Your Religous Views

[Jomei]

What I learned back in Biology was that there are to different parts to evolution : Macroevolution which is big changes like monkeys to people. Microevolution is small changes that allow for new species of a genus. Because the Bible said we we're made in His image I don't believe in macro. But he made all the creatures of the land sea and air. Because microevolution has been proved, I believe he made for example a proto-horse, and all modern species of horse.is derived from mutations to said proto-horse. A mutation by the way is almost always a loss of genetic information and one of the arguments against macro is not enough positive mutations to create new genus.

lol proto-horse

Find me a rabbit in the pre-cambrian fossil record, sir.

[Destroyer]

Wow, if that's oversimplified, complex must be a long read.

I was just stating in general terms, at its core, what it means from what I've read.

I will admit that I don't know how deep the complexities go on the subject.

[Godzillaprime05]

Would a proto- rabbit suffice?

[Jomei]

Would a proto- rabbit suffice?

lol gotta at least be a mammal. If you can't, you have to admit this proto-whatever hypothesis is a load of proto-horseshit.

[Malchik]

Does evolution exactly state how we started at the beginning? No, cause it can't really fully explain how we 'evolved' from nonliving matter. It doesn't make any kind of logical sense, so a little cell just evolved out of nowhere into an ape and into a human? Does that really make sense?

No, evolution will never explain how organisms evolved from "non-living" matter. Why? Because evolution is only an explanation of bio-diversity. There is a new field that studies evolution and life's origins. If you're interested research something called evo-devo.

What I learned back in Biology was that there are to different parts to evolution : Macroevolution which is big changes like monkeys to people. Microevolution is small changes that allow for new species of a genus. Because the Bible said we we're made in His image I don't believe in macro. But he made all the creatures of the land sea and air. Because microevolution has been proved, I believe he made for example a proto-horse, and all modern species of horse.is derived from mutations to said proto-horse. A mutation by the way is almost always a loss of genetic information and one of the arguments against macro is not enough positive mutations to create new genus.

Than you're biology class was a fraud. In science, there is no micro or macro evolution, just greater leaps between generations of an organism. We'll get to that in a second.

Would a proto- rabbit suffice?

I once wondered as a child the difference between rabbits and rodents. They didn't really look much a like, but their dentition was freakishly similar dentition, and bucked-teeth are not exactly common among creatures. If you want to get into proto-rabbits, we'll have to get into the order diversion between Lagomorpha (rabbits) and Rodentia (rodents). This is the world of Phylogeny.

If you want a bite-sized explanation of relations among orders, this guy has made an excellent example.

[Primevalgodzilla V2]

How come religion never mention anything about Aliens? I guess most religous people think that God only created humans as the only race in the Universe? I personally say if a God does exist then I imagine that they created other races in the Universe outside of the human race?

Why would the Bible mention anything about aliens? It is practically irrelevant.

[Malchik]

Why would the Bible mention anything about aliens? It is practically irrelevant.

And mixing wool and cotton isn't?

[omgitsgodzilla]

^^I don't know about that one, but a lot of the stuff prohibited in Leviticus had practical reasons for being prohibited... back then, when the Jews were a tribe with a relatively unstable population wandering a desert. Here and now? A lot of it's just useless.

[Crocodile]

A mutation by the way is almost always a loss of genetic information and one of the arguments against macro is not enough positive mutations to create new genus.

Actually the theory is most mutations go nowhere, but every now and then 1 mutation is beneficial, etc.

Now how you can say "Micro" and "Macro" are different only entails me to believe this was a High School Biology class. So I'll explain it like this.

There is no difference, Microscopic creatures can do it at an accelerated rate. It's been observed in larger organisms as well (Mostly insects) hell breeding is in esscence controlled evolution.

Would a proto- rabbit suffice?

As large as the Pre-Cambrian is, you won't find so much as a fish in it's fossil record.
This is life on Earth in it's most rudimentary stage, with complex multicelled organisms showing up at the tail end.

You're not going to find a Proto-Rabbit.

[Legionmaster]

As large as the Pre-Cambrian is, you won't find so much as a fish in it's fossil record.
This is life on Earth in it's most rudimentary stage, with complex multicelled organisms showing up at the tail end.

You're not going to find a Proto-Rabbit.

You silly evolutionists. Those tail-end multicelled organisms are proto-rabbits. And proto-crayfish. And proto-cobras. And proto-pangolins. They just didn't get there yet. I even hear that there may be some bacteria-like organism that is hypothesized to be a proto-everything.

