Show Me And I’ll Believe

[stevencarrwork]

Originally Posted by Kevin Wirth

I want you to show us the evolutionary history of a “vertebrate” mammal going all the way back to the Cambrian explosion. This means you need to start with a critter as it exists today, and then tell me who it’s ancestors were or 'must have been'. Trace it all the way back to the Cambrian explosion. I don’t care if it’s a rat or a bat, but – I want you to SHOW ME how it 'must have' happened.

And, you must do this convincingly, ie, you must describe all the changes that were made to all the systems, like skin, bone structure, chemical structure, reproductive organs, breathing, etc. for each new intermediate all along the way. And then you must describe HOW those changes occurred. And please don’t give me any baloney about how impossible it is, and I don't care to hear any excuses about why you can't do it.

This is one of the reasons I believe that Native American Indians came across on the Mayflower.

Because nobody can show me in convincing detail how they got to America, thousands of years before Columbus did.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by stevencarrwork

This is one of the reasons I believe that Native American Indians came across on the Mayflower. Because nobody can show me in convincing detail how they got to America, thousands of years before Columbus did.

And I devoutly believe that the Great Pyramids of Ancient Egypt were built by the wolf-headed beings from the Pan-Galactic Empire of Osiris, using their anti-gravity generators and particle beam weapons.

Because nobody can show me in convincing detail how those primitive humans built the Pyramids thousands of years before the birth of modern architecture and engineering.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Kevin Wirth

...I'd sure like to know why my question was "moved" to this "Theology" forum? ... I did NOT ask a theological question.

Perhaps. But you phrased your challenge in "theology-speak" and described your demands in "pulpit-logic" with the vehemence of a born-again firebrand. You are in the presence of people who can read between the lines.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by stevencarrwork

This is one of the reasons I believe that Native American Indians came across on the Mayflower.

Because nobody can show me in convincing detail how they got to America, thousands of years before Columbus did.

Ever heard of the earthplates (not sure that it is the english word forit, you know the the things underground wheere the continents lie on and some times due to friction cause earthquakes). Well those plates are moving and a couple of thousands of years ago they where in a place so that there was land to walk from asia accross the ocean (which was at that time a bit elsewhere) and reach America. A proof? Talk to a geologist or look at the fisionomy of a native american indian and tell me if you don't see a ressemblance to asian fisionomy.

[sanctus]

:
Originally Posted by jetzeppelin
The day a scientist creates an electron, proton or neutron from nihilos, that is the day I will stop believing in a Creator.

Originally Posted by erasmus
Electrons/positrons pop out of nothing all the time. So do photons, even protons/antiprotons Google vacuum fluctuation for the theory, or Casimir effect for the experimental evidence.
-Will

Just curious have you stopped to believe in a creator now?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by sanctus

Just curious have you stopped to believe in a creator now?

Yeah! You gave us your word, dude! You made a solemn promise!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by sanctus

Ever heard of the earthplates (not sure that it is the english word forit, you know the the things underground wheere the continents lie on and some times due to friction cause earthquakes). Well those plates are moving and a couple of thousands of years ago they where in a place so that there was land to walk from asia accross the ocean (which was at that time a bit elsewhere) and reach America. A proof? Talk to a geologist or look at the fisionomy of a native american indian and tell me if you don't see a ressemblance to asian fisionomy.

stevencarrwork certainly made a funny, but illustrative analogy which crystalized the silliness of the original question...


Anyway, sanctus, "tectonic plates."


Cheers.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Anyway, sanctus, "tectonic plates."


Cheers.

Thanks.

[blazer2000x]

Ha! I don't know who's gonna take the time to read this whole thing.

