I for one hate being barefoot, as such I don't use my toes for a damn thing.

Damn, foiled again

CURSE YOU EVOLUTIONARIANS!!!

On a tangent, I hate that term, you don't call someone who "believes" in relativity a "relatavist"*, you just call them "informed", and "not a slawjacked yokel". Evolution isn't dogma, it's a scientific theory. If there was any shred of evidence to show "evolutionists" that evolution was not the cause of the diversity of life around us, they would gladly throw the theory to the wayside.

*Unless you are a Nazi who thinks that it is Jewish Physics.

The jews are stealing our inertia!

I know how hard it is to not just scream at the top of your lungs "EVOLUTION MAKES SENSE, DEAL WITH IT", but honestly, these people do not respond to logic, reason, or rationality. There is literally nothing you can say that will sway their opinion, so it's not worth the time or the effort to try.

I hate wearing shoes, so yeah, opposite.

Barefoot Banditos unite

**** shoes

You have a sad amount of faith in the objectivity of people.

i have a sad amount of faith in ANYTHING involving people

Hahaha!

To those that understand evolution better than I: if what this article says is true, what do you think will eventually become of our toes? I've wondered about that for a long time...

By my understanding, I don't think they're going anywhere.

There'd need to be a reason for them to go away, usually being detrimental to our being. They're more or less just "there", so I don't see them really doing anything.

Anyway, toes do have a use. They affect balance, the site is wrong.

You just have a sad amount of faith, period

The site claims only the big toe is required for balance.

I don't believe that, but there you go.

Only the big toe is required for balance in basic movement.

Further proof that your are less evolved than me and the Grismathian MASTAH RACE!!!!

I'll be honest, when I'm trying to listen to things I do actually move my ears slightly like a dog.

Strong ear muscles, *****es.

Well, there has to be something that kills us off because we have toes.

A disease that targets toes...?

jungle rot?

I don't care what that article says. You break your little toe and you tell me we don't use it for balance.

A friend of mine got half his toes cut off in a lawnmower accident. No, you don't really need them.

The article is just saying they are leftover from when feet were prehensile.

If this wasn't linked here:

Pretty cool stuff regarding evolution in action.

Yeah, there's a lot about that list that I disagree with and the toes thing is one of them.

Toes spread and grip to maintain balance. It's just not quite as noticeable in people who've grown up never running around barefoot and have lost dexterity in their feetz.

Q F T. My cynicism grows exponentially every day. Fortunately, it come with free apathy.

Except, Obi, he's saying he DOES have faith in people.

Kudos to him for not being an angsty pessimistic tool.

I don't buy that. Stupid people breed *WAY* more than smart people.

Anyway, this list doesn't seem to prove anything to me. Most of the items on it are things that have a function, they're just not functions we take advantage of. That doesn't make them vestigial.

For example, toes. Toes aren't necessarily needed in the average adult because we all wear shoes to grip and are rarely in a position where we have to grip something narrow.. That doesn't mean they're useless. You can pick stuff up with them, you can use them to scratch the back of your leg, etc. Or the appendix. The appendix helps us digest cellulose (according to the website). So we're not digesting that currently. That doesn't make it a vestigial organ. It's still waiting around to do it's job if it comes up (from what I understand). Also, there's no guarantee that we're just not understanding the functions of some of those organs. It's not like we have a "Human Body (tm) Owners Manual."

oh, and...



That link is not describing evolution. It's describing adaptation. No one will argue that organisms can't adapt to their surroundings. The argument is whether these changes would 1) result in what could be classified as new species, and 2) be able to produce the complexity that we see in organisms today. 1) is not terribly hard to believe. 2) is.

First of all, something that is not living cannot suddenly start living. Bottom line. So where did the first life come from? (This is something, I've asked a lot of proactive evolutionists and they've always sidestepped the question, so if anyone wants to tackle this, I would enjoy hearing the current theories on how life initially came about.)

Second, statistically the odds are ridiculously heavily weighted against such an occurrence, and it should have taken much longer than even evolutionists will admit to how long the Earth has been around.

