Accepting myths (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Carico -> Accepting myths (7/5/2008 11:43:21 AM)

Once a myth is accepted, people use that myth to "prove" current theories.

For example; if the myth that humans are the descendants of giraffes is universally accepted (even though not proven), then when one sees an eye that looks like the eye of a giraffe, he can claim that's proof that humans came from giraffes.

Or if one sees someone with a long neck, he can claim that's proof that his ancestors once had long necks. [:D][:D]

Or if he sees an animal he's never seen before, then he can speculate that that animal "evolved" from some other unknown creature. Speculation isn't science any more than the imagination is science.

Yet this is what evolutionists do with evolution. Once they accept the myth that apes can breed human descendants, then they will try to fit everything they look at into that myth. What they fail to see is every other explanation for their observations except that which fits into their myth.

So it's useless to look at animals and imagine where they came from until you know who the common ancestor is, what he looked like, how many there were, etc. All that happens is that people keep living on their imaginations and building on myths. There is a huge difference between accepted theories and proven theories, that unfortunately, most people don't realize. Therefore, the theory of evolution will continue to remain a myth until scientists know who the common ancestor is.[;)]



robto -> RE: Accepting myths (7/5/2008 12:55:27 PM)

Carico:

You don't know anything about biology, do you?



Carico -> RE: Accepting myths (7/5/2008 1:52:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

Carico:

You don't know anything about biology, do you?


I know why apes can't breed human descendants and evolutionists don't. It's as simple as the birds and the bees. [;)]



GHitch -> RE: Accepting myths (7/6/2008 3:26:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto
Carico:
You don't know anything about biology, do you?

Very impressive answer! Can you add any actual content?



Real_Solitude -> RE: Accepting myths (7/6/2008 9:17:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto
Carico:
You don't know anything about biology, do you?

Very impressive answer! Can you add any actual content?


Robto didn't have to. The answer, "I know why apes can't breed human descendants and evolutionists don't. It's as simple as the birds and the bees." is as good as saying, "No."
If he doesn't know the difference between family and species, there's really no use in discussing it. He doesn't seem to know anything about biology, and won't allow himself to be educated.

quote:

There is a huge difference between accepted theories and proven theories, that unfortunately, most people don't realize.

No, no there's not. Theories are models of reality, they can't be proven. "Proof" is a term of mathematics. Evolution is a biological theory, you can't prove it. There are no differences between accepted theories an proven theories because there's no such thing as a proven theory. For that matter, 'accepted theory' is redundant. A theory is a hypothesis that has been substantiated by sufficient evidence and widely accepted within the relevant scientific community. If a theory is not accepted, it is a hypothesis. If it does not have supporting evidence, it is not a theory.

Please acquire at least a basic scientific education before you attempt to educate others on scientific matters.



ianz -> RE: Accepting myths (7/6/2008 11:40:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
...


Carico

I'm sure you fervently believe what you believe, but I have a really hard time making any sense of what you write.

Could you please try re-phrasing your criticisms?



Carico -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 9:18:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto
Carico:
You don't know anything about biology, do you?

Very impressive answer! Can you add any actual content?


[sm=eek.gif] I realize that evolutionists live in the world of science fiction so they don't know the criteria for why apes can't breed human descendants, so I'll spoon feed you. Apes don't breed humans because apes don't have human genes. Humans don't breed baby apes because humans don't have ape genes. Now you can call human offspring, "dirty dogs" baby apes, baby skunks, or whatever animal name you want to give them. But they are still only human.

So all you prove is that you don't know why apes can't breed human descendants and I do. [;)]



Real_Solitude -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 10:51:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
[sm=eek.gif] I realize that evolutionists live in the world of science fiction so they don't know the criteria for why apes can't breed human descendants, so I'll spoon feed you. Apes don't breed humans because apes don't have human genes. Humans don't breed baby apes because humans don't have ape genes. Now you can call human offspring, "dirty dogs" baby apes, baby skunks, or whatever animal name you want to give them. But they are still only human.

So all you prove is that you don't know why apes can't breed human descendants and I do. [;)]


Ooh, this should be fun. Now that you're saying that there's actual, factual genetic differences between ape and human DNA, let's see if we can find them. Here (click here) is a link that shows the first 60,000 'letters' of the human genetic code. It took me about five minutes to find.
Now you go and find the first X number of letters of the "ape" genetic code, and let's compare them. Not chimpanzee, gorilla, or orangutan, but pure and simple ape.