Here's how the evolution theory is a little messed up. I am NOT contradicting you if you believe it, what you believe is none of my business, I am just answering a question. You see, evolution provides species that are supposedly intermediates between other species (I said species, not fossils). These "middle men" show similarities between the simpler ones and the more complex. (we'll just leave out evolution's timeline faults for now) By showing us these, it is "obvious" for us to see how they evolved from one another insomuch as you can see that a motorcycle evolved from a bycicle so to speak. As long as you leave it at that, the theory has a few small holes, but overall it's okay. It's only when you get into those really small details that the whole thing gets a lot harder to really explain, understand, prove, and/or believe. Natural selection can cause species with already present features to dominate over others, but it cannot create new features such as suddenly making a wing. If a dinosaur is to become a bird, it must first grow feathers, become lighter, it's bones become thinner and weaker, and its scales disappear. In individual accidental mutations, not only would a couple of these be impossible, but they would almost all be to the dinosaurs disadvantage, while the others would give it no noticable advatage. So the species dies and we have a problem with the line.
If you take a small, prokaryotic cell, and have it eat another prokaryotic cell, it isn't gonna form a nucleus. That's just a similarity in appearance if viewed through a fuzzy low-power microscope. But let's say a eukaryotic cell did form somehow. It has maybe one or two chromosomes, (where are these supposed to come from? I haven't yet been able to find any source which explains why the DNA rings might have become chromosomes, a little help?) How would those one or two chromosomes become the twenty or more that are found in more complex species now? Well, one of the features of a genetic mutation is that in mitosis, the chromosomes sometimes divide unevenly, leaving one of the two daughter cells with more DNA than the parent cell had. So if you just glance at it, given enough time we might have enough DNA to form the many genes we and other species now posses. Unfortunately, when this actually occurs, the new cell is damaged, having duplicates it should not and therefore this particular step requires a few large beneficial mutations to occur along with the incorrect splitting of the chromosomes such that a new cell is created with more DNA that can at least live to produce more of itself. (being unique it must also have some advantage to allow it to grow more rapidly than the other cells around it with less DNA) We have, once again, a conundrum on our hands, because that many mutaions just can't occur by accident. The cell process is too exact and the chances are too drasticly reduced by it being required to come into existance all at one time. So we're stuck before the cell can even get past the unicellular stage. (we were really stuck a long time before that, but I said I wouldn't get into that and I won't).
My point is this. Evolution is a surface theory. (please do not resort to name calling or saying I don't know what I am talking about, just point out any mistake I've made and know that I am not trying to insult evolution or anyone who believes/accepts it, just answering a question with the best of my knowledge). It works smoothly enough on the surface by showing a chain of numbers and letting us fill in the gaps with how they see it to be. Let me show you.
Here is a pattern: 1,5,10,15,25,30,35,40. The pattern brings about a total of 161.
Now, although the other numbers aren't really there, if you didn't have the whole pattern: ...5,...,20,...,30,...,40. Then it would be easy enough to say that the pattern was in reality the numbers one through forty, with a total of 820. There is obviously a drastic difference between the conclusion and the truth, but anyone can see it any way they want as long as they leave those pesky little dots alone. But, if you look at those dots close enough, you see that the pattern ascribed dosn't fit because it's not missing information, it's muddled information, and not enough to possibly be as long as theorized. (That whole thing was an example, I haven't started talking about evolution agin yet, now I will). When you look at evolution from a distance, it's plausible, but when you get really close, you see the pieces have similar edges, but there's no way to make them fit. It dosn't really matter in the end, because to convice yourself evolution is possible all you have to do is take a step back every time you get a little too close and it'll all "make sense" again.
Well, I spent a long time writing a long post and now I should have been asleep a while ago. But just one more thing. Thelast paragraph was an example and that derived from the statements prior to it. I explained in every way why I see it the way I do. So, if you wish to contradict something I said, please just leave the last paragraph out altogether. That's my opinion and not scientific except in that it represents data I already showed. Please correct me everywhere I am mistaken in the matters of biology/evolutionary theory. (and not just something like quote me and then say I'm wrong and not correct me, I can't learn otherwise. If I'm wrong please tell my why, how, and what the true answer is). Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude. I just get annoyed with people who can't explain why there right. I hope this cleared some stuff up, and if it shook up what you thought instead, well... maybe now you'll find the real thing instead of whatever you had before. I look forward towards your comments.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

Ha! I don't know who's gonna take the time to read this whole thing.

