien sapiens arised via multiple pathways? If not, then somewhere along the line asians share the same ancestor as africans.

So what you're saying is since you can see volcano's you believe in them, but since you can't watch them form island chains like Hawaii you cannot believe that they did?


Where did I say firsthand? There are plenty of videos of lava flows in Hawaii and it's fairly simple to take a trip oneself. Everytime lava cools you get ingenious rock, so i'd say it's fairly conclusive that volcanoes are the source of Hawaii's islands.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
Not really, since without the bible there is no problem for incest populations.


What?

You go on to say:

That is why incest is said to be a problem: Because the likelyhood of recessive genes being paired up increases.


So without the Bible it still has problems. I wasn't saying it's disaster either. But it's clear that the closer related you are, the greater risk not only for recessive genes, but corruptions or mutations as well in the code, esp with a 6 billion population.

Isolated populations have also had less exposure, which goes back to say something an issue like Adam and Eve not having a significant problem in such an early isolated stage, which is what I was responding to.

CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
the changes required to go from African features to Japanese features could not occur in a single generation.


I never said a single generation. I said at some point.

Are you saying homo sapien sapiens arised via multiple pathways? If not, then somewhere along the line asians share the same ancestor as africans.


Fair enough, the various races of humans are indeed an example of divergent evolution that might have but did not lead to speciation (due to the rise of technology that bridged the geographic barriers)

Where did I say firsthand? There are plenty of videos of lava flows in Hawaii and it's fairly simple to take a trip oneself. Everytime lava cools you get ingenious rock, so i'd say it's fairly conclusive that volcanoes are the source of Hawaii's islands.


But they formed millions of years ago, you can't possibly know.

Right? Right? This is how you think, evidence doesn't matter if you weren't there to see it.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
I mean, you say that you can see lava flows so obviously huge islands came from them, which is to say you see small incremental changes so obviously massive changes that occurred a long time ago can be explained by them... but then when speaking about evolution you admit the small incremental changes that we can see but DENY the large changes that result from the accumulation of them over time, just like the volcanic islands grow over time from small changes caused by lava flows, so too do species change significantly from the accumulation of small insignificant changes...

You sir, are a hypocrite. There is absolutely no reason you should believe in island formation from observing lava flows but not evolution from observing genetic changes and selection.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
But it's clear that the closer related you are, the greater risk not only for recessive genes

Yes. But that itself is just another selection pressure.
Example: let's say there is a very incestuous population that carries recessive gene A (which is somehow not too favorable - e.g. reducing lifespan or number of offspring in some way).
Lots of offspring will have the feature caused by A. But random mutation is also going on - so at some point there might be a mutation at place B in the genome that shuts down activity at A (or offsets it). Most features we have are polygenic in some way.
Mutation B will quickly spread through the population because it lives longer/has more offspring.

Studies of mitochondrial DNA (which is only passed along the matrilinear line) allows us to track back the waves of human expansion. But that goes back much further as the bible would have us believe. Adam and Eve also doesn't explain why we share more than 90 percent mitochondrial DNA with apes.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
We've never seen a patch of ocean turn into an island and we've never seen an animal turn into another animal, that's your objection to evolution correct? Why not apply it to volcanic islands, what's the difference?

I'll tell you, one does not contradict your holy book, the other does. You are using 2000 year old information as an excuse to ignore modern science, and that is lunacy.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
But they formed millions of years ago, you can't possibly know.


Rate is an entirely different matter than source. If you assume lava has flowed consistently the same then sure millions it would have to be. That's where we would disagree.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
But they formed millions of years ago, you can't possibly know.


Rate is an entirely different matter than source. If you assume lava has flowed consistently the same then sure millions it would have to be. That's where we would disagree.


How old is the Hawaiian island chain? How old is the big island (which if I'm not mistaken is the oldest).

REGARDLESS, you believe that small incremental changes that you can see accumulated to large changes that MADE ISLANDS. Yet when it comes to evolution you don't believe that small incremental changes that you can see lead to the accumulation of larger changes.

You're still a hypocrite.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
You sir, are a hypocrite.


Lava does not solidify or flow at any rate comparable to a molecular clock, so why would I ever assume that one or the other is dependent upon the others assumed constant rate?

That's absurd.

CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) May 08, 2012
You sir, are a hypocrite.


Lava does not solidify or flow at any rate comparable to a molecular clock, so why would I ever assume that one or the other is dependent upon the others assumed constant rate?

That's absurd.


I didn't say one was dependent on the other, I implied an analogy between the two.

In both volcanic island building and evolution small incremental changes accumulate over time to produce very large and very noticeable changes. In both cases the small changes we can observe today in a single human life time but we cannot observe the entire process that produces the large scale result that exists today due to the amount of time it requires.

Yet, you have no problem believing in one, but you don't believe in the other, and the excuse most frequently presented is that we cannot observe "macro" evolution so there is no reason to believe in it. Well, we cannot observe "macro" volcanic island building either, yet you believe in that...
CHollman82
4 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
We've never seen a patch of ocean turn into a giant volcano, that's absurd! Yes volcano's that already exist that God put here in their present form do eject lava that solidifies into rock and expands the island slowly over time, but that is not evidence that a non-volcano can ever become a volcano!

Do you see how retarded that sounds? That's how retarded all of you creationists always sound.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
REGARDLESS, you believe that small incremental changes that you can see accumulated to large changes that MADE ISLANDS.


You infer this, but I've only agreed that lava is the source of Hawaii's land mass. You can see lava continue to pour out today due to it being a hot spot. In essence I don't believe the incremental rate has always been an incremental rate in the past.

Yet when it comes to evolution you don't believe that small incremental changes that you can see lead to the accumulation of larger changes


Why should I? It's not that I don't appreciate the hypothesis but study after study for the last 80 years has never produced those larger changes when purposely trying for them, and they should if this is the mechanism. It should readily occur.

This is why Gould came up with punctuated equilibria, because the small increments don't give large changes, but work to keep the species alive and stable, not to evolve it from something like dino to birds.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
We've never seen a patch of ocean turn into a giant volcano, that's absurd!


But you've seen a dino turn into a bird over multiple generations? When is it okay to sound absurd? Whenever it suits you?

Yes volcano's that already exist that God put here in their present form do eject lava that solidifies into rock and expands the island slowly over time


I didn't invoke original creation. lava flows produce volcanos. the issue isn't the lava, the cooling, or the rock, but that we disagree over the constant rate.

Do you see how retarded that sounds? That's how retarded all of you creationists always sound.


And yet you readily accept that you and an ape share the same ancestor? That's not at all even slightly retarded in sound to you?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
not to evolve it from something like dino to birds.

so what is your explanation that we share so much DNA with everything else? Or that we all use the same handedness when it comes to amino acids/proteins?

It should readily occur.

It does occur:

Speciation has been observed
http://www.talkor...ion.html

Evolutioncan has been observed
http://en.wikiped...volution

80 years is NOTHING in evolutionary terms. If you're expecting a brontosaurus to lay an egg that will immediately hatch into a bird with feathers then you're just being disingenuous.

You really need to wrap your head around the difference between 80 years and 80 million years.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
so what is your explanation that we share so much DNA with everything else?


Why are planes made with wings? Because that's how it works in order to be a plane and to fly. DNA, RNA, genes, etc are no different. The foundation of what life is built on will naturally have similarities and common construction.

Believing all life though shares the same ancestor is merely an assumption. Similarity can raise the question, but it can't prove it alone.

It does occur:


Please don't pull me out of context.

80 years is NOTHING in evolutionary terms. If you're expecting a brontosaurus to lay an egg that will immediately hatch into a bird with feathers then you're just being disingenuous.


I don't expect it to do that at all. :)

Nor do I assume that is what you or any one else means by it. There's enough info and people like yourself clearly stating the difference.

CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
But you've seen a dino turn into a bird over multiple generations?


How could I? I only live a tiny amount of time... That's the point I am making that you are missing entirely.

but that we disagree over the constant rate.


