345 replies to this topic

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 1:05 PM, said:

So similar design lends more credibility to the idea of small evolutionary changes over millions of years better than it lends itself to the notion of a common Designer?Color me perplexed.

Which color? Remeber talking about tails? Yeah I did find some more fun facts at another website I thought I'd share and besides, they are more eloquent than moi.Human embryonic tailsBetween four to seven weeks of development, we humans have a tail. It is later reabsorbed. Not only that, but we share with mice (in whose genome they've been found) the same tail-making genes. It appears that there is a separate mechanism controlling the tail's apoptosis (qv), so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned. Erm, special genes to remove something we're not supposed to have?

[speedz99]

Randy Reed, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 7:56 AM, said:

Between four to seven weeks of development, we humans have a tail. It is later reabsorbed. Not only that, but we share with mice (in whose genome they've been found) the same tail-making genes. It appears that there is a separate mechanism controlling the tail's apoptosis (qv), so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned.

Yeah, they're called the Hox genes...they pretty much control everything in terms of our bodies' geography, and we share pretty much all of them with every animal. The differences come in the expression/activation of the genes.Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It could be argued that this is because we all evolved from the same common ancestor(s), or that it's "intelligent design".

[Randy Reed]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 9:05 AM, said:

Yeah, they're called the Hox genes...they pretty much control everything in terms of our bodies' geography, and we share pretty much all of them with every animal. The differences come in the expression/activation of the genes.Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It could be argued that this is because we all evolved from the same common ancestor(s), or that it's "intelligent design".

Yeah, I mentioned the Hox genes and how we share them with the Paddlefish earlier but BG's head asploded. Besides he doesn't believe we evolved from a common ancestor. God put us here 6000 years ago as-is. In fact over 40% of Americans believe that. But to your point. I am saying that if it was intelligently designed by a common ancestor, it was poorly done. You might be implying that a God put the building blocks on the planet and then disapeared though? Or maybe he is just sitting back watching?That would be pretty eerie. I can't imagine the thought process behind it. It would make Dirty Dutch seem like a kitten saint. Let's see, I'm going to make a planet (in 7 days since I'm lazy and want to rush I suppose), fill it with molten lava and cover the majority of the planet with water. I'll sprinkle some magic evolution dust and sit back and watch so that eventually I can watch all the humans scurrying around the planet trying to avoid volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, famine, hurricanes, tornados and things like lightning. I won't even get into the absolute horror over what he was thinkng about the torture he perpetraded upon the animal kingdom and their dog eat dog survival. I just couldn't bring myself to think that He created it in his image or that he "loves the little children" if something actually did this on purpose.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 7:51 AM, said:

fyp

You didn't change anything I said.You are still making the declarative declaration that you are capable of judging God's decisions with regards to creation.I would ask you to please present your qualifications to declare the creation is flawed.Please include examples of things you have created, and the purpose that God had with His creation so you can show why your ways would have done a better job of arriving at God's desired conclusion.Until you can demonstrate your superior methods to arrive at the conclusions sought, then you are merely a making assumptions that you do not have the ability to make. 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Romans 1:18-24

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 7:56 AM, said:

Which color? Remeber talking about tails? Yeah I did find some more fun facts at another website I thought I'd share and besides, they are more eloquent than moi.Human embryonic tailsBetween four to seven weeks of development, we humans have a tail. It is later reabsorbed. Not only that, but we share with mice (in whose genome they've been found) the same tail-making genes. It appears that there is a separate mechanism controlling the tail's apoptosis (qv), so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned. Erm, special genes to remove something we're not supposed to have?

We have a tail?Really, you want to hang your hat on that one?

