Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Liar!I was recently watching a documentary about black holes and dark matter, quantum physics and the multiverse theory.... What astonished me was how the various talking heads were framing their comments. They would constantly say, "we now know..." followed by something that is a theory with no evidence whatsoever in observation. Example: "We now know there are multiple universes..."
Please post a link to any real scientist who said that, other than a fake scientist like yourself.
Who needs fossils when you have a living transitional species that is the ultimate of all transitional species!!!The fossil record doesn't support the transitional species theories of evolution.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
Unlikely.
Evolution is too specialized to be random chance. More likely the giraffe developed over successive generations craning their neck upwards toward higher branches, causing physiological changes that eventually altered their genetics.
And the word "KNOW" is exactly what I'm objecting to. No real scientist would have ever used the word know in describing the possibility of a multiverse.Know is a strong word, but you are REALLY unaware of the concept of a metaverse, edtheliar?Liar!I was recently watching a documentary about black holes and dark matter, quantum physics and the multiverse theory.... What astonished me was how the various talking heads were framing their comments. They would constantly say, "we now know..." followed by something that is a theory with no evidence whatsoever in observation. Example: "We now know there are multiple universes..."
Please post a link to any real scientist who said that, other than a fake scientist like yourself.
Metaverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carbon dating only works for dating matter back around 50,000 years. Other more heavy isotopes are measured using radioactive decay when we're talking millions of years, like Uranium, etc.
Luckily, people much smarter than you do.
Most Christians DO NOT believe the earth is 6000 years old. Only a very small segment of a couple sects believe that. And it is a false belief proven by the very book they claim to make the date from. God told man man can not fathom God's time or plans.
Yeah, we kind of DO know for sure.
Here is the thing. carbon decays at a remarkably consistent rate. Carbon dating is extremely accurate. The Earth is 4.54 billion years in age. This isn't speculation, it is fact.
Evolution is also fact, though we may still debate the mechanisms behind it.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never carbon dated anything in my life. The best I can do is believe that someone has.
Yeah, we kind of DO know for sure.
Here is the thing. carbon decays at a remarkably consistent rate. Carbon dating is extremely accurate. The Earth is 4.54 billion years in age. This isn't speculation, it is fact.
Evolution is also fact, though we may still debate the mechanisms behind it.
.yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.
No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.
I do not understand why you are stuck on this idea that the individual's "mind" is the key to the possibility or lack there of in the theory of evolution. We do not know exactly why the giraffe developed a long neck and legs. It seems to me that "thinking" it needs to be taller would be one of the least likely reasons.
Males and females do make choices in breeding. Sometimes there is cross breeding. There are plenty of ex amples of freaks of nature. It is possible that short neck giraffes were considered "runts" and less desirable mating selections. In THAT sense the individuals "minds" would come into play as a determining factor.
Physical traits not common to all members of a group can and are multiplied by selection of the individuals in breeding. Availability or lack there of in breeding choices probably play into the rise of abnormal physical traits also.
It is possible that the giraffe had a specific diet and was confined to a specific area and short giraffes starved.
My point is that there are many possible reasons how and why physical changes occurred.
"God" designing the modern giraffe and plopping it down on the modern African Savannah is a silly possibility. At some point we should reject some theories because they are less science and more catering to the wishes and fantasies of some confused people.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.
No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.
I do not understand why you are stuck on this idea that the individual's "mind" is the key to the possibility or lack there of in the theory of evolution. We do not know exactly why the giraffe developed a long neck and legs. It seems to me that "thinking" it needs to be taller would be one of the least likely reasons.
Males and females do make choices in breeding. Sometimes there is cross breeding. There are plenty of ex amples of freaks of nature. It is possible that short neck giraffes were considered "runts" and less desirable mating selections. In THAT sense the individuals "minds" would come into play as a determining factor.
Physical traits not common to all members of a group can and are multiplied by selection of the individuals in breeding. Availability or lack there of in breeding choices probably play into the rise of abnormal physical traits also.
It is possible that the giraffe had a specific diet and was confined to a specific area and short giraffes starved.
My point is that there are many possible reasons how and why physical changes occurred.
"God" designing the modern giraffe and plopping it down on the modern African Savannah is a silly possibility. At some point we should reject some theories because they are less science and more catering to the wishes and fantasies of some confused people.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
I agree that accident is most likely the most important factor. Weather patterns are accidental to a degree. Droughts or monsoons can force issues and conditions that previously did not exist. Long legs could help an animal survive a flood where animals of less stature might drown and so on. Elephants and other large animals could be explained the same way as tree climbing animals which could also more easily survive floods.
According to Genesis 1 we read:
Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
According to verse 1 we read that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. Then in verse 2-3 darkness was upon the earth and then light was introduced upon the earth. In verse 4 God divided the light from the darkness. Could this mean that he caused the earth to rotate? At this time the earth began to have day and night. The first of these cycles was called the first day.
Notice that the light came upon the earth after the earth was formed. Thus days and nights were not reckoned until God divided the light from the darkness. Thus what we know as the first day was not when the earth was created. It was created before the light was upon the earth. It was created in what God calls the "Beginning". It was not created within the first seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Also Notice the events of the 4th day.
Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
On the 4th day God placed other sources of light to serve as the day and night. I believe this to be the Sun, Moon, and Stars. So what was the source of light that was in the first day of creation? In the New Testament we read:
2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Latter-day revelation has brought us the following:
Abraham 3:2-4
2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.
Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.
According to the above, The Lord's time (or one day to the Lord) is equal to 1000 years of our time. Adam was not given his reckoning of time when he was commanded not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This command occurred after the 7 days of creation in Genesis 1. Thus the 7 days of creation were after the Lord's time which is 1000 years of our time for each day. Thus the 7 days were 7000 years. Evidently the light mentioned in Genesis 3-4 was likely from the star Kolob.
So the earth was created before the 7000 year periods of creation. The temporal existence of the earth will also be 7000 years. The earth will rest on its Sabbath for 1000 years beginning at the Lord's second coming. Thus the earth is more than approximately 13000 years old. But we do not know how long before the seven creation periods the earth was created.
The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.
Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.
Problem is, we're able to study intricate details about the giraffe that we've never had the technology before to do. We find there is a very complex system inside their throats which enable them to swallow. Irreducible complexity can't be the product of evolution... that is a quote from Darwin.
In spite of the fact that we have ZERO evidence for any evolution regarding the giraffe, you have drawn up a wild speculation as to how the giraffe came to exist. You present this as if it's some kind of known fact. But your explanation contradicts Darwin himself.
In fact, the concept of natural selection itself is problematic for theories of evolution. Natural selection says that species adapt and change in order to survive... they don't turn into something else. They either adapt and change or they become extinct. The fossil record is full of billions of life forms that have become extinct.... 95% of all life has become extinct. You have to wonder why it didn't just "evolve" itself into something different?
That is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Mutations occur. The majority do nothing. Every now and then one comes along that gives the critter affected an edge over the other critters in the area. Those critters do better so take over the area. They breed better than the other critters so thrive. No intent as your statement implies, pure accident which when spread out over millions of years, leads us to where we are.
That is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Mutations occur. The majority do nothing. Every now and then one comes along that gives the critter affected an edge over the other critters in the area. Those critters do better so take over the area. They breed better than the other critters so thrive. No intent as your statement implies, pure accident which when spread out over millions of years, leads us to where we are.
Again, I have no problem with adaptive micro-evolutionary change. I think it is a remarkable testament to the resilience of life itself that living organisms can adapt and change. But that doesn't lead us to macro-evolutionary change. That's where I have a problem.
You're explaining natural selection. Survival of the fittest. I understand that and I don't have any objections to it. There is plenty of evidence to support this. But macro-evolution requires a genetic crossover that is extremely unlikely given what we know about DNA. There is no evidence of cross-genus evolution. All due respect to previously posted pictures of the platypus, that's not an example of something "in between" ...it's a mammal which happens to have certain characteristics not typically associated with mammals. A whale is also a mammal which has characteristics similar to fish.
Trying to argue that mutations and natural selection, over time, generate new genera of life is very difficult. An arm evolving into a wing that would be crucial for survival, is going to be a very bad arm before it's a very good wing. The species will not survive. And mutations, for the most part, deliver less than desirable results. It's generally not an improvement and doesn't result in a better species. And we have no evidence it has ever resulted in a completely new genus.