It's not nor does it have to be a constant rate...

And yet you readily accept that you and an ape share the same ancestor? That's not at all even slightly retarded in sound to you?


No, why would it? We are very much alike in terms of physiology and genetics, clearly the great apes are the closest living ancestors of modern humans.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
Yellowdart didn't realize that I was being facetious and mocking him when I said that it is absurd to believe that empty ocean turned into an island... that's just sad...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012

We are very much alike in terms of physiology and genetics, clearly the great apes are the closest living ancestors of modern humans.


Did you know that the human Y chrome is over 30% different than the chimpanzee. Let me put 30% into prospective for you. We are 30% different in the rest of our nonsexual chromosomes compared to chickens.

Jennifer F. Hughes et al., Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content, Nature, Vol. 463, 28 January 2010

It's entirely absurd...of course evolutionary wise, we would share a common ancestor with a chicken too...bock bock?

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
We are very much alike in terms of physiology and genetics, clearly the great apes are the closest living ancestors of modern humans


Actually did you know that the there is over a 30% difference between the Y chrome of chimps and humans? To put that in perspective thats as great a divergence when it comes to nonsex chromosomes in comparison to chickens...

Jennifer F. Hughes et al., Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content, Nature, Vol. 463, 28 January 2010

Then again, evolutionary speaking, we'd also share an ancestor with a chicken at some point...bock bock?

Absurd.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
You think that genetics is so simple you can compare percent similarity and consider it meaningful? Different genes do different things, they are not all equal. The genes that are responsible for significant physiology are very similar between humans and apes, because humans and apes have extremely similar physiology, see how that works?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
The foundation of what life is built on will naturally have similarities and common construction.

No. Right and left handedness of amino acids is completely indistinguishable from a chemical point of view. L- and D-alanine have the exact same chemical properties, energy content, absorption spectrum, reactivity, ...

If you create them artificially you will get 50 percent of either. Yet in ALL life and ALL proteins on Earth you only find the L-Alanine. If living things did not evolve from one another there would be no reason for this (and many other examples of handedness) to be the case.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
You think that genetics is so simple you can compare percent similarity and consider it meaningful? Different genes do different things, they are not all equal.


No, I don't think it's that simple and that's precisely my point.

The genes that are responsible for significant physiology are very similar between humans and apes, because humans and apes have extremely similar physiology, see how that works?


You mean circular reasoning?

CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
homochirality is a good argument, thanks AA I'll file that one away for future use.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
If you create them artificially you will get 50 percent of either. Yet in ALL life and ALL proteins on Earth you only find the L-Alanine. If living things did not evolve from one another there would be no reason for this (and many other examples of handedness) to be the case.


You are aware that many creationists use handedness as a point in their favor, I'm sure?

What do you mean by artificial? In the lab? 50% handedness is what you get. So I would agree with you that something special occurred or is different if all have only one hand.

That doesn't mean the only option becomes evolution just because you don't accept or conceive of another reason. If initial life only has the L Alanine, it's offspring would continue to do so as well, right? So one ancestor or multiple to start with wouldn't change that.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
Also, part of the reason it is usually one sided is that we are finding aminos that flip, yet when they flip, it increases with age and health issues. Probably good reason why initial life wouldn't want the other hand. See:

See Noriko Fujii, D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues, Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005

Also worth regarding is
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origin of Life on the Earth, Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994,

Which mentions why it's a problem for initial life arising on it's own this way. The "artificial" is the normal outside of life 50% composition.

This is a problem for life arising on it's own, which is why it's typically been a creationist point when it comes to handedness.

Organisms also can't process opposite handedness when consuming, and if they did, you'd swiftly unbalance the ecosystem.
CHollman82
4 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
Yellowdart, you need to realize that anything that can possibly occur naturally could be argued to have been created by an advanced life form. I could argue that the Earth was created by an alien using technology that we've only been able to dream about.

Any evidence for natural occurrence can also be used as evidence of artificial creation, all you need to do is say that the creator used natural methods. Humans use natural methods to create all kinds of things.

The problem is, if it can be shown that something can occur naturally then that should be the DEFAULT assumption, and MORE evidence should be needed to show that it MUST have been created by an intelligence.

Science has shown that everything we see could have plausibly occurred naturally without a guiding intelligent entity. That is what is important, that it COULD have. Your God has been shown to be unnecessary to explain our observations of nature... so why do we still invoke him?
Anorion
5 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
yeah i don't understand why yellow and his kin come on science sites preach bible and spread their religion. if we wanted to read bible, we would read bible and wouldn't come on science site.
why you people don't understand that we don't care about your god and religion, stop posting, god did it, cause we don't give a shit about it. we don't come in your church sunday morning talk about evolution, so stop preaching religion where people discus science. why yellow ? why you and your friends do that ? why you come post religion here ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
yeah i don't understand why yellow and his kin come on science sites preach bible and spread their religion.

Maybe they think this is a comedy site. Their behavior WOULD be funny if it weren't so sad.

What do you mean by artificial? In the lab? 50% handedness is what you get....or is different if all have only one hand.

Handedness refers to the chirality of the molecule. E.g. artificially (in the lab) created sugar is 50% the kind that turns polarized light to the right and 50% the kind that turns it to the left (so you get no net change). But living things only produce the kind that turns light to the right - never the other kind. If living things didn't evolve from one another there would be no point to have it all turn in one direction.

So one ancestor or multiple to start with wouldn't change that.

Multiple wouldn't need to start off with the same chirality. And evolution says nothiing about how life started, BTW. You're constructing a strawman here.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
Handedness refers to the chirality of the molecule. E.g. artificially (in the lab) created sugar is 50% the kind that turns polarized light to the right and 50% the kind that turns it to the left (so you get no net change). But living things only produce the kind that turns light to the right - never the other kind. If living things didn't evolve from one another there would be no point to have it all turn in one direction.


You know I agree with you, but to play devils advocate there is no reason that God couldn't have created all life this way intentionally.

Point being, evidence in favor of natural explanations is never evidence against supernatural ones. Anything you say can be turned around and argued that God made it that way on purpose... they don't even have to explain why because they don't claim to understand God's reasoning.

You can't argue against God, all you can do is argue in favor of natural explanations, but they don't care about that.
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
Fellas,
Your God has been shown to be unnecessary to explain our observations of nature... so why do we still invoke him?

and...
Why yellow? Why you and your friends do that? why you come post religion here?

Y. will never be able to give you the real underlying reason for this, but I can answer that one from 1st hand experience. The irony is that (unless C.Hollman was somehow being facetious) the answer is really staring at you from the question itself...in the very way that Hollman askes: they come here BECAUSE God has been shown to be unnecessary to nature, even while he remains ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for *Yellow*, and *Hendrik* and *all* those of their ilk. It's becuse it's absolutely unthinkable for God to be unnecessary, so they NEED to PROVE OTHERWISE.

Their emotional lives and psychology are COMPLETELY INVESTED in there BEING a God. God saves them from Death & saves them from "Darkness". There's nothing you can do to take their God away, or their need to Prove Him.
Anorion
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
gawad i dont want to take their shit away from them, i just want them to keep it for them, and stop impose it to everyone else
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
but to play devils advocate there is no reason that God couldn't have created all life this way intentionally.

Evolution isn't about how life got started. We don't know how life got started.

But the point about god creating life in some way intentionally is really not helping them - because they either have to admit that they don't know why god would create it in that particular way. Which makes any claim about god having been the initial creator also unbvelievable.

I mean: how can they be sure about one thing they can't demonstrate and say "I don't know why god did it that way" about another thing they can't demonstrate. At some point their hypocrisy has to be so blatant that even they can't turn away from it - because it stares them in the face every which way they turn.

But having a consistent world view doesn't seem to be important to godders. That's why I still argue it's a kind of schizophrenia.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
Evolution isn't about how life got started. We don't know how life got started.