Quote

No, the human fetus never develops gills, tail or a yolk sac, as some have claimed. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals has been resoundingly proven utterly false. This is yet another great evolutionary myth that refuses to die, despite total lack of evidence and its birth in deception. It was very important in the early promotion of evolutionism.Unfortunately, many people still believe this erroneous evolutionary theory that was once widely taught in schools and still shows up in museums and books.How the myth spread | Vestigial organs theory | Tails | Yolk Sacs | Gills | Retracing human “evolutionary development” | The abortion connection | Have any humans ever been born with gills?SPREADING A POPULAR MYTHIn 1986, the Reader’s Digest Book of Facts published an erroneous “fact” that further spread a popular piece of evolutionary misinformation. They told readers that a human embryo re-traces the history of evolution: it develops slits in the neck like fish gills, it has a tail, and so on. This “fact” is so wrong that the idea was discredited and thrown out decades ago.Earlier, this erroneous “fact” was spread widely by the once-popular child development author Dr. Spock: “Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish…”[1]Where did all this erroneous idea get its start? It began with Evolutionist and German zoologist Ernst Haeckel in his 1876 book General Morphology of Organisms. With supreme audacity it was called the “Biogenetic Law.” It was a fraud from the beginning. Haeckel fraudulently presented altered, misleading and misinterpreted evidence. [2] Some of the key details of his embryo drawings were wrong - purposely altered to make a case for Evolution where none existed. Yet, how many people still know this? Of Haeckel, Richard Milton says, “No errant scientist has been more thoroughly disowned by his colleagues. …The biogenetic law is no longer taken seriously by embryologists.”[3]Early Human Development Consider the picture above your first “baby picture.” You start off as a little round ball of unformed substance. Then gradually arms, legs, eyes, and all your other parts appear. At one month, you’re not quite as charming as you’re going to be, and here’s where the evolutionist says, “There’s no evidence of creation in the human embryo. Otherwise, why would a human being have a yolk sac like a chicken does and a tail like a lizard does? Why would a human being have gill slits like a fish does? An intelligent creator should have known that human beings don’t need those things.”

rest of linkIt's a common error to fall for some of the blatant lies from the evolutionist in the on-going debate.Seeing as how there is no standard of morality to uphold, lies and false evidence is equally valuable to their goal of 'proving evolution'.But these things have all been clearly debunked thousands of times, and yet they stay in all those atheist web site.I wonder why...

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 8:05 AM, said:

Yeah, they're called the Hox genes...they pretty much control everything in terms of our bodies' geography, and we share pretty much all of them with every animal. The differences come in the expression/activation of the genes.Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It could be argued that this is because we all evolved from the same common ancestor(s), or that it's "intelligent design".

Which is why I don't make these assumptions.But I of course am interested in truth..so there is that.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

We have a tail?Really, you want to hang your hat on that one?rest of linkIt's a common error to fall for some of the blatant lies from the evolutionist in the on-going debate.Seeing as how there is no standard of morality to uphold, lies and false evidence is equally valuable to their goal of 'proving evolution'.But these things have all been clearly debunked thousands of times, and yet they stay in all those atheist web site.I wonder why...

I edited my previous post, well added to it. But on to this. No, no human has ever developed gills. In the embyonic sac and verified with the Human Genome Project we do now know that indeed we have the genetic similarity of gills that don't develope since we are mammals now and not fish.

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 9:56 AM, said:

You are still making the declarative declaration that you are capable of judging God's decisions with regards to creation.I would ask you to please present your qualifications to declare the creation is flawed.

This is that logic of yours that I was questioning. It's silly to say that we can't throw in our own opinions on whether or not certain things in nature would make sense to purposefully have been created that way.

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

But I of course am interested in truth.

No, you're interested in reverse engineering facts to fit what you already think is the truth. Which is what most people do.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

I edited my previous post, well added to it. But on to this. No, no human has ever developed gills. In the embyonic sac and verified with the Human Genome Project we do now know that indeed we have the genetic similarity of gills that don't develope since we are mammals now and not fish.

So we have gill like features?And this lends itself to the notion that we were at one time water breathing animals?And you still believe we have a tail during our development in the womb?Even though it's been proven for about 3 decades that this entire line of reasoning is completely faulty?

Quote

In the May 20, 1982 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Fred Ledley, M.D. presented a clinical case report titled "Evolution and the Human Tail." Ledley's report concerned a baby born with a two inch long fleshy growth on it's back, bearing a superficial resemblance to a tail. Ledley strongly implied that this growth (called a caudal appendage) was essentially a "human tail," though he admitted that it had virtually none of the distinctive biological characteristics of a tail!All true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail. Ledley conceded that there has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features. In fact, the caudal appendage Ledley described is merely a fatty outgrowth of skin that wasn't located in the right place on the back to be a tail! Still, Ledley saw his caudal appendage as providing compelling proof for the evolution of man from our monkey-like ancestors.

So it's in the wrong place, has the wrong make up, and we have no other example of this being a 'tail' in all of known biology..But other than that, it's a tail and it proves evolution.I am going to go out on a limb and bet that even crow will not support you on this one.I am kidding of course, crow will 100% find a way to support you

[speedz99]

Randy Reed, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 8:31 AM, said:

God put us here 6000 years ago as-is. In fact over 40% of Americans believe that.

I never fail to get a kick out of this.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

This is that logic of yours that I was questioning. It's silly to say that we can't throw in our own opinions on whether or not certain things in nature would make sense to purposefully have been created that way.

But once you declare that you are going to use the 'flaws' that you perceive as proof that God doesn't exist, then you create the requirement to support your authority.The Bible also clearly says that God made everything, then sin entered and things begun to die. So there is no conflict to point out that things are decaying and or cancerous to what the Bible declares as Biblical Creationism.

Quote

No, you're interested in reverse engineering facts to fit what you already think is the truth. Which is what most people do.

I admit that I do this.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:22 AM, said:

I never fail to get a kick out of this.

You won't get a kick out of this on Judge...Ok, that joke has run it's course

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

But once you declare that you are going to use the 'flaws' that you perceive as proof that God doesn't exist, then you create the requirement to support your authority.The Bible also clearly says that God made everything, then sin entered and things begun to die. So there is no conflict to point out that things are decaying and or cancerous to what the Bible declares as Biblical Creationism.

There is no proof that god doesn't exist. Just that his existence as described by the bible is extraordinarly unlikely to the point of functional impossibility.I don't know...I guess I think that looking at specific attributs of certain animals it's only logical to objectively say "the existence of [whatever] makes it seem like evolution is more likely than intelligent design". If you think that there is nothing out there to support that statement, we're not doing a good job explaining things to you. And I do believe it's possible for you to say this without changing your beliefs in any way.

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

I admit that I do this.

Yeah, so does everyone for the most part. I still haven't read or seen anything that to me makes it seem likely that the earth was created 6.000 years ago, Jesus was the son of god, evolution is a myth, etc...but I'd like to think that if something like that existed, I'd recognize it for what it was.

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

Ok, that joke has run it's course

Hey, a minor detail like that never stops guys like us, does it?

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

There is no proof that god doesn't exist. Just that his existence as described by the bible is extraordinarly unlikely to the point of functional impossibility.I don't know...I guess I think that looking at specific attributs of certain animals it's only logical to objectively say "the existence of [whatever] makes it seem like evolution is more likely than intelligent design". If you think that there is nothing out there to support that statement, we're not doing a good job explaining things to you. And I do believe it's possible for you to say this without changing your beliefs in any way.

I have stated before but will state again for you that I do not think that it is poor logic to come to make the assumption that evolution is a possible explanation for the different species. I actually allow you guys the right to see things differently than me, I only hold out that your conclusions are as subjective as mine are.

Quote

Yeah, so does everyone for the most part. I still haven't read or seen anything that to me makes it seem likely that the earth was created 6.000 years ago, Jesus was the son of god, evolution is a myth, etc...but I'd like to think that if something like that existed, I'd recognize it for what it was.

Didn't you read my DeLorean explanation?

Quote

Hey, a minor detail like that never stops guys like us, does it?

High five

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:51 AM, said:

I have stated before but will state again for you that I do not think that it is poor logic to come to make the assumption that evolution is a possible explanation for the different species.