[omgitsgodzilla]

Well, if you want to look at it that way, I suppose it's true. Just not what they meant.

[Crocodile]

As large as the Pre-Cambrian is, you won't find so much as a fish in it's fossil record.
This is life on Earth in it's most rudimentary stage, with complex multicelled organisms showing up at the tail end.

You're not going to find a Proto-Rabbit.

You silly evolutionists. Those tail-end multicelled organisms are proto-rabbits. And proto-crayfish. And proto-cobras. And proto-pangolins. They just didn't get there yet. I even hear that there may be some bacteria-like organism that is hypothesized to be a proto-everything.

Only if you believe life had a set desings in mind.

Multicelled organisms of the pre-cambrian enable the evolution of rabbits, in much the same way the invention of the wheel enables the car.

It sets the groundwork, but is hardly a previous model. So yes, in the most literal sense they were proto-rabbits, but not in the sense being mentioned.

[HeiseiGodzilla117]

I've always wondered if it was possible for life to develop in different isolated spots on different sides of the planet. For instance, the most simple organisms come to be in the western hemisphere, and yet another group of them spring up on the other side of the earth. Has anything been written on this? I know it's kind of silly, considering that we know everything is essentially related. But I thought it would be intersting for life to evolve from two entirely separate sources.

[Godzillaprime05]

When I said I'd look for a proto rabbit I was messing around, but micro evolution isn't limited to micro organisms, micro in this case is used to denote that the change is small

[Crocodile]

When I said I'd look for a proto rabbit I was messing around, but micro evolution isn't limited to micro organisms, micro in this case is used to denote that the change is small

Then a bunch of small changes form a large one, this is why there isn't a micro/macro distinction.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

When I said I'd look for a proto rabbit I was messing around, but micro evolution isn't limited to micro organisms, micro in this case is used to denote that the change is small

Then a bunch of small changes form a large one, this is why there isn't a micro/macro distinction.

The smallest of changes means the biggest of outcomes, usually.

Consider the human appendix. We don't need it anymore: it's evolved into a vestigial organ. It is thought that it had a function in the past, though. It helped stave off certain bacteria for which we've evolved an immunity.

[Legionmaster]

Only if you believe life had a set desings in mind.

Not necessarily, because too look back in history would be to look over how things ended up. If you're going to go looking for a proto-rabbit in the precambrian era, you're not going to start there and go "Hmmm...what looks like it could have turned into a rabbit?", you're going to start with the rabbit and takes steps back in evolutionary time until you get to what rabbits were in the precambrian. Obviously, this example is not practical to do, but that's the theoretical plan. See it this way: I'm not assuming that the last 4 billion years happened based on a set blueprint, but because it already happened, we still have a 4 billion year blueprint of it.

So yes, in the most literal sense they were proto-rabbits, but not in the sense being mentioned.

How is it not the same sense? The original argument was "Proto-horse was Created, then evolution turned it into many different kinds of horses." That's no different than saying "Organism-prime was Created (or whatever genesis theory we're working with), then evolution turned it into every other type of organism that has ever existed." The second one is just on a larger scale.

Also, Pokemon proves that you can have a cosmology in which both supernatural beings and evolution can happily coexist. So nyah.

[Crocodile]

Only if you believe life had a set desings in mind.

Not necessarily, because to look back in history would be to look over how things ended up. If you're going to go looking for a proto-rabbit in the precambrian era, you're not going to start there and go "Hmmm...what looks like it could have turned into a rabbit?", you're going to start with the rabbit and takes steps back in evolutionary time until you get to what rabbits were in the precambrian. Obviously, this example is not practical to do, but that's the theoretical plan. See it this way: I'm not assuming that the last 4 billion years happened based on a set blueprint, but because it already happened, we still have a 4 billion year blueprint of it.

So yes, in the most literal sense they were proto-rabbits, but not in the sense being mentioned.

How is it not the same sense? The original argument was "Proto-horse was Created, then evolution turned it into many different kinds of horses." That's no different than saying "Organism-prime was Created (or whatever genesis theory we're working with), then evolution turned it into every other type of organism that has ever existed." The second one is just on a larger scale.

I can respect that, but I thought we were looking for the prototype Rabbit specifically (As in some ancient creature proto-rodent, proto-lagamorph), not the Proto-everything. Though you're absolutly go far enough back, they're one in the same. Overlaps in the genetic code of everything on planet Earth prove this.

So this really isn't a debatable point from my side.

