Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

[joe bloe]

Technology is growing exponentially. If it continues to grow at an ever accelerating rate, the result will be beyond our imagination. We will aquire knowledge in the next twenty years that will vastly exceed the sum total that exists today.

http://www.singularity.com/themovie/

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Technology is growing exponentially. If it continues to grow at an ever accelerating rate, the result will be beyond our imagination. We will aquire knowledge in the next twenty years that will vastly exceed the sum total that exists today.

http://www.singularity.com/themovie/

Joe I totally agree I mean there are thing that were invented in the 90's that are considered ancient or archaic by today's standard- what I can't seem to figure out is why was the acceleration of technology so much slower thousands of years ago- I mean man invented the wheel- but the car was invented thousands of years later- did early man have a slow rate of progression in those days.


Joe also what is your theory of how the pyramids were built- or Stonehedge? In 2013 if we were to build a replica of the Great Pyramid or Stonehedge it would require several top of the line engineers- man power and a great ton of heavy equipment- with perhaps heavy equipment being the key factor- how did they get built without the use of heavy cranes?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You guys are dodging the question or not understanding what I am asking- Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest mentions man's brain enable them to survive because they were more intelligent than other creatures and knew how to adapt- ok if this is true- and modern man has been on earth for at least 40,000 years-- what the hell was going on in the first 39,000 years? Why are we seeing the greatest advancements in the last 170 years?

Your examples are increasingly ridiculous.

First, the increase in knowledge if NOT linear, it is exponential.

40,000 years ago, there were a few tens of thousands of early humans spread out over hundreds of 1000s of square miles. They only slowly developed language and even more slowly developed writing. They lived in small tribes and only occasionally bumped into other tribe members. So the exchange of information between humans - that's how knowledge spreads - was very slow.

It took many thousands of years for the population to become large enough to where people ran into each other regularly and learned from each other. Even then, they spoke different languages and had no writing or at least different writing.

So it took many thousands of more years until there were enough people and enough translators and enough written documents that knowledge could be spread by reading.

And finally, most of the early inventions were simple and inexpensive things. It took a a lot of time to develop governments and institutions that could provide money to fund exploration and research. Just look at electricity. Before you can experiment with electrical circuits, you first have to invest in copper mining in order to create enough wires so that Ben Franklin could play around with his kite.

But, finally, when you DO have modern communications in place and you have companies and/or governments that fund research and development, the pace at which we acquire knowledge and spread it increases tremendously.

These concepts aren't difficult to grasp and they have been written about widely. If you weren't so adamant about "proving" your religious beliefs to be true, you would figure out these answers for yourself.

[bojulay]

Most technology advances can be traced back to single events,
the inventions or discoveries of the steam engine, the internal
combustion engine, electricity, solid state circuitry, the computer chip,
analog, digital, the radio and radio frequencies, etc.

Once discovered they are easily built on from there and the compounding
effect takes over rather quickly.

Some discoveries are never utilized though, like tesla's free energy.

Corporate and Government control over things.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
Where do you get this crap? From your local evangelical minister? Or do you just make it up yourself? Quite obviously, the number of genes can and does change over time as a result of mutations. If you think otherwise, please provide a citation to a REPUTABLE scientific journal.

This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species.
DIFFERENT species cannot mate because their genes are too dissimilar, even if the number of chromosomes are the same. Species that are very close - like horses and donkeys - CAN breed, but the hybrids (mules) are sterile and cannot reproduce on their own.

Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.
Do you have ANY proof whatsoever for the bullshit you just spouted off? Because is looks to me like you are making up nonsense or repeating nonsense that other Bible thumpers made up first.

Does it not strike you as unusual that the chromosomes in ALL animals are made from the same building blocks of DNA to begin with? Does THAT not provide you with at least SOME level of proof that evolution is occurring as a result of the infinite variability of DNA?

So Ex-Nyer, Old Timer and WTF- can you give me an example where a species mates with another species and forms something. See above. Different species cannot mate. Your question indicates you do not know what evolution is.