Yes I know that but they disagree with what they call "macro" evolution because they think God put all life forms here in their present forms.

they have to admit that they don't know why god would create it in that particular way. Which makes any claim about god having been the initial creator also unbelievable.


I think they do admit that, it doesn't damage their belief at all.

At some point their hypocrisy has to be so blatant that even they can't turn away from it - because it stares them in the face every which way they turn.


They don't analyze it like you or I would. They want to believe and they believe what they want. The greatest strength and greatest weakness of religion is that it cannot be proven false. You can demonstrate that all natural observations can be explained by natural processes... that doesn't bother them at all... they'll just say you can prove it wasn't God.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
Evolution applies to the whole universe, not just macro and micro life on earth.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
AA, my mother, stepfather, and 2 youngest sisters are young earth creationists... I know how they think. If God CAN be the answer, God MUST be the answer, and God CAN be the answer by definition of an omnipotent being. It's a self-reinforcing idea. I can demonstrate evidence to them of natural explanation for natural observations until I am blue in the face and they will answer that none of it proves that God didn't make everything this way.

They just don't care that we can explain things naturally rather than supernaturally... they don't see natural explanation as the default belief even if it can be shown to be plausible or even likely. They consider their supernatural explanation to be the default explanation and we have to prove that it cannot be, which we cannot do by definition.

They have set themselves up to win (in their own minds).
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) May 08, 2012
I'm just now realizing this too, that all this time that I argue with them I am trying to show them that everything we see can be explained by natural processes, but they don't care... it's not enough for them to see that it can be explained without God... to convince them we must demonstrate that it HAS to be explained without God, that cannot be explained by God, and that is impossible given God's omni-properties. God is their null hypothesis...

Is it rational? Of course not, but they are not rational. You cannot win via rationality if your opposition is not rational. You cannot convince a crazy person that they are crazy.
Anorion
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
i hope one day humanity get rid of religion and other superstitions so we as specie can realize our full potential. may it be in 1000 or 10 000 years or more, but that it happen one day
CHollman82
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
Evolution applies to the whole universe, not just macro and micro life on earth.


We're talking about biological evolution here Kaas, do try to keep up.

(though, I know that it is a distinction that is given meaning only by humans, but the processes involved differ between biological and non-biological evolution and you are being pedantic)
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
yeah i don't understand why yellow and his kin come on science sites preach bible and spread their religion.


You asked a biblical question earlier. I politely answered. If you don't want it discussed, don't ask or someone might answer you.
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
yeah i don't understand why yellow and his kin come on science sites preach bible and spread their religion.


You asked a biblical question earlier. I politely answered. If you don't want it discussed, don't ask or someone might answer you.

i asked it only cause people like you come post biblical nonsense on science sites like here, if you weren't here posting biblical nonsense i wouldn't ask it, get it ?
i asked, you answered politely. if i ask you to go away and stop post on religion on science site. would you keep be polite and go away and stop post biblical nonsense here ?
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
You asked a biblical question earlier. I politely answered. If you don't want it discussed, don't ask or someone might answer you.


Do you realize that what I am saying is true? It's not enough to show a plausible natural explanation for an observation of nature to convince you that it is the likely answer when you think the answer is God because God is your null hypothesis. To convince you otherwise we must show you that our natural answer MUST be the correct one and that God CANNOT be the correct one, which is inherently impossible to do given God's omnipotent property.

There is literally no way to change your mind on the subject. Regardless of the evidence in favor of "macro evolution" it is still possible that "God did it", and it always will be, so that is what you will continue to believe. Correct?

I consider "God did it" the worst possible answer, you consider it the best... Evidence of natural explanation therefore is given priority by me, but not by you.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012

Yellowdart, you need to realize that anything that can possibly occur naturally could be argued to have been created by an advanced life form.


I don't necessarily disagree with you here. Please note I referenced published articles discussing it's issues though as far as chirality and evolution.

But living things only produce the kind that turns light to the right - never the other kind. If living things didn't evolve from one another there would be no point to have it all turn in one direction.


Sugars are to the right, nucleotides to the left, correct? Only in living things. I've recently explained why there is a point to it. Life can't manage it via 50%, esp now. You'd break the ecosystem overnight. Maybe they'll figure out how it got to be so onesided one day, but so far, no luck.

Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
You asked a biblical question earlier. I politely answered. If you don't want it discussed, don't ask or someone might answer you.


Do you realize that what I am saying is true? It's not enough to show a plausible natural explanation for an observation of nature to convince you that it is the likely answer when you think the answer is God because God is your null hypothesis. To convince you otherwise we must show you that our natural answer MUST be the correct one and that God CANNOT be the correct one, which is inherently impossible to do given God's omnipotent property.

There is literally no way to change your mind on the subject. Regardless of the evidence in favor of "macro evolution" it is still possible that "God did it", and it always will be, so that is what you will continue to believe.

well unless proven other way, magic DON'T exist. and cant be answer to anything. so all the magic storys from bible are FALSE, since magic DON'T exist
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
And evolution says nothiing about how life started, BTW. You're constructing a strawman here.


I'm not at all. I was merely pointing out that creationists use that line of reasoning to their purposes as well when it comes to chirality.

Then I posted from PUBLISHED articles why that's a problem for evolution.

I'm fully aware that those like you separate abiogensis with evolution. Chirality is usually discussed along the lines of abiogensis though even in published particles, because it's a hurdle that the one sidedness has yet to be reproduced.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
i asked, you answered politely. if i ask you to go away and stop post on religion on science site. would you keep be polite and go away and stop post biblical nonsense here ?


Does it always bother you this much when you can't control someone else just because you don't like what they say? Move to China if you want a censored internet. Might help your frustration.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
well unless proven other way, magic DON'T exist. and cant be answer to anything. so all the magic storys from bible are FALSE, since magic DON'T exist


Right, you and I and every scientist agrees that natural explanations take precedent over supernatural ones. If something can be explained naturally then there is no reason to consider supernatural explanations for it.

But the religious fanatics don't think that way, they think the exact opposite way. They believe that their supernatural explanations must be correct, so natural explanations don't matter unless we can show that the natural explanation is the ONLY one and that it would impossible for God to be the correct explanation, which of course we cannot do by definition of an omnipotent being.
Anorion
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
i asked, you answered politely. if i ask you to go away and stop post on religion on science site. would you keep be polite and go away and stop post biblical nonsense here ?


Does it always bother you this much when you can't control someone else just because you don't like what they say? Move to China if you want a censored internet. Might help your frustration.

aaaahhhhh that why you are here, you don't like what we say on science sites so you come to try to control us and impose on us your filthy faith. i need to start go post on religious sites, just like you do on science sites.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
i need to start go post on religious sites, just like you do on science sites.


I suggest evolution fairytale forum... their tagline is "Civil discussion about the question of origin" yet one of their official forum rules is that you cannot argue that macro evolution occurs. When I did so a moderator told me that there is no evidence for macro evolution so arguing in favor of it was intellectually dishonest and tantamount to lying... and then I was banned.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
gawad i dont want to take their shit away from them, i just want them to keep it for them, and stop impose it to everyone else

Sure, you and me both, trust me!

But science itself threatens their fragile god. But my point is that such efforts are futile. The broken minds of those such as Yellow are such that THEY ARE COMPELLED to interact with those that claim God is Dead. It's an affront to them, and one that must be answered. And as long as the site moderators are unwilling to enforce their own posting rules, these delusional religious zealots are going to keep trying to prove their point. Their mental makeup drives them to it.

Understand this: every denial that they can make they count internally as a victory; every thread where you fail to disprove God an affirmation of their faith. And they need you for that, and they need to be HERE (or some similar place). They're not just arguing for argument's sake (that's for Monty Python), they're fulfilling a need here.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
It's not enough to show a plausible natural explanation for an observation of nature to convince you that it is the likely answer when you think the answer is God because God is your null hypothesis.


A priori affects both those who want a God and those who don't. Wouldn't you agree?