Also, Pokemon proves that you can have a cosmology in which both supernatural beings and evolution can happily coexist. So nyah.

Actually I agree with you, in that the idea of the two ideas being exclusive, is an antiquated Black and White system

[Tomzilla]

Evolution is the belief that us, a human species, evolved from apes, correct? The Bible doesn't say that. You can't say you're a Christian when that contradicts. There are logical arguments against that.

1) Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations. These changes, better known as mutations in evolutionary biological terms, take millions of years. It's an ongoing process, evolution never stops. There's no design, there's no goal behind it. When it comes to our primate heritage, we didn't evolve from the apes existing today; however, we are related to them as we are related to everything else on the planet. The fact we have a 99% DNA match with our primate relatives, along with countless other similarities and characteristics, speaks volumes. Molecular biology and the study of genetics/biochemistry has yielded remarkable findings on all this.

2) What you're claiming isn't logical. Already, you've shown your hand, which is a belief in the authorization of the Bible. Since the Bible is filled with many contradictions and inaccuracies, it's not a good source to cite. Since it's been disputed in this discussion, what's your Plan B? If you truly want to be logical, you should abandon making prejudgments, and investigate multiple non-affiliated sources to find the right answers.

I wasn't attempting to debunk evolution with the dinosaur fossil. When I say evidence, I don't mean direct 'findings.' 'There are no facts or direct 'proof' that I could provide for the existence or non-existence of God, just plain logical arguments.

Y'see what I bolded in your quote? That's a big contradiction. You confess there are no facts or direct proof for the existence or nonexistence of God, but then you turn around and claim there are logical arguments [for the existence and nonexistence of God]. What's so logical about that? Without evidence, you have nothing to rely on. All you really have are logical fallacies.

Many examples come to mind, such as if the earth were any closer or further to the sun, it wouldn't be able to provide life.

This neither proves or disproves the existence of God. For example: if you're claiming it's logical to believe God exists because the Earth's distance from the Sun made it possible for life, why not point out the inhospitable conditions of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus as proof of God's nonexistence? If you think the former 'point' is valid, then so's the latter 'explanation'.

And there's DNA, precise DNA. Cause and effect, etc. Does evolution exactly state how we started at the beginning? No, cause it can't really fully explain how we 'evolved' from nonliving matter. It doesn't make any kind of logical sense, so a little cell just evolved out of nowhere into an ape and into a human? Does that really make sense?

Except evolution never claims what started life. It's about the process of life, not the beginning of life.

What sounds more logical?

1) Through unknown means, the first single-celled organisms emerged on our planet. Over time, they evolved more and more cells. After billions of years of reproducing, traveling and adapting, these first cells took on different shapes. These changes to us would've taken several lifetimes to notice. Even in a geographical sense, it's not immediate. However, it becomes more apparent over longer periods of time. After spreading throughout the globe to inhabit different environments, these organisms adapted in different, fascinating ways. Long story short, the principle ancestors of all life on this planet managed to survive and pass on their genes, which would mutate over long periods of time, before finally becoming us.

If you're impatient, look no further than our own birth cycle. We all started out as a single cell. Over time, we became something much more. How we are conceived, how we are grown in the womb, how we are born, and how we grow and age and live and die is like watching the entire history of our evolution all condensed into a single lifetime.


OR



2) God did it.

Yeah, threads like this never go well, haha. Well, I've stated what I've stated.

I think threads like these never go well because people let them escalate into petty squabbles. You'd be surprised by how many intelligent, mature and peaceful discussions I've had on this subject.

[Destroyer]

Well, like I said, I don't know all the complexities on the evolution subject.

In my biology books it always said that (in simplified terms) that humans were evolved forms of apes. That's what I've read in the past. And yes, I think the fact that God made the first humans sounds more logical than a cell mysteriously appearing out of nothing, (out of nothing) then being able to reproduce just automatically. And then somehow over billions of years, it forms complex things the human brain? It just doesn't sound logical.

This neither proves or disproves the existence of God. For example: if you're claiming it's logical to believe God exists because the Earth's distance from the Sun made it possible for life, why not point out the inhospitable conditions of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus as proof of God's nonexistence? If you think the former 'point' is valid, then so's the latter 'explanation'.

That just proves that God designed the earth to host life, not those planets.

What I said in my other post just sums up the debate.

But what it comes down to, is that both theories don't prove everything perfectly. If they did, there would be no discussion. There's difficulties with both, and ultimately, you just have to come to a conclusion that you think is logical and makes the most sense.