| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Evolution | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 26 Oct 2009, 01:13 PM (792 Views) | |
| conradw | 26 Oct 2009, 01:13 PM Post #1 |
|
Mud Vile
  ![]](http://209.85.117.197/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Hi guys. I've noticed from time to time people saying that they have a problem with evolution. I want this thread (for the short time that we're on topic) to be your opportunity to try to convince me that the theory is fatally flawed. Don't expect anything you say to go unchallenged though (and I would like to see references/links for claims). In return, I offer an open mind. Are you up for the challenge? |
 |
 
|
| Junior | 26 Oct 2009, 01:42 PM Post #2 |
Ub3r Shrum
|
basically, I have no problem with evolution, I have a problem of certain atheists using it as a certain way of discrediting god. nothing in genesis brings up evolution, or the big bang, so who's not to say he used as a way to create the universe? |
| IT WASN'T MY FAULT so vote for me. | |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 26 Oct 2009, 03:05 PM Post #3 |
Death
|
Couldn't you rather have picked something I would disagree with you on? Then I'd give you a run for your money I tell you 
|
 
| |
|
|
|
| Life | 26 Oct 2009, 04:12 PM Post #4 |
"I own a special leather armor.. somewhere in the closet.."
|
ARGUING FEE: $5 LET THE ARGUEMENT BEGIN |
|
Blaze says, "Hewwo!" 
| |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 26 Oct 2009, 05:04 PM Post #5 |
|
Death
|
Haha! I love Monty Python-sketches 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Luemas | 26 Oct 2009, 05:32 PM Post #6 |
All ur Walrus R belong to Me
|
Who doesn't love Monty Python? They're like... Gods... But awesomer. Thank goodness we're not in Roman catholicism. I don't fancy being burned at the stake. I do like burnt steak however. And I have no problem with micro evolution. It's the Macro that I can't handle. And think about the Giraffe. You know how if you stand on your head, the blood rushes to your head? Well if that happened for a giraffe, it would die. Which is why God gave it the blood catcher net thingy at the base of it's skull. Here's a purty picture.  Even better, the link talks about Giraffes and evolution. The packet catches blood and prevents hemorraging in the brain and stuff. If it didn't have this when made, you know what would happen? It would go bye bye and no giraffes to ride bareback on. |
 Vote for Lue to make Sad Panda... Happy Panda?  | |
|
|
|
| conradw | 27 Oct 2009, 03:11 AM Post #7 |
|
Mud Vile
|
I'm not sure I get the difference between micro and macro evolution: isn't the difference a matter of time? Perusing the internet, checking facts (Including ones I thought to be true but now have corrected) a came across this quote from Darwin's book. I'd like to know what you think about it: Although he doesn't talk about the cardiovascular system of the giraffe per se his point is still relevant. you see, the things that the giraffe has to support its long neck are found in other mammals as well. As you look at closer relatives of the giraffe, you start to see these adaptations to a greater and greater degree. Classification of animals does not really relate to the vasculature of the neck and so to see this sort of "mapping" would be odd if they weren't related. enough preamble: All mammals have carotid sinus baroreceptors: the giraffe is by no means the first to deal with the issue of the brain's sensitivity to blood flow All mammals have muscle fibres in arterial walls. Yes, the giraffe has the thickest, but this goes hand in hand with the pressure the system is under: An animal with thicker muscle in its arterial wall under a high pressure system is at an advantage against those with a smaller layer of muscle. Similarly for an animal with a long neck like this, a higher blood pressure would supply the brain more effectively provided the muscle could accommodate for it. This isn't a barrier but a concurrent progression. all mammals have valves in the veins of its neck (except, oddly primates in the internal jugular vein - this is a useful medical sign, and also why your blood rushes to your head ). Combine this with what I was saying before about slow gradual transitions in all the systems. It would be advantageous for an animal with with a large blood volume and pressure to have a lot of valves in all of its peripheries, not just its neck. A more interesting question is where/when/how did vavles appear.The Rete Mirabile is a rather remarkable organ. It is present in all ruminants (of which the giraffe, cows, sheep, and okapi are members). Its primary function is to protect the brain from overheating: something it is very sensitive to. However, it is also able respond to higher blood pressure, in the same way that our vessels can redirect blood to where it is needed and away from where it is