Again don't confuse this with like a horse mating with a Zebra or a Lion mating with a Tiger- give me an example of a species turning into another species- doesn't evolutionist states Birds became reptiles?
See above. Different species cannot mate. Your question indicates you do not know what evolution is. Evolution means that an animal mates with its own species and the offspring is very slightly different due to the natural variation of DNA. If that occurs across hundreds of generations, eventually a new species will emerge that could not mate with its ancient ancestors if it could somehow travel back in time. So, a modern human probably could not mate with homo habilis or home erectus.

Also, birds did NOT become reptiles. Reptiles became birds.

On a related note, this is NOT the first evolution vs. creationism thread you have participated in. You made all of these same points or asked the same questions in previous threads. And despite the fact that your earlier points were effectively disproven or your questions answered, you are back in this thread repeating what you said in the earlier threads. Do you simply ignore all contrary facts and keep repeating religious superstitions like they are facts?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I saw a National Geographic documentary about a South American tribe. They hunted and gathered food a couple of hours a day and spent rest of their time socializing, taking naps and playing with their kids. It makes me wonder if our advanced western civilization is better or worse than the so called primitive ones.

Until, of course, a drought comes along and their food supplies dwindle. Then they spend ALL day looking for food and die of starvation.

And if their kids break a limb while playing, they have about a 50% chance of watching them die of infection.

So, yes, they ARE primitive and our advanced civilization IS better.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You guys are dodging the question or not understanding what I am asking- Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest mentions man's brain enable them to survive because they were more intelligent than other creatures and knew how to adapt- ok if this is true- and modern man has been on earth for at least 40,000 years-- what the hell was going on in the first 39,000 years? Why are we seeing the greatest advancements in the last 170 years?

No one is dodging the question. It has been answered about 5 different times already. You just keep ignoring the answers so you don't have to begin to doubt your religious beliefs.

[bojulay]

exnyer's whole argument for evolution seems to be that given enough
time anything can happen. That's great, now all we need is proof which is
sadly lacking, still just a theory.

Sure there are things in nature that indicate some forms of what could
be termed evolution take place, but single celled organism evolved
all the way to man, nope, still just a theory no matter how much
he or anyone else cries to the contrary.

No one can explain how it all started ether so now we get Dawkins space man
theory, and intelligent design apart from God, Seems science has painted itself
into a corner for which it has nowhere to retreat from.

[Sugar Mr. Poon?]

First off, I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it as fact. Why do you ask? Because it has millions upon millions of pieces of evidence to support it. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts it as well. Well over the 90th percentile. Creationism has zero pieces of evidence to support it.

Second, many of you are getting evolution confused with abiogenesis which explains how life forms from inorganic matter. Evolution is not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such. The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution as well.

Third, disregarding a proven science in favor of putting on religious blinders on is willful ignorance. The facts are there people, you just need to educate yourself. Also the term "intelligent design" is just a way to make creationism sound scientific which it is not.

Finally, evolution does not mean that God doesn't exist. Evolution has nothing to do with God. It's a scientific theory just like the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics. Can you still believe in God and accept evolution as fact? I don't see why not. But it truly amazes me that people will accept the word of "man" from 5000 years ago (yes the Bible was written by men) over factual scientific evidence. A lot of times its easier to say "God did it" in life but does that mean its correct? No it doesn't, because there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Seriously people, the evidence is there, you just need to take off the blinders and educate yourself. This will likely be my only post on this matter because I don't want to argue with anyone. Rant over.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by bojulay

exnyer's whole argument for evolution seems to be that given enough time anything can happen. That's great, now all we need is proof which is sadly lacking, still just a theory.

Sure there are things in nature that indicate some forms of what could be termed evolution take place, but single celled organism evolved all the way to man, nope, still just a theory no matter how much he or anyone else cries to the contrary.