To convince you otherwise we must show you that our natural answer MUST be the correct one and that God CANNOT be the correct one


How can you do that with evolution if it doesn't even address abiogensis, much less the supernatural? You can't prove or disprove God with science esp alone.

Regardless of the evidence in favor of "macro evolution" it is still possible that "God did it", and it always will be, so that is what you will continue to believe. Correct?


If I continue to post published articles after articles would you
There isn't evidence of macro. just wishful thinking and fairy tales. Natural selection prevents macro in every attempt made artificially and naturally.

CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
The best thing to do is ignore them, but I'm a hopeless optimist and like to think anyone can be swayed by a rational argument even though I have seen otherwise plenty of times.
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) May 08, 2012
A priori affects both those who want a God and those who don't. Wouldn't you agree?


There are reasonable and unreasonable a priori...

How can you do that with evolution if it doesn't even address abiogensis


by definition...

You can't prove or disprove God with science esp alone.


You can't disprove God with anything, that's the point.

If I continue to post published articles after articles would you
There isn't evidence of macro. just wishful thinking and fairy tales.


The articles you presented are published by scientists who believe in macro evolution, you are interpreting them incorrectly and taking them to mean more than they do. Many of them are also outdated.

Natural selection prevents macro in every attempt made artificially and natural


This is false, we can see speciation occurring right now... but as I've just shown there is no reason to try to convince you.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
But the religious fanatics don't think that way, they think the exact opposite way.


Where have I invoked magic? God being first cause is like abiogensis to evolution.

Regardless we both assume the universe rests upon order and structure by which we can learn and understand esp by observation and experiments.

So when someone says that by NATURAL causes only, then I'm right there with you. When finches have babies, they are ALWAYS finches. That's natural. You can't invoke a miracle from some random point in history that dinos are their ancestors when you can't even get evolution to progress in any other manner than finches beget finches. Flies beget flies.

Show me the natural world will accept something else, and you might just sway me.

Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
but yellow if they didn't evolved from previous life forms, where finches and flies come from ? your god did it ? HOW he did it ? magic ?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
The articles you presented are published by scientists who believe in macro evolution, you are interpreting them incorrectly and taking them to mean more than they do. Many of them are also outdated.


Translation: "I didn't read any of them, myself."

That's all I got out of what you just said. Of course they were. At least they are honest to recognize their own data. Go read them. Then come back and feel free to disagree. Or feel free to start your own experiments to prove them wrong. I welcome it.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
but yellow if they didn't evolved from previous life forms, where finches and flies come from ? your god did it ? HOW he did it ? magic ?


But Anorion, if the first living cell didn't come from a nonliving entity, then WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

That's abiogensis...was that magic for you? first cause is apparently according to your own buddies here like Anti, think it's not relative to how it works now.

Which do you prefer?

By the way, did you know that the simplest cell requires over 600 proteins...

Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
but yellow if they didn't evolved from previous life forms, where finches and flies come from ? your god did it ? HOW he did it ? magic ?


But Anorion, if the first living cell didn't come from a nonliving entity, then WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

That's abiogensis...was that magic for you? first cause is apparently according to your own buddies here like Anti, think it's not relative to how it works now.

Which do you prefer?

By the way, did you know that the simplest cell requires over 600 proteins...


wait wait, lets discuss your opinion, lets say i agree that god did it ( i dont) just for exemple, so god made all living beeings, ... HOW did he do that ?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
This is false, we can see speciation occurring right now.


Speciation doesn't lead to macro. If it did, flies would beget something other than flies at some point, esp considering isolated populations. No breeding, and no human has witnesses anything other. Speciation works on the smaller level sure, but it's bounded, strain too far from the core and the species becomes degenerate and dies.

You can't assume small increments will accumulate. If you keep adding apples, all you still have are apples.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
wait wait, lets discuss your opinion, lets say i agree that god did it ( i dont) just for exemple, so god made all living beeings, ... HOW did he do that ?


No lets discuss yours, science website afterall, saying I agree (I don't) just for example that abiogensis is true...How'd it happen?

Anorion
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
wait wait, lets discuss your opinion, lets say i agree that god did it ( i dont) just for exemple, so god made all living beeings, ... HOW did he do that ?


No lets discuss yours, science website afterall, saying I agree (I don't) just for example that abiogensis is true...How'd it happen?


well first of all, your talking about complex modern cells, the first living forms probably didn't look a like like modern counterparts, and we still don't know what possible forms life can take , early earth was much different from today. and even if science dont know EVERYTHING, thats why its science, they research and test and observe, many knowledge in physicis and medicine you take for granted today would be pure fantasy not so long ago, not so long ago people were laugthing at those trying to make flying machines. soon or later science will find, unless some who stay with thousands year old fairys. your turn, >HOW< god did it to make elephants or whales or ....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
because God is your null hypothesis.

It's just so ridiculous that they always seem to argue that an oversimplified version of (insert scientific theory here) isn't true because they canot understand that some things (evolution, big bang, whatever) occurs in a dynamic environment or even in an environment where observational norms taken for granted in Alabama on a thrusday afternoon aren't applicable...and then they turn around and propose the most complexly (and most self contradictory) of all 'explanations' as the real one - a god.

Somewhere along the path to religion the mind must have undergone a schizm - with reality in the mind and reality as experienced by the body going two separate ways.

I kindergarten they wouldn't let their best friend have gotten away with "unicorns did it - wasn't my fault"...but as grownups they expect to do just that for the rest of their lives. Maybe they just never grew up.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
Speciation doesn't lead to macro

It's not yet speciation, but look at what a few centuries of breeding did to dogs. From yapping little ratlike, hairless things to huge dobermans - all tracing back to wolves. If that isn't macro then what is?

Housecats tracing back to common ancestors with lions. Us tracing back to kin like Lucy (that's definitely some macro going on right there)

Fossil records of many intermediate stages of evolution. Whale hind LEG Bones (with toes!) inside their flippers. How much friggin' evidence do you need?

Sugars are to the right, nucleotides to the left, correct? Only in living things. I've recently explained why there is a point to it.

No you have not. The two types do not behave differently chemically. Only if everything is related does it make sense that all use the same handedness.

. Maybe they'll figure out how it got to be so onesided one day,

They have. It's called evolution.

MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) May 08, 2012
Not to disappoint the science-minded here, but I can understand where the theists come from. My girlfriend in the late 70's was a PhD geneticist who delighted in explaining her research. After that, I was always able to comprehend what was going on.

Since then I have probably read over a thousand research articles/discoveries, having to skip thousands more. As you know, NONE of the discoveries ever contradict evolution, they only reinforce or elaborate on its sophistication.

Most people know little to nothing about any of evolution's underpinnings, and those who don't often respond with "I know I don't come from a damned monkey". Sadly, discussion cannot follow a statement like that.

There are a few people who do read an article from time to time, but have little-to-no real understanding of the overall picture science continues to uncover. All it takes is knowledge of a few concepts, combined with that "no damned monkey" attitude, to troll these sites with arguments from ignorance.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
There is so, so much information that has been discovered about evolution that its breadth is stunning and overwhelming. I can only assume that the stalwart deniers haven't a clue as to how much has been done. Piecemeal explanations will never be convincing until they get the larger picture.

That picture will require them to actually have incentive to learn what they missed. I do not think they get into these ridiculous arguments to gain that incentive for themselves. They just ain't gonna do it.

So what else can we do but work for better education. Explanations here, no matter how well made, are futile.
simplicio
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
Move to China if you want a censored internet.

At least China does not send cammandoes into a forein country to lock up operator of cyberlocker web site on shaky charges (Kim Dotcom) or extredite to USA English internet users for file downloads. All this because Hollywood companies want to censor the internet and want to pass all kinds of Draconian spying bills for internet users all over the world.

You can't assume small increments will accumulate. If you keep adding apples, all you still have are apples.

Then you have so many apples you get a black hole. Is that big change? But you probably don't believe in black hole because you cannot see it?

MandoZink
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
So many people argue against evolutionary concepts here that are knowable, but they do not yet understand. When you try to explain to them they argue further.