not (this is especially the case in our kidneys, but also the gut, muscles, and yes, if you stand on your head, also your brain). I think a more interesting question (not that yours was uninteresting) is where did these adaptations come from. While you might say they are God-given, I feel that is dodging the question. The formation of a circulatory system is probably has no definitive answer, although I'm sure it has attracted some study. Another question raised by what I read to reply to you is that of the Mouse Deer which though a ruminant has no rete. The question is "why not?" if anyone feels like contributing their answers some of the questions I have posed, please do so (they are not intended to challenge a creationist viewpoint, only for the sake of interest) |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 27 Oct 2009, 04:37 AM Post #8 |
|
Death
|
I do not see any difference between micro- and macro-evolution. If I have understood our previous discussions on this forum correctly, macro-evolution is supposed to be evolution from one species to another (or on a higher biological level). The only definitions of "species" I have ever been presented with, can at best be considered a clumsy attempt by humans to divide a continuous spectrum of living beings into discrete units called "species". This only seems to work if you limit yourself to one point in time and one location on the planet. Though I recognize the usefulness of this system for biologists who need to separate different types of animals to study their role in the ecosystem etc. I think it is wrong to assume that this system is somehow universally valid and not just a convenient construct for special cases. Also, if one does like to put special emphasis on evolution when it leads a continuum of animals to move from what we would call one species to what we would call another, here is a webpage with a rather nice collection of evidence that this has happened in the past, and is still happening today. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 27 Oct 2009, 04:37 AM Post #9 |
|
Death
|
Since I do not see biological evolution as controversial at all (and I want to join the discussion more than just posting "whatever conradw said" all the time) I'd like to make a more controversial statement: I would claim that in ANY system that has the following three characteristics...: 1. Heredity (the existence of a unit will lead to the existence of units with similar characteristics) 2. Variations (not all units will be exactly similar at any time) 3. Selection (controversial part: I state that this is valid for ANY selection-process where some units are removed, while others are allowed to remain in the system) ...will exhibit a directed change of the system over time (which is of course the definition of evolution). I.e. such a system will always have an evolutionary pressure to move in a specific direction. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 27 Oct 2009, 06:24 AM Post #10 |
This Person Has No Life
|
whats that pink and blue smudge over there? and wasnt this topic posted before? except there were no biters..... |
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 27 Oct 2009, 07:52 AM Post #11 |
|
Death
|
I think we've drifted into this topic at least a couple of times before, but it's never had it's own thread I think. We don't have to go into my suggestion about logics, that was just an effort of mine to bring some controversy into the topic. It's just that if we only stick to biologic evolution I don't have much innovative new stuff to bring to the discussion. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 27 Oct 2009, 07:57 AM Post #12 |
|
This Person Has No Life
|
yes it did you cant make something outta nothing unless you are God is basically the end of it anyway yawnnn .... |
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 27 Oct 2009, 08:06 AM Post #13 |
|
Death
|
Well, biologic evolution does not say anything about where life comes from. That is the scientific field of abiogenesis (the transition from non-life to life) which is a very new and immature scientific field. Evolutionary biology (not the same field as abiogenesis) explores the development of life through time. This development is called evolution and is an observable fact. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 27 Oct 2009, 04:01 PM Post #14 |
|
This Person Has No Life
|
well the point is God creates life however he wants to so its all relevent 
|
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 27 Oct 2009, 04:28 PM Post #15 |
|
Death
|
I didn't really understand that part. But at least the evidence in nature is consistent with evolution, if you want to say "well that's how God does it" then your God has at least managed not to contradict the field of evolutionary biology (which is good in my book). |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |
1:51 PM Nov 25