There is plenty of evidence to prove that evolution is real. You just refuse to acknowledge ANY of it because to do so would force you to change your religious beliefs.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Moses existed of that Genesis is true. So why do you insist they we must prove it to be false?

Ancient lore is almost entirely man-made myths. Some American Indian tribes believed that the dry land rode on the back of a giant sea turtle. I'm sure you laugh at their beliefs. But why are the rest of us supposed to treat your mythical beliefs as facts to be disproven?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Some discoveries are never utilized though, like tesla's free energy.

Corporate and Government control over things.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. There is not and never was any "free enregy" discovery made by Tesla. It is a perennial conspiracy theory hoax that is used to scam money out of people.

http://www.nlcpr.com/Deceptions15.php

I hope you paid money to somebody to learn the "secrets". You deserve to be scammed.

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I mean man invented the wheel- but the car was invented thousands of years later- did early man have a slow rate of progression in those days.

maybe they were fine just pushing the fucking wheel around... who the hell knows. its quite a large step to go from wheel to car don't you think? ...maybe early man couldn't figure out the carburetor ...or welding ...or maybe not one of them was a qualified design engineer.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Joe also what is your theory of how the pyramids were built- or Stonehedge? In 2013 if we were to build a replica of the Great Pyramid or Stonehedge it would require several top of the line engineers- man power and a great ton of heavy equipment- with perhaps heavy equipment being the key factor- how did they get built without the use of heavy cranes?

Once again, this is not the first time you posted on a subject and disregarded all the answers you were given.

You previously posted about the supposed "mysteries" of the pyramids and you received a BUNCH of links that showed the construction methods (mostly ramps and rollers) that enabled the Egyptians to build the pyramids.

And, yet, here you are posting the same "asked-and-answered" questions once again. If we answer all these questions again, will you still ignore the answers?

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mr. Poon?

First off, I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it as fact. Why do you ask? Because it has millions upon millions of pieces of evidence to support it. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts it as well. Well over the 90th percentile. Creationism has zero pieces of evidence to support it.

Second, many of you are getting evolution confused with abiogenesis which explains how life forms from inorganic matter. Evolution is not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such. The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution as well.

Third, disregarding a proven science in favor of putting on religious blinders on is willful ignorance. The facts are there people, you just need to educate yourself. Also the term "intelligent design" is just a way to make creationism sound scientific which it is not.

Finally, evolution does not mean that God doesn't exist. Evolution has nothing to do with God. It's scientific theory just like the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics. Can you still believe in God and accept evolution as fact? I don't see why not. But it truly amazes me that people will accept the word of "man" from 5000 years ago (yes the Bible was written by men) over factual scientific evidence. A lot of times its easier to say "God did it" in life but does that mean its correct? No it doesn't, because there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Seriously people, the evidence is there, you just need to take off the blinders and educate yourself. This will likely be my only post on this matter because I don't want to argue with anyone. Rant over.

You are a little confused in your argument like most, first you seem to claim that evolution disproves God and then ask the question why can't we have both. And also make claims that are just rhetorical opinion.

Abiogenesis and evolution are forever tied together, clever little scientist
have tried to separate the two by saying they are totally different and
should not be put together as one, and people have bought into that
idea. Why did the scientist do that? Simple, they have no explination
what so ever of how abiogenesis occurred, given their present
ideas about evolution.

The two are hopelessly tied together and cannot be separated.
No matter how much evolutionary scientist like to try and decry that
fact. You can't have one without the other.

That brings you back to Dawkins space man theory.

Intelligent design is made apparent, they don't believe in God.
What else are you left with?

Now excuse me while I go watch the movie Signs.


ha ha ha ha

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. There is not and never was any "free enregy" discovery made by Tesla. It is a perennial conspiracy theory hoax that is used to scam money out of people.

http://www.nlcpr.com/Deceptions15.php

I hope you paid money to somebody to learn the "secrets". You deserve to be scammed.

What a dingelberry. You like to argue everything in a circle and make lots
of unestablished claims as fact. Hopeless.