The hallmark of a reasonable person in pursuit of knowledge would be to say: "Hey thanks, I'll look that up!" Personally, I would appreciate the heads-up on something I did not comprehend.

I just won't argue evolution with someone in these comments unless they were curious about it. They don't ask "So how does that work?" They just insist it doesn't. I suggest not arguing with willful ignorance. Pointless.
simplicio
5 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
The hallmark of a reasonable person in pursuit of knowledge would be to say: "Hey thanks, I'll look that up!" Personally, I would appreciate the heads-up on something I did not comprehend.

Me too, but you say "reasonable" person. These people are not reasonable.

I just won't argue evolution with someone in these comments unless they were curious about it. They don't ask "So how does that work?"

If reasonable person has real interest, they can easily look at millions of sources on the internet. I do that and not come here to ask question, only if I can't find answer first. Evolution has millions of sources.

They just insist it doesn't. I suggest not arguing with willful ignorance. Pointless.

Yes, it is true, but it is good not to just have ignorant people's comments here on a science site.
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
But Anorion, if the first living cell didn't come from a nonliving entity, then WHERE DID IT COME FROM?


You realize the difference between living and non-living is due to human opinion and classification alone?

There is nothing magical or special about what we choose to call "living" things... it's simply matter that has organized itself in a particular way. The dividing line between life and non-life isn't really a divide at all, it's arbitrary, that's why we still argue about it (viruses)... everything is natural.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2012
Again, Yellow/henrik/okyesno/etc, you have chosen God to be your null hypothesis, your default explanation for everything. Your default explanation is non-falsifiable because you define God to be all powerful. A null hypothesis is considered true until shown to be false. The scientific method cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, so there will always be doubt that what science currently thinks is incorrect (and rightly so, it's how we avoid dogma). Science cannot prove that alternatives to your null hypothesis are true, and it cannot prove that your null hypothesis is false by the very nature of that null hypothesis.

You have chosen for a null hypothesis something that can NEVER be shown false, but not because it is necessarily true, only because it is defined to be impossible to falsify. You have chosen the worst possible null hypothesis imaginable, and then you have become emotionally and spiritually vested in it... You've set yourselves up for eternal dogmatic ignorance.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
"But Anorion, if the first living cell didn't come from a nonliving entity, then WHERE DID IT COME FROM?"
I would like to add that CHollman82 has a good point. The cutoff is neither clear or clear-cut. The 'dividing line' is a human construct, by sheer necessity. If you would like to get a better idea of the criteria that they use, the following articles might help:
http://en.wikiped...iki/Life
(Note that amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein)
What I have linked to is a lot to digest, but it should give you the general idea. It should also give you a few clues (especially the embedded hyperlinks) on what else you can follow up. Link up the building blocks. You have increasing functional complexity. There are just different and increasingly complex levels. We humans fit right in there. Happy Reading! Best Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
not rated yet May 09, 2012
Arrgh! This editor cut out three of the links that I posted! Here they are now/again:
http://en.wikiped...periment

Keep an open mind
Keep searching for a more complete understanding. You might just find it someday. :)

Best Regards (again), DH66
DarkHorse66
not rated yet May 09, 2012
Not again! Grrrr!
Third try:

http://en.wikiped...ogenesis
http://en.wikiped...ino_acid

They REALLY need to update this editor! And fix the problems in Medical Express...DH66
fully attached
5 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
religion is one of the most prevalent constituents of the separatist ideals that work against a healthy future for human existence.
these idiots like okyesno/yellowdart/separatists are only on the level of cold calling investment bankers slaving for the policy makers(ones that dictate values to subscribers) that truly reap the benefits off human weakness.
the religious always refer to this higher being but never refer to which humans they bow to(there has to be someone putting this garbage in their heads). i always ask the religious why they enter into deity worship and never receive an answer=they have no clue they just do(fear and stupidity). the worshipers are in denial that they are livestock to the rich and powerful, why there are rich and powerful people to begin with.
i come here looking for commentary from people that appreciate the importance of increasing knowledge, people that have productive input or insight on subjects affecting the generations that will inherit all.
fully attached
5 / 5 (6) May 09, 2012
the religious would do well to investigate(an element of the freedom of science) the upper echelons of their hierarchy for it would be most revealing on why the religious are so bitter and in denial... or take the shortcut and listen from someone who has done the investigation by way of simple logic. gold laden churches, bentley breitling rocking clergy, etc. but most of all
the promises of the impossible. the religious have been made promises that sound great when heard through the ears of a child but, man, how that must mess with your mind as the years go by. after realizing all the childish wants are hard pressed to be fulfilled they only want one thing that is generally offered to the religious, immortality, the afterlife. they need their religion for the chance to have this immortaltiy. what a waste of a persons allotted time on this planet to constantly work according to prescription to achieve nothing but steal from the future. afterlife=immortality=selfish.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
If any one of you rational folks out there ever wanted to express your viewpoint in as well a manner as you could ever conceive, this is a MUST SEE video.

This video was just posted showing a 10-minute introduction that physicist Dr. Sean Carroll gave just before a recent debate. I have not yet watched the debate, but the plain and wonderful way that Dr Carroll expressed a totally rational viewpoint of reality WITHOUT offending any other is truly admirable. I wish I could always do it this elegantly.

Enjoy:
http://www.youtub...embedded
simplicio
5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
This video was just posted showing a 10-minute introduction that physicist Dr. Sean Carroll gave just before a recent debate. I have not yet watched the debate, but the plain and wonderful way that Dr Carroll expressed a totally rational viewpoint of reality WITHOUT offending any other is truly admirable. I wish I could always do it this elegantly.

Enjoy:
http://www.youtub...embedded

Thank you, it is excellent like you say. No surprise because it comes from Skeptic Society. What would YellowDart or okyesno say about it?
MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
This is another 3:19 video by Sean Carroll made in 2010 where he comments on a statement made by Steven Hawking that made the news. Another amazingly reasonable comment.

http://www.youtub...ndscreen
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
This is another 3:19 video by Sean Carroll made in 2010 where he comments on a statement made by Steven Hawking that made the news. Another amazingly reasonable comment.

http://www.youtub...ndscreen

Nice commentary, because I recall at the time, Hawkins' findings were dreadfully reported in the popular media.

This is similar to Lawrence Krauss' book - A Universe from Nothing. Lecture here:
http://www.youtub...Yw59ztyw
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
well first of all, your talking about complex modern cells, the first living forms probably didn't look a like like modern counterparts, and we still don't know what possible forms life can take


You could have just said "I don't know".

and even if science dont know EVERYTHING, thats why its science, they research and test and observe, many knowledge in physicis and medicine you take for granted today would be pure fantasy not so long ago, not so long ago people were laugthing at those trying to make flying machines. soon or later science will find, unless some who stay with thousands year old fairys.


You really should study science history. Considering atheism is a more popular recent development, science has grown by leaps and bounds on the backs of religious men over the course of history. Even the protestants were discussing whether the six days were even literal long before Hutton and Lyell were born.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
Yes, you are correct Yellow, Science stemmed from mans search for meaning, which, in the early days, largely involved the notion of God(s).
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
It's not yet speciation,... If that isn't macro then what is?


If it's not speciation, then how can it ever even be macro? You say yourself it's not even speciation yet!!! Sheesh.

Whale hind LEG Bones (with toes!) inside their flippers. How much friggin' evidence do you need?


You mean Bakker? Who pulled his work from Slijper? Slijper was talking about a small bone that serves to anchor male whale reproductive organs. It's not even a vestigial. It's not attached to the vertebrae. Occasionally you get an extra bone about an inch longer that's attached the pelvis. If you hadn't noticed though, even we get born with extra bits of bones (extra finger or toes) on occiasion. It's not an intermediate stage, but a mutational error.

A whale wouldn't need an intermediate leg much less a leg. And if it needed to walk on land a leg designed in water wouldn't support its weight on land.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
It's not yet speciation,... If that isn't macro then what is?