Lastly, someone commented sarcastically that God put dinosaur bones in the ground in order to test our faith. Anyone that truly has trouble reconciling scripture with the existence of dinosaurs (and even a potential billion + year old earth) has a terribly narrow viewpoint. There are multiple theories on dinosaurs and the role they've played in the history of the earth, and none of those theories discount the validity of scripture or even the validity of God creating the earth. God-focused origin theories can be sorted into 1 of 2 categories; old-earth and young earth.

Old-earth theories are generally more supportive of our current scientific theories on the age of the earth, and will typically suggest that God (term used loosely, not necessarily the God of Christianity, but some higher power) created some kind of life form and then guided the evolutionary process. Evolution was the tool that was used to create the species as we know them today. This jives with the Christian creation story, because the Bible does not describe the creation in technical detail, and it does not specifically say how old the earth is. Anyone that says otherwise is either failing to recognize literary devices (such as imagery) in the bible, or is drawing unfounded or unsupported conclusions from information in the bible. I can go into more detail on this is anyone wants.

Young-earth theories are more discounted because they don't necessarily jive with scientific viewpoints on the age of the earth and on scientific origin theories. Before I discuss this, however, I'd like to remind everyone that scientists are capable of being wrong. Even if 99.9% of scientists believe that a piece of evidence means a certain thing, it could still mean something else entirely. A good example of this is the fact that 500 years ago, everyone believed the earth to be flat (the evidence was that we didn't fall off of it). Also, around that time, everyone believed that if you left meat out in the sun, life would spontaneously spawn on it (the evidence was that maggots seemed to "spontaneously" appear without an explanation as to how). The truth of the matter is the earth is not flat, and life does not spontaneously spawn on meat. The earth is round and we're held to it by gravity, and the maggots that appear on meat are hatching from eggs being laid by flies that were attracted by the smell of rotting meat. So, I would encourage all of you to keep your minds open and not put too much faith in the "truths" that science has to offer, because it's only a matter of time before those "truths" will change.

Now regarding a young-earth theory on origins, the basic idea is that all animals were created very similar to how they are and that the earth was created only shortly before that. Now, there is some compelling evidence to suggest that both dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. For example, there is ancient literature that describes very "dinosaur-like" animals. (In the Christian Bible, see Job ch. 40. which describes quite accurately a brachiasaur, and goes on in ch. 41 to describe an animal that seems to resemble a pleasaur (sp). I believe there are various non-Christian history texts that describe sightings of "dinosaur-like" creatures as well, but I'm too lazy to do the research right now, so I'll leave it at that :P. Also, the existence of dinosaurs and humans living together could have very well spiked the legends about dragons.)

I don't personally have an opinion on the age of the earth or the origin of it or humans, simply because I recognize that it's impossible not to know for sure and it's not really relevant to my life. I do believe in God, and I do believe that he created the earth and all the creatures on it. As to how He did it, that doesn't really matter to me. Maybe he used evolution as a tool. Maybe he didn't. That has no relevance to how I live my life.

I don't see how Job 40 refers to a brachiasaur.

15"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16"Behold now, his strength in his loins
And his power in the muscles of his belly.
17"He bends his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18"His bones are tubes of bronze;
His limbs are like bars of iron.
19"He is the first of the ways of God;
Let his maker bring near his sword.
20"Surely the mountains bring him food,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21"Under the lotus plants he lies down,
In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.
22"The lotus plants cover him with shade;
The willows of the brook surround him.
23"If a river rages, he is not alarmed;
He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
24"Can anyone capture him when he is on watch,
With barbs can anyone pierce his nose?

It's been suggested they're talking about a hippo or possibly an elephant, except hippos and elephants don't have "tails like cedars." Also it talks about the futility of capturing such a creature and yet the people of that time regularly captured/hunted both hippos and elephants.

