Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[jamesmusslewhite]

---

Analytical Psychology doesn't believe in the LITERAL DEVIL. The demons or devils are within us when we forget WHO WE REALLY ARE!

Oh he is real, man has his on evils to contend with, Satan just gives us little pushes. The evil inside of us is strictly or own. That is the curse of free will.

[bluedes]

You do not like the Mineral Composition charts which measure water at the atomic level

Mineral and Chemicals Composition Charts:
Bloodindex - The Human Body's Mineral Content
Determining bone and total body mineral content from body density and bioelectrical response spectroscopy -- Siconolfi et al. 85 (4): 1578 -- Journal of Applied Physiology
Human Body Composition: In Vivo Methods -- Ellis 80 (2): 649 -- Physiological Reviews
Composition of the human body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I found you a Composition Chart that only measures Composition and not Atomic brake down.
Body composition: Information from Answers.com

This is because you want to show that the water content in the Human body is greater than "DRY" dirt, which is why you debunked the earlier chart. But man was made from dry dirt which was turned into clay. Most clay recipes used 2-1/2 cups soil composition to 1-1/2 Water. Therefor clay is by nature 60-65% water. Please prove me wrong if you wish.

This is not magic, it is the science of a building material that has directly influenced man long before our recorded history. Obviously you have never mixed clay or mixed concrete, or you would have been able to grasp this simple concept. The water content can be higher if a wetter mix is requires, this is refereed to extra-wet concrete, and in clay it is called mud. You never made mud as a child? Or is mud and wet soil a Creationist trick and not based in fact in natural science? That the theory of evolution dictate that clay and mud are different somehow in the natural sciences?

Sorry I must ask because I have been told that as scientist and believer in the Bible, that my brain had stopped working. So I am just too stupid to crasp that the mineral and compositions of the human body and common clay are very if not almost actually the same. So please show me and everyone else your vast superior intellect and show this dumb old boy were I am wrong. They look like the same to me. In fact almost a perfect match. Please show the sources of your rebuttal and please no blank statements. after all you are such a smart guy. Well are you?

Mineral Composition of Clay:
http://www.voronoi.com/wiki/images/c...n_mixtures.pdf

You must compare the actual mediums, the human body and simple clay.

nice point.. very informative.. thank you for this information..

so why are we debating again in the first place?
first of all, my point was that man was made up more of water than dirt.. and that chart did not even show that.. in fact, it was trying to show the opposite, that man is made up more of dirt by association of the oxygen concentration. as for man being made up of clay.. its still more water than dirt.. but that's beside the point.. anyway..

as for life in general coming from clay, i have no argument against that. Its because that's one of the theories on how earlier life forms used clay as a temporary cellular structure to support their existence.. i know its in the bible, and i never refuted that claim.. i just wanted more "explanation" why it is written like that..

lets get things clear here.. I've got nothing against the bible.. i read it as much as you do (probably), its full of symbolisms that I don't understand yet.. for some that I do, I found myself agreeing to it more than contradicting it.. but I'm a skeptic, so I tend to look for more evidence than immediately believing what I read in it..

you chose to stop looking for answers.. i'm still looking for mine.. lets just put it that way..

thanks again for that very informative post..

[jamesmusslewhite]

nice point.. very informative.. thank you for this information..

so why are we debating again in the first place?
first of all, my point was that man was made up more of water than dirt.. and that chart did not even show that.. in fact, it was trying to show the opposite, that man is made up more of dirt by association of the oxygen concentration. as for man being made up of clay.. its still more water than dirt.. but that's beside the point.. anyway..

as for life in general coming from clay, i have no argument against that. Its because that's one of the theories on how earlier life forms used clay as a temporary cellular structure to support their existence.. i know its in the bible, and i never refuted that claim.. i just wanted more "explanation" why it is written like that..

lets get things clear here.. I've got nothing against the bible.. i read it as much as you do (probably), its full of symbolisms that I don't understand yet.. for some that I do, I found myself agreeing to it more than contradicting it.. but I'm a skeptic, so I tend to look for more evidence than immediately believing what I read in it..

you chose to stop looking for answers.. i'm still looking for mine.. lets just put it that way..

thanks again for that very informative post..

The problem I always had with the creationist concept was time creating being done on six 1 day steps. Then I realized that this is the major sticking point with most evolutionist, 6 24 hour periods. The problem is based on our concept of time as it exist today, and our literal interpretation of the scriptural text. I can accept that it is a complex subject written for very basic people to grasp a subject far beyond their ability to comprehend. How would I try to explian it to my young child? 6 incredibly complex steps and procedures involving science and techniques light years beyond his understanding? No I would make six complex steps be 6 simple days. Day one I did this , Day 2 I did that, etc. One step could be hours, days, weeks, months, years, millenniums, even almost finite. No two days even needed to be the same time length. It only represents a step in an continuing process.

The Creator is not bound by our laws of time. He is pre-time and if he establishes the laws of time, than he is outside and not restricted by those laws. That is why the tern "I am the Alpha and the Omega" I am the beginning and the end, both at the same time. I as a scientist love the stories of the Bible, for they are the story of the greatest scientist of all time. His test tube is the universe. If their is intelligent design, and most sciences support intelligent design. Than God is science and science will support God. But God is not bound by the laws he established, for he is outside the creation that binds you and me. He would be able to walk between times, between dimensions, move at will throughout the universe, and could be as large or as small as he deemed fit. He would not age. How do you measure that. It is beyond our limited concepts and binding laws. We can only at best try to understand his creation, and someday simulate some of his skills in our attempt to become Gods. We can only copy him, but we can never create him. We can not create nor destroy God.

[bluedes]

The problem I always had with the creationist concept was time creating being done on six 1 day steps. Then I realized that this is the major sticking point with most evolutionist, 6 24 hour periods. The problem is based on our concept of time as it exist today, and our literal interpretation of the scriptural text. I can accept that it is a complex subject written for very basic people to grasp a subject far beyond their ability to comprehend. How would I try to explian it to my young child? 6 incredibly complex steps and procedures involving science and techniques light years beyond his understanding? No I would make six complex steps be 6 simple days. Day one I did this , Day 2 I did that, etc. One step could be hours, days, weeks, months, years, millenniums, even almost finite. No two days even needed to be the same time length. It only represents a step in an continuing process.

The Creator is not bound by our laws of time. He is pre-time and if he establishes the laws of time, than he is outside and not restricted by those laws. That is why the tern "I am the Alpha and the Omega" I am the beginning and the end, both at the same time. I as a scientist love the stories of the Bible, for they are the story of the greatest scientist of all time. His test tube is the universe. If their is intelligent design, and most sciences support intelligent design. Than God is science and science will support God. But God is not bound by the laws he established, for he is outside the creation that binds you and me. He would be able to walk between times, between dimensions, move at will throughout the universe, and could be as large or as small as he deemed fit. He would not age. How do you measure that. It is beyond our limited concepts and binding laws. We can only at best try to understand his creation, and someday simulate some of his skills in our attempt to become Gods. We can only copy him, but we can never create him. We can not create nor destroy God.

well, that's nice and good.. you try to present God as a person.. that's your own interpretation.. and nobody can fault you for sharing it..

however, it's a different story when other people shove it down your throat and begin to condemn you (or have that different treatment towards you) when you don't share the same level of belief as they do.

my take on the Infinite is rather impersonal most of the times.. probably because of how I was brought up. but anyway, like I said, the symbolism in the Bible is really deep. Cross referencing it to other text outside the christian context is for me more interesting than just reading it by itself. that's pretty much how i study also, cross reference multiple text of "similar" context..

but i cannot yet grasp, much less agree on that intelligent design concept. my view of intelligence is different. I would rather settle that our universe existed out of nowhere, like a big bang (for now).. but who or what caused that.. well, lets just call it God.. that's it.. maybe as I grow older, I'll develop a penchant for children's stories to explain religious concepts..

[Sinyalan]

That is social progression. The scientific word is progress, that is not the Theory of evolution.

If our heads grew, our brains got smaller, we all lost a finger or a toe, than that can be called a product of Evolution, in fact it would progress the Therory of evolution.

Evolution is the progressive change form bacteria to monkey and on to modern man. All the different steps explaining the change. That is the actual problem with the Theory of Evolution, we have no verifiable missing links between staged. The fossil records on show beginning and end of each species, no transitions blending the two. All we really have is artiest drawings but nothing verifiable.

There is a plant in North America that only survives because of bees which pollinate the fruit making the seeds to continue the species survival. Without bee it would be extint in less than 100 years. Yet Evolutional science states the tree lived 600 million years before there were bees on earth. But science can not say where the bees came from. So how did the plant survive for 600 million years? Science will not try to answer that question, because it would disprove the time dates they used. The tree has not evolved and the bees have not evolved, so how did it survive? simple question. I saw many cases like that during the 30 years as a biologist.

Well then, who started those "social progression?

[Sinyalan]

The problem I always had with the creationist concept was time creating being done on six 1 day steps. Then I realized that this is the major sticking point with most evolutionist, 6 24 hour periods. The problem is based on our concept of time as it exist today, and our literal interpretation of the scriptural text. I can accept that it is a complex subject written for very basic people to grasp a subject far beyond their ability to comprehend. How would I try to explian it to my young child? 6 incredibly complex steps and procedures involving science and techniques light years beyond his understanding? No I would make six complex steps be 6 simple days. Day one I did this , Day 2 I did that, etc. One step could be hours, days, weeks, months, years, millenniums, even almost finite. No two days even needed to be the same time length. It only represents a step in an continuing process.

The Creator is not bound by our laws of time. He is pre-time and if he establishes the laws of time, than he is outside and not restricted by those laws. That is why the tern "I am the Alpha and the Omega" I am the beginning and the end, both at the same time. I as a scientist love the stories of the Bible, for they are the story of the greatest scientist of all time. His test tube is the universe. If their is intelligent design, and most sciences support intelligent design. Than God is science and science will support God. But God is not bound by the laws he established, for he is outside the creation that binds you and me. He would be able to walk between times, between dimensions, move at will throughout the universe, and could be as large or as small as he deemed fit. He would not age. How do you measure that. It is beyond our limited concepts and binding laws. We can only at best try to understand his creation, and someday simulate some of his skills in our attempt to become Gods. We can only copy him, but we can never create him. We can not create nor destroy God.

Wow, you sound like Kent Hovind.

[Sinyalan]

giunsa lagi pag evolve sa usa ka specie into another kind of specie? example ang fish nahimong tetrapods, giunsa mana pag evolve bro?

hmmmm...

Pein, evolution is based on the concept of "Survival of the fittest", that is the most fit (or fitting) individual for any given environment will most likely be the one to breed most - giving more offspring. This has an influence on the overall gene pool of the population.But you have to clearly understand what "species" means.In general it refers to an inter-breeding group. If all the members of a group can breed with other members (of the opposite ***), then they are the same species.So if a species A slowly changes over time until it is bigger, or smaller, or lighter, or smarter, or with a bigger brain, or more forward facing eyes, or less fur ... then it's hard to say when exactly it has become a "new species" B. We can't know unless we tried to breed members of A with members of B ... but since members of A are long gone, all we can do is say that the features of B are different enough that we think of them as a "new species."But what is much clearer is when a species A "SPLITS" into TWO species B and C. Why does this happen? Because things happen in nature to cause populations of a species to become separated from each other. (A river cuts through a valley. A big migration happens. Islands drift apart or away from the mainland. Entire continents drift apart, etc.) If that happens then the "DIFFERENT" changes experienced by populations B and C will eventually make it so that they cannnot interbreed anymore, even if they were to come into contact again.At that point we say that B and C are "separate species" that share a common ancestor A.That is all evolution is. Evolution just means "change" or better yet a broader terms "slow cahnge" in a species. But that slow change is "relentless" change ... and so this "branching" between species B and C happens all the time.That is why we have found it possible to arrange all species into a huge "tree-like" organizational structure. We would not be able to do this if multiple species did not share common ancestors.And that is why almost ALL biologists are absolutely in agreement that, yes, not only is it possible for one species can evolve into another ... actually into two or more species that represent new separate "branches" in life.Ug dili pa gyud ka kasabut, I highly recommend this site. It is put together by the University of California at Berkeley ... but it is designed for High School students and teachers, and for laypeople wishing to understand how evolution works: Understanding Evolution

[Sinyalan]

Can you possible ask a more silly and hard question to ask. There are more stars than grains of sand on the beaches of the world. We are but specks living on one grain. And one speck asks another speck, you explain the world as a whole to me. Then you ask the speck to explain the method of how God created the universe and why that God exist? That is like asking a flea on the back of a dog in Spain to explain how the "Hubble Telescope" works.

Here is how it works, a long time ago something so complex, did something so amazing, in a way you can not possibly understand. You just do not have a brain large enough to grasp it all, not an insult because nobody does. We are just too small to grasp it all. You read the Bible try to understand you limitations and just accept it. And you want the Cliff Notes, if you tried to stuff all that information into your head it would take a thousand year download, then you head would explode..... hehehhe..... BOOM!!!!!!!!

If you read the Bible it tells you how he did it, and why he did it. You really think you could understand...........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

That is the part that is funny, that any man thinks he could understand of explain God, hell most can not balance a checkbook, or remember a girlfriend/wife's birthday or anniversary. Some just ask too much and offer so little in return. I'm smart, tell me all about God....ahahahahaha

That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time on any forum

Read the bible? What's in the bible but childred stories and fairly tales? You call that your source of all? pfftt... you're best suited to teach sunday school. Although, silly as you may think but can you answer those silly questions? Also, spare me that sarcasm because it only proves you're just one of those creationist fools.

[jamesmusslewhite]

Well then, who started those "social progression?

Inventors who invented those items which enrich our lives.

[jamesmusslewhite]

Read the bible? What's in the bible but childred stories and fairly tales? You call that your source of all? pfftt... you're best suited to teach sunday school. Although, silly as you may think but can you answer those silly questions? Also, spare me that sarcasm because it only proves you're just one of those creationist fools.

I suppose you give us an answer that your god magically created everything by his will. hmmmm... sounds hairy-tale, este fairy tale kaayo.
I am sure that the processes were all scientific in nature, but just well beyond our present abilities, maybe in 1,000 years when we grow up some more...hehehehe

Can you gives us a brief description how did your god created all living things?
Do you really think that even if he could, that you would really be able to understand even a small part of his answerer? Besides you will just scoff at it even if it were factually correct.

Can you precisely give us an answer why your god exist?
What man could possible answer why God exist? how about because he just does.

I happy and proud be a Creationist fool, even thou I have to put up with hateful sarcastic smart-mouthed atheistic foolish tator-tots like you.

Read the Bible for yourself, it just might do you some good.