Do you Agree or Disagree in the absolute primacy of time,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 17 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]497933[/snapback]</div>

It's not beyond this life, it's before and after, it's our home man. We're just here temporarily to figure stuff out. Enjoy it!

 

Time ensures that two objects won't occupy the same space concurrently.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 17 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]497954[/snapback]</div>

As I said in the other thread, species is a concept we developed for our desire to catalogue everything. We've applied logic to the definition, but there is still room for debate. It wasn't long ago that the term planet under went a refreshing. Look at dogs. A great dane and the hairless, little rat dog, which I admit defeat in trying to spell, can't physically breed. By the classic definiton they should by seperate species, but they are the same species. We have just chosen not to relabel them. If humanity was wiped out tomorrow, and aliens showed up next week, they may classify the differing breeds of dogs as different species.

It also didn't take us thousands of years to breed the dane and yippy dog. People selecting a trait is a strong external pressure, but so is the desire to live. Under the right conditions, the evolution of new species doesn't take long. Time only has an indirect influence through the generational period of a lifeform. The faster the lifecycle, the faster change can occur. It's one of the advantages small critters tend to have over the larger in trying times. The fact that the earth is 4.5 billions years old doesn't hurt evolution.

Now, how old do you think the earth is, and what evidence do you have to back it up and disprove that the earth isn't billions of years old?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Aug 17 2007, 01:16 PM) [snapback]498002[/snapback]</div>

um, actually, yes they can.
I've seen chihuahua/great dane crosses. There is nothing genetic that prevents their breeding. Size is an issue, yes, but not if the small dog is the sire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 17 2007, 01:10 PM) [snapback]497998[/snapback]</div>

That really depends on what dimension they are in when you are taking about "space" and "time."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ 2007 Aug 17 11:49 AM) [snapback]497960[/snapback]</div>

Now look, kow, if you're gonna start these deep metaphysical discussions, you could at least stick around for them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ 2007 Aug 17 11:49 AM) [snapback]497960[/snapback]</div>

uhhh...not to put too fine a point on it, but we should expect maturity from everyone, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 17 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]497960[/snapback]</div>

Well, sort of. Stephen Jay Gould was talking about it, and I was talking about him.

While you're at the coast, discover God's magnificent plan for creation that is so much more inspiring than forcing a poem to be a science text. Read The Language of God, written by a real scientist who is a real believer, and not a con artist who is lying to you in the name of Christ.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 17 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]497960[/snapback]</div>

Apparently you did not see his first post? The one with the nice person of a dog and sunglasses? The one where he refered to Alric as the dogs nice person? Get over youself buddy. You are not the internet police and your views are quite antiquated in regards to this post topic. Until the real internet police have something to tell me I will continue to call people out for thier ignorance and I will not show special respect for religion when it shows none to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 17 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]497960[/snapback]</div>

Look into symbiogenis and molecular biology and you will find your answers. I have actually taken the time to copy down more than a few quotes on ideas on this particular subject.

What it all boils down to is there is a TON of information that is scientifically sound that disproves many of the "facts" presented in the bible and associated works. To assume science needs to disprove biblical works is rediculous. The bible needs to prove itself in some other way than by just saying it's right and unfortunately it has fallen on it's face everytime someone has tried to do so. God will be sitting next to Zues, Athena, and Coyote on the shelves of antiquity before long.

The rediculous beliefs of christianity have a direct impact on my life and I will not be tolerant nor repsectful of those beliefs until the day comes where they do not effect me any longer. This makes me an nice person? No, I think it makes me a victim of a societies ignorance and completely excusable in my anger.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 17 2007, 01:49 PM) [snapback]497960[/snapback]</div>

This distinction you make is an artificial one. What you call "new information" is simply the build up of smaller adaptations. This has been proven by the fossil record, molecular biology and simple anatomy. This distinction is not only artificial but erroneous.

The bacterial flagellum is the best example where each of the components can be traced back using molecular biology to other functions, and the mutations required over time for its assembly can be mapped. Similarly, the evolution of the vertebrate limb has a nice fossil record with many intermediate forms between fin->lobed fin->limb bud->multi-digit limb->five fingered (or less) limbs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 18 2007, 01:08 AM) [snapback]498234[/snapback]</div>

Collins is exasperating. He knows evolution is a fact and somehow that has anything to do with his made up faith. He is exasperating because his whole argument is basically "because I feel like it".

Finally, XKCD.com is genius:

 

Has anyone read The End of Time, by Ian Barbour? He's a theoretical physicist (a British one) who argues that time is not a fundamental aspect of the universe. He completely rejects it. The book is a difficult read, and I admit that I didn't understand very much of what he was saying. Yet, I found it interesting because of the quite different point of view.

 

If you believe in finding answers through the scientific method (I'm sure this is questioned by some here, even though it leads to many advances in technology, medicine, etc.), then the age of the earth has been established separately from evolutionary evidence. In fact the evidence is based on radiological dating of rocks, not on lifeforms at all.

As far as evolution, it is the simplest answer that jives with all the evidence we have. If God did create us in a week, he sure went out of his way to disguise the fact! If you look at fundamentalist Christian belief in Creationism, you can see a rear-guard action.

1. God created the earth in a week.
2. OK, it wasn't a literal week, but it was about 6000 years ago.
3. There is no evolution. We have the same species we had at the flood.
4. OK, there's adaptation to enviroment, so maybe species have changed some.
etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ 2007 Aug 18 04:53 PM) [snapback]498464[/snapback]</div>

You should not assume people who have rejected religion know nothing about it. You've seemingly rejected science, yet you feel eminently qualified to discuss it...

Have your questions about time been answered already? Let me reset my time machine and go back to check.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 18 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]498464[/snapback]</div>

I'm rather curious about this topic. What is your question?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 18 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]498473[/snapback]</div>

Well said. Just because we reject religion does NOT mean we don't know about it. I for one grew up in Christianity, and chose to leave it as a rational adult. I do not have hostility towards it, for it teaches great kindness (that some Christians actually catch on to ).

If you take religion out of the discussion, I'm not sure what there is left to discuss. Evolution and planetary age are like global warming in that there is VERY little disagreement among professionals in the field.

These are really easy to look up on Google, and you can get plenty of answers. But like I said, there is little disagreement, and those that do are usually:
1. Actively looking for problems because of a disconnect between science and their religious beliefs or "gut feeling".
2. Non-experts from unrelated fields with wild hypotheses looking for attention.

Here's an example. The first entry on Google under "radiometric dating" I got was:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Apparently, even Christian scientists who actually work in this field agree on the evidence of the dating techniques.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 18 2007, 06:53 PM) [snapback]498464[/snapback]</div>

This is the link for the original post:

http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=428421

And here is the image:


You can see many links in the figure legends. Let's take one:

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/

You will find a link to primary bibliography

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/Biblio.html

and here

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

If you are going to be a contrarian about evolution the least you can do is read the responses and follow the references. Whale evolution is a wonderful example where anatomy, molecular biology and the fossil record come to together to tell a complete story.