If it's not speciation, then how can it ever even be macro? You say yourself it's not even speciation yet!!! Sheesh.


What do you mean when you say "macro" evolution, because it is not a term that scientists generally subscribe to. I would think that speciation would certainly be considered macro, but I would think evolution short of speciation would as well, and that seems like the idea AA had as well.

If you hadn't noticed though, even we get born with extra bits of bones (extra finger or toes) on occiasion. It's not an intermediate stage, but a mutational error.


I'm confused, are you arguing for or against evolution now?
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
well "modern" science didn't exist until enlightenment aka end of dark ages ( rules of religion ). yes a lot of people in the past who were studying science were also religious, for simple reason that they were victims of their time, indoctrinated since young ages and trough all life and leaving religion or just hence that maybe bible isn't truth was punished by torture and death, its still like that in islamic countrys.
oh some religious century ago tough 6 days aren't literal ? what are all those YEC idiots doing on science sites then ?
and you STILL didn't answered my question, IF your god created all animals and plants how they are at present, and earth and all, HOW did he do it ? HOW ?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
The two types do not behave differently chemically. Only if everything is related does it make sense that all use the same handedness.


If you are ignoring abiogenesis, then yes. But that means you also have to ignore the creationist initial/first cause as well. So you still can't prove whether life began with one single cell or if you began with multiple all having the same handedness.

Simply because it's not possible to build life with the opposite hands, doesn't mean it's only related to one ancestor. It still means that the structure is consistent, orderly regardless of genesis or abiogenesis.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2012

If it's not speciation, then how can it ever even be macro? You say yourself it's not even speciation yet

But you have to admit:
We have observed speciation (e.g. in orchids, moths, ... )
And
We have observed macro change (e.g. in dogs)

Now if you have an argument that would forbid both of those to happen at the same time - or over millions of years, I'll gladly hear it.

As for whale legs (and other forms of evolution)
Look here
http://truth-save...hp?id=20
Not only whales have vestigial limbs. Some snakes do as well, and a good number of fish

But also look at our own skeleton. Occasionally there are humans with vestigial tailbones. The code for that is still in our DNA (though normally it' shut off)

A whale wouldn't need an intermediate leg much less a leg. And if it needed to walk on land a leg designed in water wouldn't support its weight on land.

If it had been designed there shouldn't be a vestigial leg of any kind. But since there is...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
well "modern" science didn't exist until enlightenment aka end of dark ages


Read history, Galileo (who was a catholic) fought the church over Aristolian principles. People are dogmatic about their world views, regardless of god or not.

oh some religious century ago tough 6 days aren't literal ?


Slow down, make sentences that resemble some sort of structure. People might listen to you better. I have no idea what you said here.
Anorion
not rated yet May 10, 2012
well "modern" science didn't exist until enlightenment aka end of dark ages


Read history, Galileo (who was a catholic) fought the church over Aristolian principles. People are dogmatic about their world views, regardless of god or not.

oh some religious century ago tough 6 days aren't literal ?


Slow down, make sentences that resemble some sort of structure. People might listen to you better. I have no idea what you said here.

i was just wondering why you don't answer my question ?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
At least China does not send cammandoes into a forein country


I'm opposed to the US doing it as well, on both financial and lack of soveriegnty grounds.

Then you have so many apples you get a black hole. Is that big change?


Start stacking some apples, I'd love to see if your experiment works. How many do you need?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
The hallmark of a reasonable person in pursuit of knowledge would be to say: "Hey thanks, I'll look that up!" Personally, I would appreciate the heads-up on something I did not comprehend.


I've posted several published articles to back my points. Instead of "Hey thanks, I'll look that up." All I got was mostly sidestepping, or a suggestion that I must be pulling out of context rather than anyone reading anything.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
We have observed macro change


I wouldn't call a wolf to dog macro. The overall physiology and genetics are both still very close since they can interbreed hybrids.

Now if you have an argument that would forbid both of those to happen at the same time - or over millions of years, I'll gladly hear it.


I haven't made that argument. I said dinos can't become birds, regardless of the amount of time you want.

As for whale legs (and other forms of evolution)
Look here


Shoreline/shallow species are well adapted to their environment. If you stripped them of the shoreline, they wouldn't make it. Natural selection will favor those already adapted at the shoreline/shallow water. It won't favor a fish out of water so to speak. It's easier to find a new shoreline than it is to traverse deeper water or completely dry land.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
You have chosen the worst possible null hypothesis imaginable, and then you have become emotionally and spiritually vested in it... You've set yourselves up for eternal dogmatic ignorance.


Not really, it's testable on average for most people after about 74-78 years. :)

You realize the difference between living and non-living is due to human opinion and classification alone?


To an extent. You realize I'm talking to anorion and his question don't you? I understand the definitions change depending on who you talk to, esp over abiogenesis issues. But even Anti makes the point of chirality and how it helps to define what we consider living.
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
see since you don't know how your god made all that stuff, he is totally useless as explication, its not even an explication.
science has come with best explanation possible at this moment regarding the evidences, EVOLUTION. unless you have better explanation its useless to repeat that evolution is false, since you have nothing better to offer. and no god did it is not an explanation since we still don't know HOW HE DID IT. and no bible is not an proof, its a collection of ancient myths and legends from middle east
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
What do you mean when you say "macro" evolution, because it is not a term that scientists generally subscribe to.


Were you asking me or AA? One of you used the term micro or macro first. I typically avoid them since most evolutionists and creationists have a tendency not to agree on their definition.

To make it simple, I'd say dino to birds is an example of macro. Wolves to dogs, not.

I'm confused, are you arguing for or against evolution now?


What confused you? I haven't seen six fingered men taking over the general population, have you?

I'm arguing that evolution is limited based on the scientific evidence we have directly observed.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2012
i was just wondering why you don't answer my question ?


Which one? The one about how God did it?

and no god did it is not an explanation since we still don't know HOW HE DID IT.


If you take the Bible's description, He did it by speaking. See Genesis 1, John 1, and Hebrews 11(?)

But that's primarily the first cause, in essence initial matter, which not even the big bang answers where the matter comes from. Science isn't concerned with the before. Why are you so much?

Post speaking or bang, the rules of physics/chemistry/biology apply. Which is why one's religion is frankly not relative to how a car works for instance.

and no bible is not an proof, its a collection of ancient myths and legends from middle east


Could be, it's a history book though, and some contain facts. Whether you believe it's an accurate history is up to you.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2012
What do you mean when you say "macro" evolution, because it is not a term that scientists generally subscribe to.


To make it simple, I'd say dino to birds is an example of macro. Wolves to dogs, not.


So it is an arbitrary line that you are drawing with no real basis in physical reality? Is it arbitrary so that you can keep pushing it back further as needed to get around overwhelming evidence?

More pointedly, on what physical scientific basis do you make this distinction?

I'm confused, are you arguing for or against evolution now?

I haven't seen six fingered men taking over the general population, have you?


Are you arguing that if a mutation was beneficial it would still not propagate through the gene pool? On what basis do you make that argument? Do you disagree with natural selection in general or do you disagree that mutations can be beneficial?
Anorion
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
well, cant create matter by just speaking , so your bible is false, just as your god, creating matter by speaking is impossible unless you can make us a demonstration of it. god debunked, can we start research for some more plausible origin ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2012
The crazy thing about the god hypothesis is that it goes directly against the godders line of reasoning which is:

"God did it" is a simpler explanation.

Now they must have a different meaning of the word 'simple' than I do. Simple means: few (for full causality preferrably only one) properties can explain why an observed event is like it is.

But an OMNIpotent entity is a collection of ALL properties. It's the most complex of all explanations - so they themselves should reject it as ludicrously unlikely out of hand by their own standards.

Could be, it's a history book though, and some contain facts.

