CornSnakes.com Forums  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLinks ads? Register and log in!

Go Back   CornSnakes.com Forums > The CornSnake Forums > Natural History/Field Observation
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Natural History/Field Observation Field observations of corn snakes, field collecting, or just general topics about the natural environment they are found in.

Captivity?
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2005, 01:30 PM   #51
Clint Boyer
I feel I'm being ignored.

Quote:
I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures.
I'm not being antagonistic, I would just like to see the logic.
How does a living creature prove there is an all powerful entity?
 
Old 02-13-2005, 01:33 PM   #52
TrpnBils
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAV
Is it? Who says it is a non-reoccuring event? I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures.
I could just as easily tell you that I believe evolution is an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures...


...around and around and around.... lol
 
Old 02-13-2005, 01:36 PM   #53
TrpnBils
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint Boyer
I feel I'm being ignored.



I'm not being antagonistic, I would just like to see the logic.
How does a living creature prove there is an all powerful entity?
Haha, by all means, jump in here for awhile... I need to pull myself away from this discussion long enough to study!
 
Old 02-13-2005, 01:39 PM   #54
Clint Boyer
Yeah, me too!

Snakes to feed and a bathroom vanity to build! I've got to quit goofing off!
 
Old 02-13-2005, 01:53 PM   #55
CAV
Wink To both of you....Clint!

To say "evolution is an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures" is a false premise. You can say it is true, but that doesn't make it so. There simply is no factual evidence that supports the evolution theory. It isn’t being proved in living creatures, and it hasn’t been proved in the fossil records.

Life is a never-ending creation. To deny such is simply ignorance of fact. You as an individual are here arguing with me because you and I were both created. The creation of life is a most basic scientific process in which cells divide and life results. I've never mention the existence of a higher power, as it is irrelevant to this discussion on life processes. The topic of divine existence does require faith, but again it is not tied to this argument. Creation is known, it is proven, it is on going and it is without end. As an educated person, how can you dispute it?
 
Old 02-13-2005, 02:07 PM   #56
Itsnowingcorns
OK, my brain hurts after reading all of this thread, there's only so much a fourteen year old can take in ~ LOL. But here's something else, if the creation story is true, how can you explain the dinosaurs? We didn't exist when the dinosaurs did, we appeared a long time after they became extinct. According to the bible God created the earth and its contents in seven days, did he make a mistake with them and decide to have another go? I'm leaving it there.....
 
Old 02-13-2005, 02:07 PM   #57
Clint Boyer
I'm an empty canvas, paint me a picture.

I don't want to arue against something, I want to be shown a reasonable idea to understand.

I have not promoted evolution.

Creation in and of it's self is irrefutable, no arguement there.

Egg, sperm, I get it.
 
Old 02-13-2005, 02:28 PM   #58
gardenmum
You guys are debating the issue of "creationism" and "evolutionism" as two entities for the probable reason of life as we know it. But, I have always felt that BOTH are responsible and work together in life. I believe in creation - a creator - because I feel that "belief" deep inside. And, yes, I say "belief" because their is no way to physically prove that beyond a doubt so it has to come from an inner believing of its truth and also from just looking around me at the perfect complexity of life. But evolution is also a "not proven" road and I do believe what was created also evolves, but not into "new" species.

I do not believe, and find it hard to accept, that we are a descendent of the Apes. If that where so, were is the proof of it, where is the "missing link" between us? And why have Apes not evolved again over these thousands of years? And why would we not have some of the "evolved" intermediate species still alive today? It's not like the HAD to die out. The apes didn't die out and man didn't die out so why should the intermediate ones do so???? In fact, why is there no links between any one species and another? Some say that the horse evolved from "dawn horse" that was a small more dog like creature. Where is the proof of this, where is the connectors? Just because the horse has some bones that "could" have been exta toes? Why does it make that small creature the pre-horse species?

When I say I believe in evolution, I believe that we evolve in the sense of adaptation to our surroundings and the slight changes that help in that adaptation, but not in becoming a totally different species entirely. Yes, mutations occur and if that mutation allows for better advantages in breeding or feeding, than that mutation will be passed down as a "workable" mutation. IF that mutation somehow was better than the ones not mutated and allowed those that were mutated to survive a "wipe out" of the species, then yes, we would not have the original. BUT how far could/would that mutation occur? The originals may get wiped out due to the lack of the mutated form, whatever that form is, but how far removed could that mutation have been if they were still breeding/living with the original form? Maybe color difference? Length of neck? Whatever? But a totally different species?

We know that white/bright corns would have a disadvantage in the wild and would get "picked off" by predetors before they were able to pass their genes with much success. Granted. So, if you take a species of snake, let's say, and put that in a habitate that is NOT highly condusive to its survival, one of two things will happen. Either the entire species will get wiped out. Or, IF some of the species had a difference in color or pattern, or were smaller more speedy than most, and thus it allowed them to survive and not the rest, then indeed, the species would "change" and "evolve", due to gene selection, to its surroundings and thus you could "say" a new species came out of it. But is it new? The snake did NOT become a mouse. I know that is a far fetched analogy but it makes my point.

So, as I said, I believe in both. The created evolve.
 
Old 02-13-2005, 04:23 PM   #59
TrpnBils
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by gardenmum
I do not believe, and find it hard to accept, that we are a descendent of the Apes. If that where so, were is the proof of it, where is the "missing link" between us?
I'm not positive on this, but if I remember right, the current theory is that the missing link wasn't around for very long and was outcompeted by a different form. This fits into the idea of "puntuated equilibrium"...the idea that some event causes several [relatively] rapid mutations and is followed by a long period of equilibrium.

They're still finding stuff that fits into the missing link question. Although this isn't a supposed missing link per-se, I think it's worth mentioning here. In 2002, a skull that was dated at 6-7 million years old was dug up in Africa. (Article Here) As the article says, apes were abundant 10 million years ago, but most humanoid remains have been shown to be 5 million years old at most. This skull shows traits of both apes and early humans. Another, more recent discovery was the fossilized remains of the "Flores Man" in Indonesia early last year. Of the genus Homo, and full grown at 3 feet tall, they're calling a new species. It was the first of its kind discovered, so I think it's pretty well established that we haven't dug up every possible fossil yet...so we might still find the link in our lifetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gardenmum
So, as I said, I believe in both. The created evolve.
Well said. I agree...
 
Old 02-13-2005, 04:29 PM   #60
TrpnBils
Also, I have a question for the Creationist people. I'm not saying trying to push your buttons...I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think of this.

Radiometric and carbon dating.

Am I correct in thinking that if you take the Bible's story of creation and read it literally, humans and everything else would have only been around for a couple thousand years? If so, how do you explain the two process I mentioned above that date rocks or even fossils and organic matter back much further than that?

I've had similar discussions with a lot of people, but as far as I can remember I've never heard radiometric or carbon dating brought up, so I'm interested to see where this goes.
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! Cornsnakes.com is the largest online community dedicated to cornsnakes . Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

Google
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 AM.





Fauna Top Sites
 

Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.06830502 seconds with 10 queries
Copyright Rich Zuchowski/SerpenCo