I guarantee you that you'll never find it. Why? Because there is no such thing as "ape genes."
There are genes that all apes (including humans, by the way) share, but there is no gene that all apes share that humans do not. This is because, as previously stated, humans are apes.
If you're going to attempt to use science in your arguments, you might want to know what science actually shows about the subject first.



hellohellohi -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 11:12:52 AM)

quote:

Apes don't breed humans because apes don't have human genes.


Hello,

So I see you accept DNA-heredity as a premise?

Well, suppose, in addition to this premise that:
1) Some encodable traits confer relative reproductive advantage over members of a population
and that
2) These traits will be passed on via DNA to successive generations.
Won't, therefore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Successive generations display greater proportions of the traits "favored" by this relative reproductive advantage?

Just wondering.



Carico -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 11:44:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

quote:

Apes don't breed humans because apes don't have human genes.


Hello,

So I see you accept DNA-heredity as a premise?

Well, suppose, in addition to this premise that:
1) Some encodable traits confer relative reproductive advantage over members of a population
and that
2) These traits will be passed on via DNA to successive generations.
Won't, therefore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Successive generations display greater proportions of the traits "favored" by this relative reproductive advantage?

Just wondering.


Actually, if you kept it simple, you'd understand it. All you have to understand is why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants. But if you don't know why we can't, then I'm afraid you have too much to learn to be qualified to discuss biology. [:o]



robto -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 12:44:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto
Carico:
You don't know anything about biology, do you?

Very impressive answer! Can you add any actual content?


[sm=eek.gif] I realize that evolutionists live in the world of science fiction so they don't know the criteria for why apes can't breed human descendants, so I'll spoon feed you. Apes don't breed humans because apes don't have human genes.
...


You do realize that the theory of evolution says that the genetic code CHANGES over time, don't you?



robto -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 1:09:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

Once a myth is accepted, people use that myth to "prove" current theories.

For example; if the myth that humans are the descendants of giraffes is universally accepted (even though not proven), then when one sees an eye that looks like the eye of a giraffe, he can claim that's proof that humans came from giraffes.

Or if one sees someone with a long neck, he can claim that's proof that his ancestors once had long necks. [:D][:D]

Or if he sees an animal he's never seen before, then he can speculate that that animal "evolved" from some other unknown creature. Speculation isn't science any more than the imagination is science.
...

OK, some content:

Point 1: Biologists had been classifying plants and animals according to shared physical characteristics for a long time BEFORE the theory of evolution came along. Humans are classified alongside (or within) the great apes because of the physical characteristics they share, NOT because of any hypothesized evolutionary link.

This is not speculation: I'm talking about observed physical characteristics that anyone can check for themselves.

Point 2: What about the fossil record? That's not speculation either. It's hard physical evidence that any theory of the origins of species must be able to explain.

Point 3: When the theory of evolution came along, it provided an explanation of the shared physical characteristics between groups that had already been classified together. It provided an explanation for the patterns in the fossil record. It provided an explanation for the observed geographical distribution of species. It provided an explanation for things that weren't even dreamed of in Darwin's time, like the patterns in the genetic code of different groups.

This is what a theory does: it pulls together many diverse strands of evidence and provides an explanation for them. It makes predictions that can be tested. (Example: Since whales are mammals, and mammals presumably evolved on land, evolution required that whales evolved from land-based ancestors. For many years, land fossils with whale-like characteristics were lacking. (Evolution doesn't require that any particular ancestor can be found as a fossil.) In the 1980s (IIRC) paleontologists began finding such fossils. Prediction confirmed.)

Evolution isn't speculation any more than the theory of special relativity is speculation.



hellohellohi -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 1:30:00 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

quote:

Apes don't breed humans because apes don't have human genes.

Hello,

So I see you accept DNA-heredity as a premise?

Well, suppose, in addition to this premise that:
1) Some encodable traits confer relative reproductive advantage over members of a population
and that
2) These traits will be passed on via DNA to successive generations.
Won't, therefore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Successive generations display greater proportions of the traits "favored" by this relative reproductive advantage?

Just wondering.


Actually, if you kept it simple, you'd understand it. All you have to understand is why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants. But if you don't know why we can't, then I'm afraid you have too much to learn to be qualified to discuss biology.


Look guy,

I asked an honest question. If you can't answer it, you don't need to shame someone else for that.



hellohellohi -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 1:31:37 PM)

I wanted to hear what you think about DNA and my syllogism.



Carico -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 1:32:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto
Carico:
You don't know anything about biology, do you?

Very impressive answer! Can you add any actual content?


