Quantcast

Embryological Evidence for Evolution

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Matton 2009/06/02 00:17:56
    Matton
    +2
    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!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/09 17:00:28
    socokid
    >>"Evolution claims that men were not always men, but animals."

    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.
    >>"Evolution claims that men were not always men, but animals."

    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.
    (more)
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/09 19:52:24
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    We have never been animals, except in physical description. Although some humans have done their best to emulate them.

    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.
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/09 20:53:37 (edited)
    socokid
    >>"We have never been animals, except in physical description."

    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..."

    ''""'

    >>""

    '
    >>"We have never been animals, except in physical description."

    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.
    (more)
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/09 23:05:24
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    The "scientific definition" is not God's definition, and wasn't man's definition for a long time. Science's "species" may not be God's "kinds", either. Nobody ever asked me if it should be changed to the scientific definition.

    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.
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/10 17:06:10
    socokid
    >>"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."

    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...

    >>""

    '

    ""

    >>"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."

    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.
    (more)
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/10 17:42:42
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    By "highly educated" you are telling me "highly indoctrinated". The academies of old honored freedom of thought, not like today's scientific educators and community where they ridicule and (even intimidate publishers of) people who have other ideas.

    I have tested God at His word and He has proven true to me.
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/10 19:33:08
    socokid
    "not like today's scientific educators and community where they ridicule and (even intimidate publishers of) people who have other ideas."

    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.
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/10 19:55:09
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    Who peer reviewed Galileo?

    But wasn't it science that was ridiculed in the beginning? Now the oppressed has become the oppressor.
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/11 17:32:48
    socokid
    "Who peer reviewed Galileo?"

    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.
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/12 00:32:29
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    Galileo stood alone. What peer review OK'd his discoveries? None while he lived.

    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.
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/13 14:59:08
    socokid
    "only scientists who seemingly have been indoctrinated into the accepted theories"

    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.
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/13 15:47:22
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    I was talking about intimidating publishers not to publish someone else's work.

    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.
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/17 19:25:20
    socokid
    >>"it takes at least three points in time and space to ascertain a trajectory."

    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.
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/17 19:35:12
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    So what if one of the foundation stones of these theories is proven to be false, like the speed of light is not constant everywhere?
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/08 14:52:12
    socokid
    "And if you had proof, the entire chart would be grey."

    No, without religious dogma that entire chart would be gray.
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/08 17:02:07
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    But the religious dogma was there first. Without evolutionary theory and people turning away from God (the latter has been happening since Cain killed Abel) the chart would be all blue.
  • socokid Dave Sa... 2009/06/08 18:49:28
    socokid
    We first thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Just because something was first does not mean it's more correct. In fact, quite the opposite is usually true.
  • Dave Sa... socokid 2009/06/08 23:46:17
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    How do you know what we first thought? Were you there? Are there historical records of the first humans? Where's your evidence.
    I believe God explained the solar system to Adam in the Garden and had him name them, too.
  • mrigor socokid 2009/06/08 18:15:24
    mrigor
    +1
    Don't bother...
  • socokid mrigor 2009/06/08 18:58:20
    socokid
    +1
    Meh, it's OK. ;-)

    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.

About Me

mrigor

mrigor

CA, US

2007/04/06 00:00:00

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals

The Latest From SodaHead

News

Politics