<p>zing........</p>
<p>I just have to add a "nail in the coffin" to your argument against evolution:</p>
<p>Explain pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are pieces of DNA that code for a protein but are never transcribed, since they lack a functioning "start" codon. They are "true" vestigial structures in that they cannot possibly serve any purpose. For example, humans and mice have the same number of olfactory receptor genes. However, mice have a better sense of smell because 70% of human olfactory receptor genes are not transcribed, whereas almost all are in mice. If evolution does not occur, then God is a moron, sense he apparently "designed" humans to have genes that don't do anything!</p>
<p>While you're at it, explain all of chemisty, physics, astronomy, geology, and cosmology, since you seem to be denying the basic tenets of all the sciences.</p>
<p>zing.........</p>
<p>Since you seem to be dying for an explanation of how organs evolve, I'll try to oblige you:</p>
<p>"We actually have a good deal of evidence that favors the natural mechanism for the origin of of air-breathing structures. The earliest lung was likely nothing more than a simple bladder-like structure. Question: how could an organism survive with such a simple structure? Answer: this organism was a fish and would rely primarily on its gills to extract oxygen from the water. Question: how could such a simple structure actually work to get oxygen into the blood stream? Answer: the fish would first swim to the surface and gulp air into the bladder. Once there, no special mechanism is needed to allow oxygen to diffuse into the blood stream. It happens whenever a gas is in close proximity to blood vessels within the walls of a body cavity. In fact, modern fish can obtain some oxygen from the air by gulping it into the stomach. Question: what advantage could such a structure be to a fish? Answer: to allow an added intake of oxygen from the surface in hypoxic (oxygen poor) waters. This would extend the area in which the fish could exist and broaden its food supply. Question: is this gas bladder idea all speculation? Answer: No, many fish have such bladders today and use them in similar fashion.</p>
<p>With the advent of such a bladder, a fish could now survive for a period of time out of the water. With primitive walking structures and continued natural selection, it is not hard to see how eventually the first amphibian left the water to exploit the rich food supply that was undoubtably waiting on beaches and dry land. Its lung structures were probably not as good as those we use today, but it could always go back into the water to catch its breath, so to speak, if need be. As the lungs evolved in efficiency, it is suggested that eventually gills were no longer needed and they became vestigial structures.</p>
<p>In conclusion, there is good evidence that respiratory structures came into being from previous structures in a step-wise fashion. There is evidence that each step produced a benefit to the organism. Therefore it is not necessary to invoke the work of a creator in the instance of the respiratory system."
-from <a href="http://www.bible-infonet.org/Challenge/Topics/Debates/McDonald_Hadley_Aug1997/09_02_97_Hadley.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.bible-infonet.org/Challenge/Topics/Debates/McDonald_Hadley_Aug1997/09_02_97_Hadley.htm</a></p>
<p>While I'm at it, I'll just be lazy and give you the answer to all your "burning questions":
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html</a></p>
<p>Essentially, organs develop in a step-by-step process, and each successive iteration of a structure is slightly more useful than its immediate predecessor. It's not difficult to come up with an evolutionary chain for pretty much any organ or physical feature.</p>
<p>zing.......</p>
<p>Everyone knows evolution is a complex process, so there should have been countless transitional data showing how one species developed into another but data is embarassingly deficient.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example, skunk. Take the case of the honourable peacock. Evolutionists consider reptiles the ancestors of birds, claiming that bird feathers somehow evolved from scales. But, there's no similarity between scales and bird feathers. A. H Brush accepted this with wide open arms and kindly hung his head in shame. There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers once evolved from reptile scales. Au contraire, feathers appeared "suddenly" in the fossil record as a complete, distinguished species of their own.</p>
<p>Charles Darwin himself had bowel problems when he claimed that "The sight of a feather in a peacok's tail, whenever I gaze at it, it makes me sick!" - spoken thus like a true "professional". These are the same people who claim that over time, sweat glands (which have no capacity for pumping milk) actually turned into mammary glands. Someone pass me the sick bucket..</p>
<p>Excuse me, while I prepare to prove that God exists with Physics.</p>
<p>ok guys, i'm gonna go to sleep now</p>
<p>thanks for the entertainment</p>
<p>Duck billed platypus- that is quite a mess of an animal- its got parts from all over the place- </p>
<p>theslac- how old do you think the world is?</p>
<p>and maybe there have been some mistakes in scientific thought over the years,- the world is not flat, you don't get infections from the devil, women aren't fully responsible for the sex of the offspring, the sun does not revolve around the earth, people with mental disorders do not need exorcisms, </p>
<p>we are constantly learning and adjusting, discovering new things- electrons, dna, how to do transplants, all were unthinkable just a few years ago. String theory....</p>
<p>so, while scientists may have mis interpreted some data, doesn't mean they won't eventually get the answers </p>
<p>Cultures all over the world have myths and stories about how humans came to be, it was a way of dealing with a complex world. They thought if they were bad, it wouldn't rain. If they sacrifised to their God, they would recieve riches or peace. </p>
<p>To deny science, with its foibles and errors, to dismiss it, seems to fly in the face of logic. Our brains have evolved over time, from grunts to language. From rock hitting, to typing on the computer. If no evolution, we would still be grunting in caves.</p>
<p>To dismiss the entire theory of evolution, because of some questions regarding a particular part, seems to have an agenda. Well, there might have been a mistake over here, so we are going to say the rest is bunk. Its denying what is true.</p>