Here's how the evolution theory is a little messe up. I am NOT contradicting you if you believe it, what you believe is none of my business, I am just answering a question. You see, evolution provides species that are supposedly intermediates between other species (I said species, not fossils). These "middle men" show similarities between the simpler ones and the more complex. (we'll just leave out evolution's timeline faults for now) By showing us these, it is "obvious" for us to see how they evolved from one another insomuch as you can see that a motorcycle evolved from a bycicle so to speak. As long as you leave it at that, the theory has a few small holes, but overall it's okay. It's only when you get into those really smal details that the whole thing gets a lot harder to really explain, understand, prove, and/or believe. Natural selection can cause species with already present features to dominate over others, but it cannot create new features such as suddenly making a wing. If a dinosaur is to become a bird, it must first grow feathers, become lighter, it's bones become thinner and weaker, and its scales disappear. In individual accidental mutations, not only would a couple of these be impossible, but they would almost all be to the dinosaurs disadvantage, while the others would give it no noticable advatage. So the species dies and we have a problem with the line.
If you take a small, prokaryotic cell, and have it eat another prokaryotic cell, it isn't gonna form a nucleus. That's just a similarity in appearance if viewed through a fuzzy low-power microscope. But let's say a eukaryotic cell did form some how. It has maybe one or two chromosomes, (where are these supposed to come from? I haven't yet been able to find any source which explains why the DNA rings might have become chromosomes, a little help?) How would those one or two chromosomes become the twenty or more that are found in more complex species now? Well, one of the features of a genetic mutation is that in mitosis, is that the chromosomes divide unevenly, leaving one of the two daughter cells with more DNA than the parent cell had. So if you just glance at it, given enough time we might have enough DNA to form the many genes we and other species now posses. Unfortunately, when this actually occurs, the new cell is damaged, having duplicates it should not and therefore this particular step requires a few large beneficial mutations to occur along with the incorrect splitting of the chromosomes such that a new cell is created with more DNA that can at least live to produce more of itself. (being unique it must also have some advantage to allow it to grow more rapidly than the other cells around it with less DNA) We have, once again, a conundrum on our hands, because that many mutaions just can't occur by accident. The cell process is too exact and the chances are too drasticly reduced by it being required to come into existance all at one time. So we're stuck before the cell can even get past the unicellular stage. (we were really stuck a long time before that, but I said I wouldn't get into that and I won't).
My point is this. Evolution is a surface theory. (please do not resort to name calling or saying I don't know what I am talking about, just point out any mistake I've made and know that I am not trying to insult evolution or anyone who believes/accepts it, just answering a question with the best of my knowledge). It works smoothly enough on the surface by showing a chain of numbers and letting us fill in the gaps with how they see it to be. Let me show you.
Here is a pattern: 1,5,10,15,25,30,35,40. The pattern brings about a total of 161.
Now, although the other numbers aren't really there, if you didn't have the whole pattern: ...5,...,20,...,30,...,40. Then it would be easy enough to say that the pattern was in reality the numbers one through forty, with a total of 820. There is obviously a drastic difference between the conclusion and the truth, but anyone can see it any way they want as long as they leave those pesky little dots alone. But, if you look at those dots close enough, you see that the pattern ascribed dosn't fit because it's not missing information, it's muddled information, and not enough to possibly be as long as theorized. (That whole thing was an example, I haven't started talking about evolution agin yet, now I will). When you look at evolution from a distance, it's plausible, but when you get really close, you see the pieces have similar edges, but there's no way to make them fit. It dosn't really matter in the end, because to convice yourself evolution is possible all you have to do is take a step back every time you get a little too close and it'll all "make sense" again.
Well, I spent a long time writing a long post and now I should have been asleep a while ago. But just one more thing. Thelast paragraph was an example and that derived from the statements prior to it. I explained in every way why I see it the way I do. So, if you wish to contradict something I said, please just leave the last paragraph out altogether. That's my opinion and not scientific except in that it represents data I already showed. Please correct me everywhere I am mistaken in the matters of biology/evolutionary theory. (and not just something like quote me and then say I'm wrong and not correct me, I can't learn otherwise. If I'm wrong please tell my why, how, and what the true answer is). Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude. I just get annoyed with people who can't explain why there right. I hope this cleared some stuff up, and if it shook up what you thought instead, well... maybe now you'll find the real thing instead of whatever you had before. I look forward towards your comments.

I skipped from the first sentence to the last sentence. You were right, I could not take the time to read the whole thing.

Bill