Forum > General discussions > Non mobile discussion > The first man on earth?

On 2008-01-22 18:14:52, max_wedge wrote:

Creationists always use whatever scientific material they find easiest to discredit. They never reference the material that is hard to refute.

They refer to the haldane dilemma, but the fact is geneticists have largely moved on from the hypothesis that background radiation causes evolution> It is now well understood that genetic variations arise much more quickly as a response to environment, not in response to random mutations caused by background radiation. The genetic engine is a computer, and it is capable of responding to the environment in an intelligent and highly adaptive fashion.

Creation scientists also like to think that disproof of one possible explanation of a hypothesis disproves the whole hypothesis. For example they will say Evolution can't be possible because background radiation can't account for the frequency of mutations need to explain evolution. But all that proves, is that background radiation is not the engine of evolution that it was once thought of. It certainly doesn't "disproove" the Theory of Evolution. Darwin never specificied exactly what caused evolution - he simply observed that such a phenomenon existed.

For example, recombinant genetic adaptions can occur over the passage of only a few generations, and the affect of mutation due to radiation is insignificant. For example insects adapting to insectisides. So it's not necessary to rely on background radiation to support the theory of evolution.

On 2008-01-22 13:36:50, Twometre wrote:
As a matter of fact I dont believe that human beings originated from aliens. Aliens must have been there before human but that dont hold roots as to where we originated.

This is a most bizarre reality. I recall counselling a middle-aged man after a meeting one night in New Zealand. He shared his ‘contact’ experience with me that occurred when he was a young boy. It was back in the mid ‘60s and I dared to ask him (testing my hypothesis): ‘Was the entity wearing a one-piece jumpsuit similar to the characters in the TV series Lost in Space or something like that?’ I recall him saying something like, ‘How on Earth could you possibly know that? And he was shocked to the core.

Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.

For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.

Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!

Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a num-erical prediction we published several years before the experiments.4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years.

On 2007-09-11 17:48:05, Brightspark wrote:
"The existence of God can neither be proven or disproven so it remains an open question"

everyone knows that god is a pebble on the beach . the point to note here is, is that there is just as much evidence for him/her/it being a pebble on the beach as there is for what the bible portrays him/her/it as.

On 2008-01-23 11:46:34, arvinlad wrote:

http://www.icr.org/article/114/

On 2008-01-23 11:18:17, arvinlad wrote:
- what evidence for evolutionism is hard to refute?

Genetic changes as such are no big deal. Information reshuffling, shifts in gene frequency within populations, natural selection thinning out gene pools causing adaptation—all of these merely move around information that’s already there. In fact, within a given population, selection removes information. That is, creatures that are not ‘fit’ for their environment are eliminated, thus their genetic information is not passed on to the next generation. The other main plank in neo-Darwinism, mutations (accidental hereditary copying mistakes in DNA), also do not cause an increase in genetic information. This applies even in those rare cases where the defect confers a survival advantage, so is ‘beneficial’ .So the changes we observe today, even though labeled ‘evolution,’ do not give even a whiff of a hint of how amebae could have blossomed progressively into aardvarks, avocado trees, and atomic physicists.

We know that germs develop an immunity to antibiotics, insects develop resistance to insecticides, rabbits develop resistance to myxomatosis. All these things are said to be examples of evolution in action. The problem is after all this, the germs are still germs, the insects are still the same sort of insect, the rabbits are still rabbits. There is no indication that the basic form of the organism under the attack is going to change into something else. These changes do not result from some spontaneous increase in information in the genetic programs. The rabbits are not about to become horses or hounds. The general evolution model requires that one kind of thing change into a different kind of thing.

On 2008-01-25 10:24:51, methylated_spirit wrote:
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

On 2008-01-25 11:38:12, max_wedge wrote:

The theory of evolution suggests all primates on earth today, including humans and monkeys, share a common ancestor. That is, in the past a species of primate that was not a monkey or human or any other current primate but an earlier species of primate, led through the process of evolution to the humans, monkeys apes etc that we have today. (not that humans evolved from actual monkeys)

The primate species humans evolved from, is no longer living, exactly as you rightly wondered if we could still have monkeys in the world if we had evolved from them. There are very few species (other than some plants and loads of bacteria) that stop evolving and continue to survive, hence a species rarely get's to meet it's own genetic ancestors. Cousin and siblings yes, ancestors no.

Humans are often claimed to be "cousins" to Chimpanzees by zoologists: "chimps and humans share nearly 99 percent of the same DNA". But the idea of humans descending from actual monkeys is a myth perpetuated by religious leaders in Charles Darwin's time to discredit his theory of evolution and to scare the population who thought it was an insult to be compared to a monkey. Mind you, those same religeous people would have been offended by the idea that negro people are "human" too. So I don't think I put any faith in what they say. Personally it wouldn't bother me if I was descended from a monkey. Mokey is probably about a 3rd cousin, so it's okay