Statements that can't be checked or aren't corroborated by independent evidence aren't facts. They're stories.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2012
I still want to know why the evolution of a wolf to a toy poodle is not considered "macro" evolution.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
I've posted several published articles to back my points. Instead of "Hey thanks, I'll look that up." All I got was mostly sidestepping, or a suggestion that I must be pulling out of context rather than anyone reading anything. - Yellowdart


You posted:
"Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content"
"A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region"
"Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock"

I personally had not read them because I was not involved in that specific discussion. I have read them now, and I do like that you referenced research that further clarified some of the details of evolutionary genetics.

It was new information to me, but there were no implications that they found any problems with evolution. It was just more data to further elaborate on the evolutionary process.

I do check out other commentor's posted references, just not Bible quotes. I've read the Bible.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
So it is an arbitrary line that you are drawing with no real basis in physical reality?


I didn't give you arbitrary. I gave you clear examples. Dogs are a domestication, a loss of wild traits. Speciation is a horizontal to downward (loss) movement largely due to natural selection. Remember you and others assume that speciation and those small changes add up over time or accumulate and lead to macro. Instead of trying to find the line, you ignore it.

More pointedly, on what physical scientific basis do you make this distinction?


On every breeding experiment ever done. Flies beget flies.

Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2012
I gave you clear examples. Dogs are a domestication, a loss of wild traits.


We don't want examples, we want a clear scientific definition of what is and is not macro evolution that refers to physical reality and not arbitrary classification. A chihuahua is no more similar to a wolf than a domestic cat is to a lion.

Instead of trying to find the line, you ignore it.


There is no line, that's the point, it is a smooth gradient, not a line.

More pointedly, on what physical scientific basis do you make this distinction?
On every breeding experiment ever done. Flies beget flies.


You didn't answer the question, you avoided it. Give us a scientific definition of micro and macro evolution, not a bunch of examples.

No one ever expected flies to reproduce and create a beetle, that is a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, which you do not understand at all.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
On every breeding experiment ever done.

Horses and donkeys beget mules (or hinnys). Horses and donkeys are different species with different numbers of chromosomes (64 and 62 respectively with mules coming out at 63).
That horses and donkeys can breed at all to produce something viable is pretty damning evidence that they have a same species ancestor.

Now even you must know that the blueprints are encoded in the chromosomes. If a loss (or gain) of chromosomes can happen (as in the above case) then how exactly is macroevolution through speciation prevented?

And there is really no reason speciation is accompanied by a 'loss' in any way. Quite the contrary. For a successful speciation to persist the new species must be better suited for some niche than the old one.

Speciation is a horizontal to downward (loss) movement largely due to natural selection.

Natural selection selects for the BETTER suited individual.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2012
Let me make this perfectly clear, evolutionary theory does not predict that two organisms will ever mate and produce offspring that is significantly physiologically different than the parents... that does not happen, no evolutionary biologist ever thought it would happen, and it is not a point in your favor that it does not happen. You are either ignorant or you are being disingenuous, you tell me.

Things do not change abruptly, they change slowly and in subtle but incremental steps. The lifespan of humans is far too short to see the major changes that you are looking for in any type of organism, we will never see it because it does not happen that rapidly.

You don't think that wolf to chihuahua is sufficient change to convince you (which is ridiculous and I also believe disingenuous), and that took tens of thousands of years of ARTIFICIAL selection (which is typically more rapid than natural selection)... You are demanding what you know cannot be shown and ignoring what can.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
Are you arguing that if a mutation was beneficial it would still not propagate through the gene pool? On what basis do you make that argument? Do you disagree with natural selection in general or do you disagree that mutations can be beneficial?


I have no disagreement with natural selection in general. It is natural selection and DNA repair that attempt to reject mutations. If they did not, no species would last.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
It was new information to me, but there were no implications that they found any problems with evolution. It was just more data to further elaborate on the evolutionary process.


So the whole line in the 2nd article about mito female being ~6k-6500 years ago, doesn't have implications? None? That's not ironic at all at least?
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
I have no disagreement with natural selection in general. It is natural selection and DNA repair that attempt to reject mutations. If they did not, no species would last.


So you don't think it's possible for a mutation to be beneficial to the organism?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
So the whole line in the 2nd article about mito female being ~6k-6500 years ago, doesn't have implications? None? That's not ironic at all at least?


The article you linked to, "Correcting for purifying selection: an improved human mitochondrial molecular clock", is used as a reference on the wikipedia page for mitochondrial eve for the claim that she lived around 200,000 years ago... so what the hell are you talking about?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
We don't want examples, we want a clear scientific definition of what is and is not macro evolution that refers to physical reality and not arbitrary classification.


Where is the line between good and evil? One may not know the exact line, but they know for sure when they've crossed it when they murder someone. Thus the example of murder helps to define evil even though we know not the exact line. Likewise dinos to birds...

Micro is typically defined as small changes within the species level. Micro is reductionist.

Macro is typically considered holistic, producing new taxonomic groups from a species.

Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
your god is fake cause its impossible to create matter and animals by just speaking
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
is used as a reference on the wikipedia page for mitochondrial eve for the claim that she lived around 200,000 years ago... so what the hell are you talking about?


Read the published article. They redid the clock, saying the 200k year age was wrong.

Parsons says this:

Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an average age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
No one ever expected flies to reproduce and create a beetle, that is a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, which you do not understand at all.


I know, and there are enough of you shouting this definition. It only undermines you when you start saying dinos speciated to birds. What is the point of breeding flies if not to produce some major jump in speciation? I never said beetles. I said flies have only been shown to beget flies.
Anorion
5 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
No one ever expected flies to reproduce and create a beetle, that is a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, which you do not understand at all.


I know, and there are enough of you shouting this definition. It only undermines you when you start saying dinos speciated to birds. What is the point of breeding flies if not to produce some major jump in speciation? I never said beetles. I said flies have only been shown to beget flies.

you talk a lot to say nothing
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) May 11, 2012

your god is fake cause its impossible to create matter and animals by just speaking


Not if one is an actual God. Hence the name given...God. Means by definition he can do things you can't.

Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012

your god is fake cause its impossible to create matter and animals by just speaking


Not if one is an actual God. Hence the name given...God. Means by definition he can do things you can't.


can he create an boulder so big that even he cant lift it off ?
Anorion
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012

your god is fake cause its impossible to create matter and animals by just speaking


Not if one is an actual God. Hence the name given...God. Means by definition he can do things you can't.


unless we see him do, break all physical laws of this universe and create matter and animals by just speaking, it is impossible and belong to fairy tale section of the library
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
That horses and donkeys can breed at all to produce something viable is pretty damning evidence that they have a same species ancestor.

Now even you must know that the blueprints are encoded in the chromosomes.


No it just means that a horse and donkey can produce a hybird, impotent at that. It doesn't say anything about what a horses grandpappy was.

All blueprints have limitations. When you build according to them, you do not magically get an extra floor on your new apartment building that wasn't in the blueprints. Because of the structure there are certain things you can't do because the structure won't be viable if you tried.

A lower number of chromosomes for donkeys apparently does not effect hybrids with horses. What are the reproductive differences? I imagine genetically they are fairly similar.

Anorion
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
A lower number of chromosomes for donkeys apparently does not effect hybrids with horses. What are the reproductive differences? I imagine genetically they are fairly similar.
-yellow

sure they are similar, for the good and simple reason that they share common ancestor from witch they evolved
you can include zebras with them
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
can he create an boulder so big that even he cant lift it off ?


If you mean can the God described in the Bible? No he can't. God will NEVER make something superior to himself. Being omnipotent, doesn't mean God must act contrary to being God in the first place. God can't sin. God won't make you god. God won't make a boulder he can't lift.

Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
can he create an boulder so big that even he cant lift it off ?


If you mean can the God described in the Bible? No he can't. God will NEVER make something superior to himself. Being omnipotent, doesn't mean God must act contrary to being God in the first place. God can't sin. God won't make you god. God won't make a boulder he can't lift.


so he cant, that means he is not omnipotent hence not a god.
but anyway since matter and animals can not be created by just speaking, existence of your god is meaningless
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
unless we see him do, break all physical laws of this universe and create matter and animals by just speaking, it is impossible and belong to fairy tale section of the library


So you want God to reveal himself to you, personally? And then do what you want?