[sm=eek.gif] I realize that evolutionists live in the world of science fiction so they don't know the criteria for why apes can't breed human descendants, so I'll spoon feed you. Apes don't breed humans because apes don't have human genes.
...


You do realize that the theory of evolution says that the genetic code CHANGES over time, don't you?


Yes I'm aware that's what evolution says. But that's not what happens in reality which is why apes are still breeding apes, humans are still breeding humans and any child can tell the difference between them. But it is interesting to hear what the species that evolutionists claim humans will turn into. Gods, perhaps?[;)]



swan42 -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 2:48:42 PM)

quote:


Yes I'm aware that's what evolution says. But that's not what happens in reality which is why apes are still breeding apes, humans are still breeding humans and any child can tell the difference between them. But it is interesting to hear what the species that evolutionists claim humans will turn into. Gods, perhaps?


Ooh now this is a good question., the evolutionist might say:

Well, since we are the first species to be self-aware of genes and DNA and have produced inventions that are specifically designed to overcome short-comings of our own DNA, then

The case could be made that our own efforts will change our species more than formal evolution would be capable of. I mean that it is possible that natural selection will have a minimal impact on the human genome in the future, instead we might genetically 'cure' single cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, and type-1 diabetes. Yes, 'Gods' in a sense might be the right terminology. Ethics, technology, culture would all play a larger role than mere survival and reproduction. This future might resemble the 1997 movie Gattica.



hellohellohi -> RE: Accepting myths (7/7/2008 2:51:01 PM)

Gattaca [;)]. They were making a play on GTAC! oh yeah, and Attica.



robto -> RE: Accepting myths (7/8/2008 11:16:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

Yes I'm aware that's what evolution says. But that's not what happens in reality ...

Actually, it IS what happens in reality, as any geneticist can tell you. You don't know much about biology, do you?



fiat_lux -> RE: Accepting myths (7/8/2008 9:05:17 PM)

quote:

Yes I'm aware that's what evolution says. But that's not what happens in reality which is why apes are still breeding apes, humans are still breeding humans and any child can tell the difference between them. But it is interesting to hear what the species that evolutionists claim humans will turn into. Gods, perhaps?

If there's no genetic change over time, then I would like to now turn to another matter, which is the means by which breeding pairs from several million species were sustained on the ark during the flood.



Method -> RE: Accepting myths (7/8/2008 11:13:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Gattaca [;)]. They were making a play on GTAC! oh yeah, and Attica.


Amino acid sequences are a lot more fun.



McFatty -> RE: Accepting myths (7/11/2008 4:10:10 PM)

Perhaps instead of "you don't know anything about biology", the question should be, "You don't accept modern biology, which includes the theory of evolution, do you?" That'd be a bit more accurate.



Carico -> RE: Accepting myths (7/12/2008 8:09:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

Perhaps instead of "you don't know anything about biology", the question should be, "You don't accept modern biology, which includes the theory of evolution, do you?" That'd be a bit more accurate.


No, anyone who knows anything about biology wouldn't accept the theory of evolution. Again, it's as simple as understanding the birds and the bees. Humans mate with humans and breed humans. Apes mate with apes and breed apes. So only those who don't know why and how each animal reproduces itself will believe in evolution. It's that simple.[;)]



drj11 -> RE: Accepting myths (7/12/2008 12:58:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
No, anyone who knows anything about biology wouldn't accept the theory of evolution. Again, it's as simple as understanding the birds and the bees. Humans mate with humans and breed humans. Apes mate with apes and breed apes. So only those who don't know why and how each animal reproduces itself will believe in evolution. It's that simple.[;)]


If you even actually had a high school level understanding of biology, you would actually be able to give some more (maybe not much more) elaborate challenges to the evolutionists. Every time you get backed into a corner you simply repeat your nonsensical mantra of the 'birds and the bees' in attempt to dodge actually answering anyone's direct questions.

Every time you do this you show to everyone that you have never so much as even cracked open a book on biology or evolution, nor do you appear to have any desire to actually try and learn. Your seem determined to be ignorant. Your deflections and dodges are extremely transparent attempts to mask your ignorance on the subjects at hand, and plainly visible for all to see.



flare -> RE: Accepting myths (7/15/2008 8:05:48 AM)

quote: you said and mammals presumably evolved on land, evolution required that whales evolved from land-based ancestors.

evidence based on a presumption? can't be done.



flare -> RE: Accepting myths (7/15/2008 8:13:46 AM)

i get you. it's just common sense.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI