Embryological Evidence for Evolution ...
very cool......a challenge to the church....
Embryological programming exists in all creatures
to some degree but cell Diffusion is the net movement of molecules from a region of high concentration to a region of lower concentration due to random motion of molecules,
hence FOX NEWS!
Top Opinion
-
Matton 2009/06/02 00:17:56
About Me
Recent Posts
Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions
-
Who's the Worst Role Model for Kids?
-
Who's the Hottest Mess in Hollywood?
-
Who's the Most Out-of-Touch Celebrity?
- View more slideshows »
The Latest From SodaHead
News
-
Vladimir Putin Announces Divorce: Should Leaders Keep Their Private Lives Private?
Russian president Vladimir Putin announced his divorce publicly on Thursday, surprising the Russian public despite years of hearsay.
-
The NSA Has Been Collecting Verizon Phone Call Records: Counterterrorism or Just Crooked?
British newspaper The Guardian claims the U.S. National Security Administration has been collecting large amounts of phone calls from Verizon customers.
Politics
-
PUBLIC OPINION > Rand Paul Is the Future of the Republican Party
Ever since President Obama's re-election back in November, the media hasn't stopped reporting about the ruffled course of the Republican party. So who's the future face of the GOP? Find out how the public voted.
-
PUBLIC OPINION > Chris Christie Should Stay a Republican
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been at the center of media coverage for a while now. But more recently, the buzz has been about his proclaimed political party -- and whether or not he should change it.
We've never NOT been animals.
>>"But you yourself pointed out that there were taxonomic trees before evolution."
This has absolutely no bearing on the reality. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Just because an earlier scientist didn't understand the larger picture of what he was finding, means NOTHING. That would be silly to suggest.
>>"Evolution came from the mind of man. It is not God's fault you are confused. You ignore what God has told us about the history of the world."
No, evolution was DISCOVERED. It was not DERIVED. What did "God" tell us again? Adam and Eve? Really? That's your alternate explanation for all that we have discovered, even knowing there is not one shred of proof of such a claim, and a mountain of evidence showing the opposite?
Really?
>>"I have no idea which particular facts you have ignored."
You haven't provided any. So there has been nothing to ignore. You haven't argued 99% of my points, and you keep suggesting things that suggest you know nothing about biology, nor have you watched the videos that explain all of this very well and without ambiguity.
Ignorance is bliss, for sure, but turning a blind eye in order to firm up your faith in the fantastical without any proof seems strange to most of us, that's all.
We've never NOT been animals.
>>"But you yourself pointed out that there were taxonomic trees before evolution."
This has absolutely no bearing on the reality. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Just because an earlier scientist didn't understand the larger picture of what he was finding, means NOTHING. That would be silly to suggest.
>>"Evolution came from the mind of man. It is not God's fault you are confused. You ignore what God has told us about the history of the world."
No, evolution was DISCOVERED. It was not DERIVED. What did "God" tell us again? Adam and Eve? Really? That's your alternate explanation for all that we have discovered, even knowing there is not one shred of proof of such a claim, and a mountain of evidence showing the opposite?
Really?
>>"I have no idea which particular facts you have ignored."
You haven't provided any. So there has been nothing to ignore. You haven't argued 99% of my points, and you keep suggesting things that suggest you know nothing about biology, nor have you watched the videos that explain all of this very well and without ambiguity.
Ignorance is bliss, for sure, but turning a blind eye in order to firm up your faith in the fantastical without any proof seems strange to most of us, that's all.
Just because you understand things differently, doesn't mean you understand them better.
I watched the videos. You are the one suggesting I know nothing about biology.
Turning a blind eye to what God has said in order to firm up your faith in the fantastical idea of evolution of man from lower forms. Actually, more people believe in creation than in evolution in the United States, though the idea is dying out in Europe.
The very explicit scientific definition of "animal" includes the human species, and would be absurd to remove based on one's sense to not be labeled an "animal" by layman's terms. Unless you would like to submit that the definition change, you must accept this. I'm sorry. Just remember, that whatever name you change it to, we will still be part of that category for reasons that are blindingly clear.
>>"Just because you understand things differently, doesn't mean you understand them better."
This is true. I understand them better because I understand the reasonings and science (facts) behind the claims. I'm not sure how to interpret facts "differently". Unless "differently" means to reject them over my utterly faith based dogmatic religious beliefs, but why would I do that?
>>"You are the one suggesting I know nothing about biology."
You haven't made any claims that show that you do, so I had to assume. I apologize for that. Without arguing any of the plethora of claims made or my responses to them, and instead only offer opine and spew Bible versus in response, it seems I was forced to this conclusion. Again, I am sorry about that.
"Turning a blind eye to what God has said in order to firm up your faith in the fantastical idea of evolution of m..."
''""'
>>""
'
The very explicit scientific definition of "animal" includes the human species, and would be absurd to remove based on one's sense to not be labeled an "animal" by layman's terms. Unless you would like to submit that the definition change, you must accept this. I'm sorry. Just remember, that whatever name you change it to, we will still be part of that category for reasons that are blindingly clear.
>>"Just because you understand things differently, doesn't mean you understand them better."
This is true. I understand them better because I understand the reasonings and science (facts) behind the claims. I'm not sure how to interpret facts "differently". Unless "differently" means to reject them over my utterly faith based dogmatic religious beliefs, but why would I do that?
>>"You are the one suggesting I know nothing about biology."
You haven't made any claims that show that you do, so I had to assume. I apologize for that. Without arguing any of the plethora of claims made or my responses to them, and instead only offer opine and spew Bible versus in response, it seems I was forced to this conclusion. Again, I am sorry about that.
"Turning a blind eye to what God has said in order to firm up your faith in the fantastical idea of evolution of man from lower forms. Actually, more people believe in creation than in evolution in the United States, though the idea is dying out in Europe."
What did God say again? That he created all of the living creatures on Earth? Then why do we not see any evidence of this? With such a wild and fantastic claim, there must be barrels full of facts for which we would see this, but we don't. I can't turn a "blind eye" towards nothing! That doesn't make sense!
>>"Actually, more people believe in creation than in evolution in the United States, though the idea is dying out in Europe."
Yes, you know that from the chart I posted. However, and once again, just because the US is a severely religious state compared to most industrialized first world nations forcing many of them to discount ANYthing that questions even tiny portions of their faith based beliefs does NOTHING to discount the facts. Having over 50% of the US citizens being wrong does not dissolve the facts I'm afraid. That logical claim makes no sense at all.
You've seen crime stories. They find evidence, and then they come up with different versions of what the evidence is evidence of. Sometimes they come to a conclusion that eventually proves to be wrong.
In absence of evidence, assumption is risky.
For evidence, we have the creatures.
I was countering your claim that evolutionists were in the majority.
That hypothetical is true, but has nothing to do with evolutionary facts, or how science works. Every discovery made within a very wide array of sciences all point to one conclusion, that we evolved.
To equate this to a crime story, it would be like having evidence that the guy killed the girl (for example), by having his bloody fingerprints on the knife, his footprints walking to the victim and out, the neighbors hearing them argue just before, a receipt showing he purchased the knife just hours before and a friend told investigators the day before that he said he was going to kill her.
To keep the analogy going, we could either reasonably assume he killed her, or believe the little boy that lives miles away that simply stated "I just don't think he did it".
Which conclusion would a reasonable person make? Should they drop the case based on the boys assumption and discard all of the other facts? Why would one do that?
>>"In absence of evidence, assumption is risky."
Agreed! Without one shred of evidence that a supernatural, invisible, unprovable "God" did it, your statement could not be more true. Thank you.
Scientis...
>>""
'
""
That hypothetical is true, but has nothing to do with evolutionary facts, or how science works. Every discovery made within a very wide array of sciences all point to one conclusion, that we evolved.
To equate this to a crime story, it would be like having evidence that the guy killed the girl (for example), by having his bloody fingerprints on the knife, his footprints walking to the victim and out, the neighbors hearing them argue just before, a receipt showing he purchased the knife just hours before and a friend told investigators the day before that he said he was going to kill her.
To keep the analogy going, we could either reasonably assume he killed her, or believe the little boy that lives miles away that simply stated "I just don't think he did it".
Which conclusion would a reasonable person make? Should they drop the case based on the boys assumption and discard all of the other facts? Why would one do that?
>>"In absence of evidence, assumption is risky."
Agreed! Without one shred of evidence that a supernatural, invisible, unprovable "God" did it, your statement could not be more true. Thank you.
Scientist only use assumptions (highly educated ones at that) in directing their discovery process, the end conclusions are FAR from assumptions. Quite the opposite in fact. See: Scientific Method.
>>"For evidence, we have the creatures."
Again, agreed! Gene tracing shows evolution to be a fact as well. We've tested several of them (including humans).
"I was countering your claim that evolutionists were in the majority."
But they are in many places, just not in the US ATM for reasons well known (the US is a VERY religious country compared to most 1st world, industrialized nations). This still does not discount the facts.
I have tested God at His word and He has proven true to me.
Of course they do!!!! If they just accepted everything just because someone proposed it, then we would get nowhere. At all! Peer review is paramount. Verifiable corroboration, testing, objective facts to reasonably conclude something takes a heck of a lot of work, MOST of which is trying "break" the theory. If these actions only further the understanding and factual basis of that theory then at some point it may become accepted.
Saying "God did it because the Bible said so" is FAR from proof I'm afraid, if that's what you were inferring.
That's how science works. Almost every new idea is "ridiculed". Everything from relativity, to atomic theory to evolution theory. It was ALL ridiculed at their outset. Thankfully, through the scientific process they have been shown over and over again to be evident. Without question. There is no conspiracy theory, that's just what one thinks when their own wild ideas aren't accepted. This is hardly news.
But wasn't it science that was ridiculed in the beginning? Now the oppressed has become the oppressor.
Every scientist of the time and after. Of course. ;-) Why was this questioned again?
"But wasn't it science that was ridiculed in the beginning?"
It sill is! As evidenced by our own claims!!!
;-)
If "oppression" is now equated to "look, we have the evidence, you don't", then we should just pack it up and go home, now.
I do not ridicule science, only scientists who seemingly have been indoctrinated into the accepted theories, and make assumptions about the past that they have no way of verifying.
Oppression is interfering with the publishing of opinions that might disagree with evolution, and of browbeating students who don't believe it is the answer. There is no room for such in true Science.
That's not what scientists do (man, you have swallowed and accepted some pretty crazy stuff!). They weigh evidences. It's not that hard to understand.
"Oppression is interfering with the publishing of opinions that might disagree with evolution, and of browbeating students who don't believe it is the answer."
Oppression does not equal discounting papers that have no scientific merit because they can provide no proof of their claims. I've actually been shown some of the "papers" that have been rejected, and the science in some of them is so horrible, that some would get a C in high school chemistry class. It is not accepted, because pseudo science depends too much on assumptions and gap filling.
In other words, no one takes them seriously because there has been no reason to. Period.
"There is no room for such in true Science."
True! "Truths" are left to mathematics. ;-) I'll keep teaching you things (to only summarily be ignored, but that's OK). I've already counted several things that you would have had to ignore in order to keep coming up with your responses. I feel like I'm chasing a child around a marry go round at this point. ;-)
Good luck.
Apparently real science in you world depends on assumptions that can't be verified, too.
I'm currently reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". There's no doubting that he is intelligent.
He states, "If we know what the universe is like at any one time, these physical laws tell us how it will look at any later time." There are two flaws in his statement: First, we can never know what the entire universe is like at any one time, and Second, it takes at least three points in time and space to ascertain a trajectory.
And it's "Merry" go round.
It's even worse than that today. Also keep in mind, that book was written over two decades ago. We now know today that this statement cannot be true due to discoveries within quantum mechanics. However, relatively speaking, this is a minor detail. Being able to discount an entire theory, a collection of objective facts is MUCH harder to do and rarely occurs. Thankfully, however, this is how science works. We compile knowledge, compounding upon others to form more unified understandings. New discoveries are made, some are changed, edited to be more "correct", etc... all of the time.
The same cannot be said for "faith based beliefs". Those are static and never changing. This is an affront to discovery, by definition. But, this is also a symptom of believing something, on pure and utter faith alone, to be "infallible", when in fact it is utterly so.
No, without religious dogma that entire chart would be gray.
I believe God explained the solar system to Adam in the Garden and had him name them, too.
It hones my arguments. Yes, it's tedious to argue with pure and blind faith (no facts, just religious text to pull from), but... sowing the seeds has it's merits at times.