<p>If people hadn't searched for answers, and just said, well, God has laid all of this out, we don't need to look for anything or question, we would still have polio.</p>
<p>I'm still waiting on that pseudogene explanation lol
BTW the evolution of bird feathers is well documented, and despite what your minister might have told you, there is a great deal of fossil evidence. In fact, the fossil record is perhaps the greatest evidence of evolution in existence.</p>
<p>Now consider your point of view: All scientific data pointing to the age of the Earth, all the similarities and palpable evolutionary links between various species, all of the fossils that have been unearthed, and all of the genetic clues to evolution (mitochondrial DNA, species having the same genes, PSEUDOGENES, etc.) have been falsified. If this is so, then apparently, God is Hell-bent on tricking us into thinking evolution is true. Not only does this call God's sanity into question, but we also must ask why he would create all this evidence for evolution, while simultaneously providing evidence that "refutes" it. Your God is an idiot.</p>
<p>A shapeless feeling that often provides me support when I am in need of someone to lean on....Thats god to me>> a constant source of encouragement and optimism. He does exist but just inside my thoughts.</p>
<p>how are you going to sit there and tell me all of this stuff around us happened by chance?!</p>
<p>^ Given the context of the amount of time it took, it's possible.</p>
<p>No, I don't believe in gods, but if there is something out there that created us, it must have left us long ago or it must be an idiot.</p>
<p>^ hahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahahaha sooo true!!</p>
<p>Why must anti-theists assume that all theists are idiots? </p>
<p>Although overall I think the greatest problems for science are the origin of life and the Prime Mover.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If God is an omnipotent entity that rewards and/or punishes people based on their actions (i.e. heaven/hell), then there is no freedom, since it is impossible to escape the judgment on an all-powerful being. One might argue that we are "free" to disobey God's law, but I liken that argument to saying that we are "free" to disobey the laws of a totalitarian regime--we do not regard the freedom to disobey Stalin as true freedom (free from punishment), and thus, If God exists, then there is no freedom.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The idea is not that God arbitrarily chose some commandments and some virtues he felt would be funny to watch play out while he was wasted on Olympus. The idea is that there is a real Good. As Plato and Aristotle and so many others figured out long before Christ came along, a virtuous life is its own reward, the just man is happier than the unjust. The absence of Good is necessarily less perfect than Good. And so, as Dante tells us, a sinful life is a hell in itself. That's all his Inferno is, a psychological trip through the minds of sinners. There's no punishment they haven't inflicted on themselves. The lu****l there are still driven by their lust, aimlessly, as they were in life. All of them are like alcoholics who cannot see what they've become. Our generation's preoccupation with freedom is almost disgusting, it is not the highest virtue. You are free to be a bad musician just as you're free to be a good musician. But being a bad musician isn't a good thing. You're as free to be wrong as to be right. Of course it isn't a real choice. </p>
<p>However, your understanding of Christianity will be warped as long as you do not believe there's a real Good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why must anti-theists assume that all theists are idiots?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because a good amount of theists are.</p>
<p>I believe there is real good in this world, and that freedom isn't the highest virtue. That, however, does not change the absurdity of the other aspects of the Bible, especially when you consider God's purported omnipotence. The whole premise that God gave us free will because he loves us is ridiculous. Furthermore, the Bible does not even emphasize "doing good" as much as many other religions. It claims that the only way to heaven is through Jesus; in other words, you can believe in Jesus yet be a criminal and still go to heaven.</p>
<p>Whoa lots of people responding in here. :] I sometimes think about the evolution makes more sense than how "God created the world in 7 days." oo;;;; Ha I got a question for all of you! Does anyone of your religious friends who are still Catholic ever ask you what do you believe in and if you believe in more than 1 God or none at all, they say to you "Oh my gosh! You're going to hell!" Then you replied "Yup I'm going to hell and proud of it!" Etc etc etc >>;</p>
<p>All you people arguing about evolution, check out this week's issue of the New Yorker...has an article on evolution vs. "Intelligent Design," very interesting.</p>
<p>thesloc, your understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed. Never, ever use the word need. That is Lamarckian in context; of course it's ridiculous! Evolution as we know it today is a modern synthesis using molecular biology, genetics, phylogeny and systematics to refine Darwin's initial idea of evolution by natural selection.</p>
<p>In fact, why don't you just do some research on what Darwin's concepts actually were? You may be enlightened.</p>
<p>As for this famous intelligent design eye argument, it is so ridiculous and now so ubiquitous amongst the ID community that Campbell and Reece even offer a sound counterargument in their BIOLOGY text. You make the mistake in assuming that the eye in the human body must be that complex in order to be considered an eye. An eyespot from a planarian can only detect changes in light, yet it is still an eye.</p>
<p>Your entire post is not coherent; it gives me a headache trying to decipher what you're talking about. Please, please pick up a copy of Campbell's and start reading the section on evolution. Then, come back to us.</p>
<p>Is it too hard to just beleive what you want???
You have to find your own religion, your own code of ethics and way of life, your own beliefs....I believe that everyone placed on this earth was here for a reason and its up to the individual to find out what that is. Dont listen to anybody else..You have to make up your mind on your own...Ive seen posts on here saying that their parents are making them participate in a religion or that the evidence proves that evolution is flawed or even extremelly possible.</p>
<p>I do believe in God and I am Christian.I do believe though that its up to free will to choose what one believes in.</p>