Satan asks Christ the same thing in the desert. What was his response?

God doesn't need to prove himself to you Anorion. If he did, he'd be making you the judge.

That aside, Christ rises from the dead 3 days after his crucifixion. That's a breaking of the physical laws, and it was done in the sight of others. Just not your sight. We, esp in science, can't reveal God at our command. However, any God can chose to reveal himself if he so chooses. Christ was/is that revelation, and you either believe the recorded history, or you don't.
Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
Just as present mythologies were past religions, present religions are simply future mythologies in waiting.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
so he cant, that means he is not omnipotent hence not a god.


Your definition of omnipotent is not the biblical description of omnipotence. God does not, because he can not, do anything against his nature. Thus he would never make a boulder he can't lift.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
Just as present mythologies were past religions, present religions are simply future mythologies in waiting.


Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we are the mythology, and reality is yet to come.
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
so he cant, that means he is not omnipotent hence not a god.


Your definition of omnipotent is not the biblical description of omnipotence. God does not, because he can not, do anything against his nature. Thus he would never make a boulder he can't lift.


bible is not a reference to describe a reality, and will never be,
nor is the proof of anything.
Anorion
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
well those who were following that jesus , were telling lies for him, same goes for his so called miracles, with were tricks to mislead ignorant street people to follow him in his revolt against authorities to usurp king place, and we know it didnt work well... and all that was written centurys after his death so it had time to change a lot.
why not revealing him self ? as your bible says he used to kill babys and destroy citys, wipe populations, flame brushes , separate seas ....and suddenly ...nothing, why not now ? nothing since 2000 years. now there are buildings much higher than tower of babel... where he was when jews prayed to him in nazi camps ?
science describe life in its present form, with available evidences, very good , EVOLUTION. there are fossils and observation in nature and dna and all... where are examples of stuff appearing around by just sky fairy speaking ? nonexistent...
you should stop take bible literally ...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
For a successful speciation to persist the new species must be better suited for some niche than the old one. Natural selection selects for the BETTER suited individual.


Or merely isolated from the general population in a similar environment.

Once again if the environment changes to rapidly and there are no suitable variations then the species dies. Nature does not wait.

Natural selection keeps the most viable going, because it will always be the species that is already comfortable and adapted to it's environment. It rejects fish out of water, and flourishes fish in water. Thus subtle changes in environment over time are not accumulative nor substantial enough to produce macro variations.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
well those who were following that jesus , were telling lies for him


Could have. Like I said, it's a matter of what you believe.

mislead ignorant street people to follow him in his revolt against authorities to usurp king place


The only one misled is you apparently. Christ didn't lead a revolt. The people had him crucified because they wanted the guy that would lead a military rebellion. At least get the story right before criticizing it.

and all that was written centurys after his death so it had time to change a lot.
Decades, by those who were still alive at the time to have seen it. No different than a Veitnam vet writing a book now on that war. You believe his history or you don't.

now there are buildings much higher than tower of babel
You know how high the tower of Babel was?
Anorion
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
actualy he did lead a revolt, he wanted to become king and free judea from romans, he never intended to create new religion, he was jew and pretended being the savior that the jews are waiting for. its his followers who were rejected by mainstream jews later , who created christianism afterward. thats why he was crucified , cause he started to rally the masses and romans and their puppet government in area feel threatened their authority by that guy who was rallying more and more people around him.
how was high tower of babel ? people 2000-3000 years ago were able to build higher than burj al arab , or petronas towers ? yeah right .... and if he is so concerned by people getting to the sky , why he don't shut down ISS ? or apollo mission who went to moon ?... no way dude .... you should try to adapt your believes to the reality and not reality to your believes ....
modernize your religion
Anorion
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
Mahatma Gandhi, did same, he freed india , just by preaching, sitting around and rallying more and more people around him. once so much people were following him, british had no choice anymore but to leave india, ok diferent time, 2000 years ago, he would be killed for that, british didn't dare to kill him cause of mediatic coverage and support he was getting. jesus didn't had that chance he got killed for fomenting civil unrest.
it was just a man, a normal dude , who tried to conquer power and free his country from romans, not son of god or miracles or anything....
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
actualy he did lead a revolt, he wanted to become king and free judea from romans, he never intended to create new religion, he was jew and pretended being the savior that the jews are waiting for.


Based on what, other than your false conjecture? Even the demons testified he was the Son of God. Why'd he get crucified if his goal was overthrowing the Romans? It's the Jews that cried out to kill him.

its his followers who were rejected by mainstream jews later , who created christianism afterward.


Christ was rejected by mainstream jews, who (the jews) pleaded with the ROMANS to kill him. Really, you should read it before making things up. It's one thing to not consider it factual, but to assert different intentions is not even something most scholars or historians do. There is nothing in historical documents that would give credit to your accusations.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
people 2000-3000 years ago were able to build higher than burj al arab , or petronas towers ? yeah right ....


I don't know how high it was. The height is not given. They are not punished for the height, but because they sought to be gods themselves.

jesus didn't had that chance he got killed for fomenting civil unrest.


Which is not true. Read why Pilate sends him to the cross. He HANDS Jesus over to the jews. It has nothing to do with civil unrest. There wasn't a jewish rebellion until the mid 60s.

it was just a man, a normal dude , who tried to conquer power and free his country from romans, not son of god or miracles or anything....


Then why would he bother telling anyone that his kingdom is not of this world? His goal wasn't Jewish freedom from Romans. He even predicts the fall of the temple by Titus and the Romans.

Not even the majority of secular scholars would make your claim because it's not supportable by historical evidence.

Anorion
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
Based on what, other than your false conjecture? Even the demons testified he was the son of god.


ROFL
well show me some demon and we can talk. but you cant just as you cant show me angels or spirits or stuff appearing around made by fairy speaking.
you talking about that i don't have facts then invoke : demons say this, god said that, spirits said this...
dude demons don't exist ! you must be on drugs or so.
yeah jews got him killed aka that's why he failed , and the fact that he failed to become king , doesn't invalidate his attentions.
its you who should check your facts, but you have no respect for facts, even vatican , said that bible should not be interpreted literally.
historical evidence ? never seen any historical evidence for any miracle or that he was son of god or shit like that. that's why its FAITH and not fact or science and has no place on science sites.
Doc_aymz
not rated yet May 12, 2012
This prehistoric atmosphere is totally different from our own, with a radically different oxygen and co2 content. Every organism has an effect on the environment, the harmony comes when one's waste product is used by something else. Such as Oxygen is a waste product and is used by others, our waste co2 is what plants use to create food with the sun. If you end up with an inbalance something evolves an advantage and soaks up the surplus.
MandoZink
not rated yet May 13, 2012
Wanna see a good 4-minute tirade on Dinosaurs and Creationism?

http://www.youtub...=related

This is a genuine hoot.
Mastoras
5 / 5 (2) May 16, 2012
Evolution itself, if true, would be a profound piece of proof for the existence of God. For a blind natural process to arrive at human beings through countless twists and bottlenecks, it must be incredibly fine tuned.


Perhaps you should offer yourself the chance to study what evolution is about.

This "fine tuning", as you said, can be done without the need of anything outside the realm of nature. It can be explained with the laws of physics, probability and the second law of thermodynamics. But this a reading I done about forty years ago. I suppose that there are more recent and better explanations.
DarkHorse66
not rated yet May 16, 2012
The proponents of creationism have not held back on using biology arguments to make their case in this and several other threads (which is fair enough, free-speech), but they have been strangely quiet on this one!:http://phys.org/n...nds.html
Can they come up with a justification for ignoring this one as legitimate? Just curious.
Cheers, DH66
tflahive
not rated yet May 16, 2012
In the mid-1970s, my geology teacher at Rutgers (Steve Fox) said, "The dinosaurs died of flatulence."