Then it goes on to discuss the Leviathan in ch. 41:

1"Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook?
Or press down his tongue with a cord?
2"Can you put a rope in his nose
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3"Will he make many supplications to you,
Or will he speak to you soft words?
4"Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him for a servant forever?
5"Will you play with him as with a bird,
Or will you bind him for your maidens?
6"Will the traders bargain over him?
Will they divide him among the merchants?
7"Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears?
8"Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle; you will not do it again!
9"Behold, your expectation is false;
Will you be laid low even at the sight of him?
10"No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him;

Generally believed to be referring to a crocodile, but again there is discussion of it being terribly difficult to capture or kill this creature, and yet crocodiles were also hunted on a regular basis.

Um. The very fact we're here kind of disproves this statement. Even if you throw creationism into the mix.

Sarn, nobody has claimed that we positively know how life started. There are some theories, but we haven't been able to reproduce the circumstances or infer any definite conclusions. I don't doubt that at some point in time it will be discovered, it just may not be in our lifetimes. Life is a complex thing, and asking those that believe in evolution for a quick and simple answer isn't going to get you anywhere for quite some time.

Though it is complex, we don't know how long it takes. Also, it is difficult to make a good assessment of how evolution takes course over time. Recorded human history goes back maybe what, 5000 years? That's nothing compared to how long the Earth has been in existence. There's a good analogy, if the whole time Earth has been in existence were compressed into a single day, then recorded human history would be the last few seconds before midnight.

It is also a common misconception that 500 years ago people believed the Earth to be flat (I'm actually nitpicking here, a recent survey said 1 in 12 Americans still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, but bear with me). The major disagreement in 1492 was not if you could sail to the Indies by heading West, but how far away the Indies actually were. Nobody knew of the extra continent between Europe and Asia.

For your brachiosaur description, I doubt it could lay under a lotus plant. Plus, you're taking just 9 verses out of an entire book. I'm not familiar with Job, and don't have a Bible handy, but I think the rest of the book puts it in context.



Referring to the actual article:
Most of the things he describes won't simply evolve away because there is no reason for them to. We have reached an advanced enough level of technology that most limitations evolutionary changes would place upon us can be dealt with through medicine, such as the appendix and wisdom teeth. Also, humans are so adept at reproducing that diseases like cancer won't simply evolve away.

I know how life was started and how life will end.

First, you should define "living," and then expand that as to why something non-living could not create something living.


I don't think you quite understand just how long 4.6 billion years is.

"Stop listening to this ever-correcting non-sense, all the truth you need is in this book that holds ideas thousands of years old."

A large tail, a strong body, and eating plants "accurately" describes many creatures. Some Jewish scriptures hint that Behemoth is a large ox-like creature (last I checked, brachiosaurus didn't have horns...). Possibly the most entertaining part about Behemoth being a dinosaur is that some Jewish beliefs are that at the end of the world Behemoth, Leviathan, and Ziz will be served to man in a great feast. I suppose promising a meal of dinosaurs is one way of getting followers.

Or it could have sparked the wonderful animated sitcom The Flinstones.

You know, it takes a certain level of intelligence to be able to read and comprehend the Bible, similar to how it takes a certain level of intelligence to comprehend the Scientific Method and the numerous theories we have developed. In my experience, people who promote Creation Science do not have sufficient brainpower to understand either.

Charlatans enjoy quoting the Bible out of context, picking and choosing from a plethora of different and slightly contradicting translations in order to find a particular phrase that says precisely what they want to say, even if it's not in the spirit (or the actual meaning) of the text. Only the most stupid of the most stupid would be foolish enough to perpetuate this kind of nonsense. Any Christian should be offended by this bastardization. It is an assault on your faith and it is an assault on common sense.

In conclusion,

<Rob> I was hoping you'd use science to make him blue in the face. :/
<Jon`C> rob, why would I waste my science

Not necessarily. Maybe life don't actually exist, or maybe it always has... This is the limitation of science. You can't ever say anything 100%.
But anyway I'm willing to concede that life probably at one point did not exist and yet does now, so allow me to be more precise in my wording:
"something that is not living cannot suddenly start living, without being acted upon by some outside force in some way that we do not understand."
better?

wow, you must be incredibly proud of yourself.

Right, assuming we're accurate in our current scientific understanding of date-testing methods. (I'm not claiming that we're not, mind you.)

Eh? Wasn't the whole thing of why everyone thought Columbus was crazy was that he was going to "fall off the edge of the earth"?

Yeah, possibly not (I didn't claim that it was for sure a dinosaur, just that it fit the description pretty well. I'm willing to concede that I could well be wrong there.). As far as context, the book itself is not about animals. The animals are described to put God's power into context. "Look at all these powerful creatures. They're really strong and magnificent and stuff. I was the one that *created* them. Think how strong and magnificent I must be..."

I agree. We've taken our natural ability to adapt and replaced it with science, basically.



life: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. (Does this really need to be defined? We all know what it means to be living or non-living. Quit nitpicking. And I don't have to describe why something non-living could not create something living. That's the origin theorists job. It's called burden of proof. If you want to make a positive claim "life can be created from non-life." then it's your job to prove it and explain how it happens. Personally, I'm happy to believe that that's not possible by any scientific means.)

I'm quite sure I understand just as well as any human being who lives 80 - 100 years, and that is intellectually.
Check out this article:
http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm
(disclaimer: I haven't done a lot of research on this issue, thus the link. I'll let someone else argue the statistical impossibility of evolution for me. I chose that article because it uses a lot of citations and references, and seemed to be the most professional. (ie it wasn't all like "OMG GUYS SICIENCE SHOWS THAT EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE CUZ OF STATISTICS!!!11 LETS ALL BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP GOD FOR SHOWING US HOW COMPLEX WE ARE"))

That's not even *close* to what I'm saying. More like:
"When considering scientific theory, it is important to remember that it is only theory and therefore, is always changing. There is a good likelihood that the current popular theories will be laughed at 500 years from now."
(And I said quite literally nothing about there being truth in the bible (I assume that's the thousands of years old book your referring to.). My only reference to the Bible is to show that there are ancient texts (ie the bible) with descriptions of animals that may possibly be dinosaurs.)

Umm.. It doesn't say anything in the text about Behemoth having horns.. Where'd you get that from? And yes, the three elements you described do accurately describe a lot of animals, but those are not the only 3 things that are described in the text. You also forgot "impossible or nearly impossible for the people of that time to capture or kill." Read my posts on this earlier cause I feel like I'm repeating myself.

The difference is that legends about dragons have been around for far longer than it's been scientifically known of the existence of dinosaurs. The Flinstones has not.

Actually, Jon, I agree. Which is why I don't make any claims one way or another. I'm just presenting some theories. I do tend to lean though, towards an older earth and towards guided evolution, because I think it's better supported scientifically, and I don't see any contradictions between that and the bible. The problem arises when people look at the bible first for scientific truths. The bible is not a scientific text. It's a spiritual text. People should stop wasting their time reading the bible to find scientific truths and use it instead to find Spiritual Truth. If they want scientific truth, then they should accept what science has to offer, but recognize that those things will likely change over time so they should not become too attached to them. This goes for Christians and non-Christians alike.

GRISMATHIAN MASTAH RACE!

This thread makes me sad.

Yeah poor people breed a lot more than most, but would there be much still driving evolution in humans? Our (relatively) cushy lives seem like they wouldn't do much to spur adaptation.

Why are people so adamant about creation and evolution being mutually exclusive? The Creationists objection to evolution that "How would we reach this point through random developments?" seems like the perfect place for God to enter into the equation. God could subtly influence all of those "random developments" to lead to the evolution of species as we know them today. Suddenly evolution and creationism are compatible.

Hmm... I don't know how I missed that. If you have faith in humanity you obviously haven't taken enough history courses. That's all I have to say.

The problem with angsty people is that they say they are apathetic but if fact they actually actually care to much and lack the emotional maturity to deal with it. The key is to just accept it and movie on.