Ah, I'm not sure I've seen you say that before. And, for the record, I concede the possibility (however small (in my opinion)) that you are correct about the whole intelligent design 6,000 years ago thing, although with the caveat that god had to have built in mechanisms to test our faith (or whatever) by making it seem very unlikely for this to be the case.

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 10:51 AM, said:

I actually allow you guys the right to see things differently than me, I only hold out that your conclusions are as subjective as mine are.

I don't see how you can think this is true, since the scientific methods used to come up with our conclusions are pretty much the opposite of subjective, but I suppose that on some level I can appreciate your point.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

I don't see how you can think this is true, since the scientific methods used to come up with our conclusions are pretty much the opposite of subjective, but I suppose that on some level I can appreciate your point.

Except for the re-creation and observation parts.I would argue that the entire evolution theory has been forced since it's inception.When it was invented, science believed that the justification for the overall theory was based on our understanding that cells were the most complex thing in the make up of life, and therefore it wasn't all that complex of a deal.Now we know that not only was this position naive, the complexity levels have risen exponentially.So the beginning of the theory was that because it wasn't very complex, it happened by chance.Now we see that the level of complexity is incredible, and yet with this increase in complexity comes a blind faith to continue the theory presented from faulty facts and an opposite reality to the original hypothesis.I attribute this to your previous statement that these people are looking at all facts through evolution tinted glasses and are forcing them to fit into this ever changing theory.Of course, then you guys try to claim that it is because the theory of evolution has been radically changed that we can believe it, because after all, how can we believe something that is absolutely true? Only things that change in values of truth are real science.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 11:19 AM, said:

So we have gill like features?And this lends itself to the notion that we were at one time water breathing animals?And you still believe we have a tail during our development in the womb?Even though it's been proven for about 3 decades that this entire line of reasoning is completely faulty?So it's in the wrong place, has the wrong make up, and we have no other example of this being a 'tail' in all of known biology..But other than that, it's a tail and it proves evolution.I am going to go out on a limb and bet that even crow will not support you on this one.I am kidding of course, crow will 100% find a way to support you

Oh yee of little faith. I've seen some pretty good tail in my days.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

Ah, I'm not sure I've seen you say that before. And, for the record, I concede the possibility (however small (in my opinion)) that you are correct about the whole intelligent design 6,000 years ago thing, although with the caveat that god had to have built in mechanisms to test our faith (or whatever) by making it seem very unlikely for this to be the case.

Going back to my time travel presentation.If we arrived on earth on day eight of creation, and you looked at a fully grown man and concluded that the earth must be 20 years old because all science and everyone's experience up until then was that it took 20 years for a human to develop to this stage...you would be 100% correct scientifically, and 100% wrong in reality.And this condition would not require for God to be testing you, it is also possible that God was not using Adam's age at creation to do anything but have a fully formed man.Your decision to argue that God was testing you is completely on you, not Him.

[JubilantLankyLad]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 11:57 AM, said:

Going back to my time travel presentation.If we arrived on earth on day eight of creation, and you looked at a fully grown man and concluded that the earth must be 20 years old because all science and everyone's experience up until then was that it took 20 years for a human to develop to this stage...you would be 100% correct scientifically, and 100% wrong in reality.And this condition would not require for God to be testing you, it is also possible that God was not using Adam's age at creation to do anything but have a fully formed man.Your decision to argue that God was testing you is completely on you, not Him.

right. but if there was a body of a dead animal there beside the newly formed '20yr old' man, why?

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 11:52 AM, said:

When it was invented, science believed that the justification for the overall theory was based on our understanding that cells were the most complex thing in the make up of life, and therefore it wasn't all that complex of a deal.

Quote

Now we know that not only was this position naive, the complexity levels have risen exponentially.So the beginning of the theory was that because it wasn't very complex, it happened by chance.Now we see that the level of complexity is incredible, and yet with this increase in complexity comes a blind faith to continue the theory presented from faulty facts and an opposite reality to the original hypothesis.

:what_the_hell_are_you_talking_about_face: