NOGO2

The sperm fertilizes the egg and forms a complete cell. This cell grow to become a complete human being. Why?

"changes in a couple of animals".
Where do you get this from? What about the geological column? Briedfly it goes like this. If you dig you will discover fossils of animals. The deeper you go the simpler the animals will be.

This means that either animals on earth were created over time starting from the simpliest to the more complex in exactly the order one would expect if evolution took place
or
they evolved.

Wrong.
Man created music, mathematics, languages and morals.

Music, mathematics, languages and morals cannot be destroyed but they can be forgotten.

NOGO

Ether,

Nothing to add?

Ether

Sorry for the delay. Missed the thread.

Man can create anything in his mind based on the answers he gets from the enviroment (math, science, religion, etc.). He can't come up with anything in a blank enviroment because he will have no need for answers.

This is also one of the reasons that an omniscient god can't exist.

Good Day
Ether

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ether ]</p>

Non-praying Mantis

</strong>

Yes, and between other countries...

Spanish and French are similar languages that share a similar "parent" - Latin. They are much more different from each other than different dialects (languagues spoken in different areas of the same country), but they also have way more similarities to them than say Chinese and Spanish!

An example of cultural evolution? Probably.

Most of the above, I agree with you on some level. Sure, Humanity does all of these things to some extent, but I think that you are forgetting the POSITIVE impacts that humans can have as well. Medical advances to extend our lives, conservation of our natural resources, and we are making progress on many of the areas you mentioned above, for instance, attempting to replace the solely gasoline powered car as a mode of transportation, and pushing familiy planning in the most overpopulated countries.

WRONG! The chemicals that we add to make our food grow better and be more resistant to pesticides allow us to feed our great burgeoning population. These chemicals have never been conclusively linked to teratogenic (what you call mutants) birth defects. Without them, our civilization would require at least TWICE as much arable land to grow crops. Imagine plowing under the equivalent amount of our current cropland!

If "we don't even know where it leads." then how can you know that "It of course leads to mass destruction."

It is people like yourself, who only see gloom and doom for the human race, that make me incredibly angry!

You are not helping out the situation, by pressing forth your "predictions".
We have a choice as humanity:

1) either accept our future demise
Probability of future demise: 100%

OR

2) fight to prevent our future demise
Probability of future demise: unknown

NPM

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Non-praying Mantis ]</p>

NOGO

How does this answer my previous post?

Ether

To Non-praying Mantis:

Why does it has to be "burgeoning"?? This must be controled so that chemicals that convert natural food to artificial food are not needed. Also it is a well know fact that we can't be too many because things start getting out of control, yet another reasong to control the population.

Well it is the truth and the fact is that evil things are a majority. It is a sad but it is how things are now. And who is to blame, is it not mankind??

This is not "prediction" as you claim, it is fact and if we keep doing things like this we won't be able to survive the outcome. We do have a choice and the most important is to protect the planet we live at and not make our "progress" at the expense of the enviroment or other animals.

To NOGO:

I don't take the concept of evolution (as explained by Darwin) that seriously. It is true and proven that animals and humans adapt to their emviroment and that there are changes over time as a reaction to the conditions of the enviroment. But evolution on a large scale based on natural selection? I don't buy it and no I am not a creationist.

There are many questions that I could ask you about evolution and give you reasons as to why I don't take it that seriusly but that will just make this thread go to the evolution forum.

By the way do you have a link to the geological column you are refering to?

Good Day
Ether

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ether ]</p>

Gregg

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence shows that man evolved.
Evidence shows that languages evolved and were created by man.
Evidence shows that morals are man-made.
etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure man did evolved but...why? What made man evolve? Do you think that because Darwin saw some changes in a couple of animals here and there the same could be applied in greater amount to man in a much longer period?


Why do you feel it necessary to try to belittle Charles Darwin's research?

Darwin observed literally thousands of species, looked at thousands of fossil remains, made thousands of sketches, and took thousands of pages of notes. He spent years checking and rechecking his facts and refining his theory before going public. He did not "see changes in a couple of animals here and there" and then slap together "On the Origin of Species" in a couple of weeks, but this is obviously the impression you wish to convey. This is a common tactic of creationists, and frankly, it smacks of desperation.

Disagree with Mr. Darwin and his theory if you wish, but please do not try to imply that he just made it up out of thin air.

As to the rest of your comment, the burden is on YOU to prove why, if we can observe small changes in species over just a few years, these small changes can't accumulate over centuries and millennia and eons until you end up with something very different from what you started with. What mechanism prevents this from happening? Why can't a land-dwelling creature evolve into an aquatic mammal that still shows evidence of its days on land (hip bones, toe bones)? Why can't a primate species develop a progressively larger brain, particularly if the larger brain helps it survive and reproduce in ever-increasing numbers? Why should scientists try to prove that this can't happen, when all the evidence clearly demonstrates that it does happen, all the time?

No, it's up to you, or scientists who think like you, to demonstrate why one species cannot evolve into another species--to show the mechanism that stops evolution from proceeding beyond a certain point--and then explain how scientists have misinterpreted the available data (DNA, the fossil record, age of the earth, etc.) in reaching their conclusion that all species are related and that they emerged through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection. Also, you need to explain why your theory, if you have one, fits the evidence better.

Gregg

Ether

To Gregg:

As I said in a previous post I am not a creationist and I don't employ any tactic to try and convice anyone of anything. If questioning or having doubt on the theory of evolution as explained by Darwin is a problem then it is no different that Xtianity and its religious fanatics.

I didn't said that I disagre with it or that he made it out of thin air. I only said that I didn't take it that seriously and I admited that there can be changes over time to adapt to the enviroment. But not like Darwin claims, not on its own. Based on the similarities it is obvious that we share a common origin but what is that origin? what made us come this far? Or better yet how everything started?

Good Day
Ether

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ether ]</p>

Non-praying Mantis

I agree! Our population should not be "burgeoning." Unfortunately, it currently is, and that means unless we want to starve the human race so our population does decrease, we have to feed that burgeoning population. I wish that we did not have to, but we are stuck with it. We SHOULD employ methods of birth control and assist the other countries to develop (which reduces their birth rate) and give benefits to those who wish to remain childless, and so forth, but those plans take time. Ideally, our global population should be approximately 1-2 billion, so that we can leave large areas of the world unpopulated.

One other problem is religious fanatics, such as the Catholic Church, and others refuse to allow such plans to be employed.

Artificial food?!?!?!

What is that? All of the food that I eat is either grown in the ground or eats something that grows in the ground.

Adding fertilizers and pesticides to our food does not somehow make it "artificial." However, I am a large proponent of IPM (integrated pest management) and reduced input farming, and we should try to reduce these "artifical" inputs as much as possible without decreasing crop yield, which inevitably (?sp) happens when "organic" farming is used. Organic farming cannot feed our current population, only artificial farming (as you call it).

I don't know how you can think that "evil things are in the majority". Every day, I see people going about there business, trying to improve their own lot in life, and sometimes trying to help others improve their lives. Some of these people are misguided, but they are not usually evil. As I said above, mankind is capable of great evil and great good, and I see no reason to denigrate us simply because we are capable of evil. Why do you not applaud us for our good, as well?

Of course, mankind is to blame for our current world's problems. However, we are also the answer to the world's problems.

If you mean that is it a fact that if we do nothing to solve the world's problems, we won't survive the outcome? Well, that is a prediction (one that I happen to think is accurate, but still a prediction, nonetheless).

I was critcizing your automatic gloom-and-doom prediction for the human race, not what would happen if we do nothing to stop it.

Personally, I think that the human race is more resillient than that. If there is an "apocalypse," I suspect that some humans will survive, but our culture and technology will not, which will ultimately doom us when the big comet or asteroid hits (i.e. the mass extinction of the dinosaurs), and we will be powerless to stop it.

I agree that we should protect the planet, it is in our best interests. But eshewing technology for a simpler lifestyle is not the answer, because that will also lead to the above comet/asteroid problem.

Our only hope is to increase technology and attempt to thwart the problems that face us.

NPM

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Non-praying Mantis ]</p>

NOGO

I was not looking for a debate on evolution, I just wanted to know where you were coming from.

You say that you are not a creationist but then how do you explain the diversity of life on earth?
If it isn't large scale evolution, as you put it, and you are not a creationist then how do you explain it?

Here is the link that you asked for.
<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html</a>