Jump to content

OT: Do you believe modern humans descended from a lower life form?(poll)


voodoopower

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky

BTW-Again, you started with the insults, so...

 

 

That is simply not true! Can you read? If so, the facts are in black and white in the preceeding posts. But, you will probably ignore those facts, just as you ignore the facts supporting evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Originally posted by Echoes



You don't HAVE to believe in God if you don't want to...man:rolleyes:


all I'm saying is that with the preponderance of evidence DESIGN is the only conclusion...to think that this is all an accident or to pretend that it is an accident is the definition of blind ignorance...


Biological, archeological, physiological, astronomy...on and on you name it and there is DESIGN "INNATE' within....

 

The thing is, it's not an accident, evolution is not random, it has goals just like an engineer would have them while designing things. Only the best variations of organisms will survive. I see lots of evidence of unintelligent design in life, though, but I think an intelligent being would have done a better job, especially a really smart guy like God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by blargh


The thing is, it's not an accident, evolution is not random, it has goals just like an engineer would have them while designing things. Only the best variations of organisms will survive. I see lots of evidence of unintelligent design in life, though, but I think an intelligent being would have done a better job, especially a really smart guy like God.

Evolution has goals? How does it figure these goals out? Where does it store the plans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by savoldi



The fact that humans found rules of order in the unverse does not mean they were intelligently designed that way. Science peels back layers of ignorance. If God is at the center of all things, science only needs to find the last layer on any one of them and you'll have your creator. Assuming, of course, that we are capable of recognizing the face of God when we see it. And since personal interpretation of scientific results is subject to emotional enthusiasm and often shaded by such, faith may never become obsolete.



Science is 'choked' by the very virtue that it is LIMITED to the examination of the PHYSICAL/MATERIAL WORLD as ALREADY unfolded (ie: PREEXISTING...) and therefore cannot LEGITIMATELY speak to subjects outside of it's realm...ie: Origins..:idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by GasMask



WOW! What a Crock! Anyone who does not agree with your narrow minded viewpoint is guilty of "blind ignorance"? Oh Puhleeezzzzz! The fact is- there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution. Virtually every educated scientist accepts evolution as a proven fact. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence supporting "intelligent design". NONE.

Here's yours first.:wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky

Here's yours first.
:wave:



This contains no insults. Rather, It contains attacks on OPINIONS instead of attacks on people. It's too bad you don't understand that difference.

BTW, it was not even directed at you! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by 17 Tubes


You attribute "design" and "innate" to things you do not understand. I belive that *could* be a mistake.

I think God chuckles over us, as we try to prove he exists due to lack of any other ideas or "evidence".

 

 

 

Oh, I believe in God! all I was saying is that one cannot escape the overwhelming evidence AGAINST Darwin and for Design...even if you don't want to come to the final conclusion that Jesus Is Lord! and created all of this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky

What line of work are you in? How do they change?

 

 

Cancer biologist. They change morphology, genotype, eventually they become a different type of cell. Most of the time they just "dumb down" and become more generic cells with no function. But yup they do change. I work with bacteria too, and they change even faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Nutter



Cancer biologist. They change morphology, genotype, eventually they become a different type of cell. Most of the times they just "dumb down" and become more generic cells with no function. But yup they do change. I work with bacteria too, and they change even faster.

You say most of the time the just "dumb down". What about the other times? Do you see them become new better cells with new functionality that wasn't in the genetic code prior to the change? (I'm serious, I'm not trying to prove a point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by GasMask



WOW! What a Crock! Anyone who does not agree with your narrow minded viewpoint is guilty of "blind ignorance"? Oh Puhleeezzzzz! The fact is- there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution. Virtually every educated scientist accepts evolution as a proven fact. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence supporting "intelligent design". NONE.



'educated' scientists??? are there any other kind:confused:

you seem like an angry fellow...:wave: lighten-up

narrow minded?...you have not done much 'serious' study on this subject have you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky

You say most of the time the just "dumb down". What about the other times? Do you see them become new better cells with new functionality that wasn't in the genetic code prior to the change? (I'm serious, I'm not trying to prove a point).

 

 

We don't really have the time or resources to go identifying each and every gene product that gets made from each cell. If we are looking at a single factor (mostly hormones), then yes they vary a lot depending on who's been growing up the cells. We have to throw them away and revive new batches of cells every few months cos they just become too different functionally.

 

On another point, in order to have "better" (and I use the term very loosely) cells, you need some kind of selection pressure. In the lab, it's mainly fast growth. Slower cells just can't compete with the faster ones and each time when we sub-culture, we are picking the fast ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Echoes

all I'm saying is that with the preponderance of evidence DESIGN is the only conclusion...to think that this is all an accident or to pretend that it is an accident is the definition of blind ignorance...



I believe the opposite to be true- that the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution. On the other hand- I have yet to see one piece of objective scientific efidence supporting the theory of intelligent design. I don't think it is fair for you to call people who disagree with you guilty of "blind ignorance." Almost every scientist believes in evolution- are they all guilty of "blind ignorance"???? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Nutter



We don't really have the time or resources to go identifying each and every gene product that gets made from each cell. If we are looking at a single factor (mostly hormones), then yes they vary a lot depending on who's been growing up the cells. We have to throw them away and revive new batches of cells every few months cos they just become too different functionally.


On another point, in order to have "better" (and I use the term very loosely) cells, you need some kind of selection pressure. In the lab, it's mainly fast growth. Slower cells just can't compete with the faster ones and each time when we sub-culture, we are picking the fast ones.

This would be the same as starting with wolves, picking the fastest of the litters and eventualy coming up with greyhounds right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by GasMask



I believe the opposite to be true- that the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution. On the other hand- I have yet to see one piece of objective scientific efidence supporting the theory of intelligent design. I don't think it is fair for you to call people who disagree with you guilty of "blind ignorance." Almost every scientist believes in evolution- are they all guilty of "blind ignorance"????
:confused:

OMG for cryin out loud. HERE. Although you won't be able to keep up with any of them.
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky

This would be the same as starting with a wolf, picking the fastest and eventual come up with a greyhound right?

 

 

Not really, but kind of. Lol, bit of an oxymoron. In the culture dish, selection pressure for growth is very intense and change is magnified many fold. Bear in mind cells divide every 24 hours and are subject to constant selection pressure. Dogs (wolves) take years to reproduce and there is no need for them to be that much faster in order to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Nutter



Not really, but kind of. Lol, bit of an oxymoron. In the culture dish, selection pressure for growth is very intense and change is magnified many fold. Bear in mind cells divide every 24 hours and are subject to constant selection pressure. Dogs (wolves) take years and there is no need for them to be that much faster in order to survive.

Right. My point was you still have a K9, just faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...