• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * - - - 8 votes

The Grand Question


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#31 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 16 November 2008 - 10:01 PM

On the contrary, we can be assured of the fact that science has yet to show how life came out of inorganic matter, and that this is the least of them all.


Look at the Miller-Urey experiment. While Expelled passed it off as meaningless, old Ben Stein got a lot of stuff incorrect.

Also, it is more supernatural to believe in the absence of a Higher Power than the presence of a Higher Power. All the marvels of this world we live in are without a doubt a grand testimony to that.


The marvels and the complexity of the world are the exact reason it's hard to believe in any higher power without evidence.

Edited by shepard, 16 November 2008 - 10:03 PM.


#32 Brainbox

  • Guest
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 16 November 2008 - 10:24 PM

Also, it is more supernatural to believe in the absence of a Higher Power than the presence of a Higher Power. All the marvels of this world we live in are without a doubt a grand testimony to that.


The marvels and the complexity of the world are the exact reason it's hard to believe in any higher power without evidence.

Exactly. If our world would have been created by a higher power that did his job perfectly, then why did he create bio-diversity, THE underlying mechanism that supports evolution?
The marvels of the world we live in are marvels because they did develop along the same line with the same physical constraints as we (humans) did. So that's not even a surprise as seen from a evolutionary point of view but it's main effect.

#33 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 16 November 2008 - 11:08 PM

Also, it is more supernatural to believe in the absence of a Higher Power than the presence of a Higher Power. All the marvels of this world we live in are without a doubt a grand testimony to that.



The 'marvels of this world' can be seen as evidence of divine guidance, or the unfathomable magnitude of events that transpired 'randomly' (i.e. behavior of particles governed by physical laws, etc) in the unfathomable period (13 billion years) since the BB.

Either firmly believing that a supernatural power definitely does exist or that one definitely doesn't exist are equally silly, because every God postulated by religion is an unfalsifiable phenomenon, i.e. it's impossible to design an experiment to disprove God's existence because he/she/it is invisible, omnipresent, etc etc.

That said, I find it difficult to believe in something for which I can find NO physical evidence. Humans have always attributed supernatural cause to that which they do not understand, from earthquakes to the origin of life. As science marches on, more pieces of the puzzle fit together, revealing the supernatural explanation silly.

One can still safely argue that God's hand is behind the evolutionary process, I suppose, but it sure looks like evolution did occur, as did teh big bang, etc.

#34 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 17 November 2008 - 01:24 AM

On the contrary, we can be assured of the fact that science has yet to show how life came out of inorganic matter, and that this is the least of them all.


Life is the least of them all? Wow, I thought that would have been one that would be up there pretty high. Shows what I know about ranking the amazements of this universe and the wonders of god. :shakehead:

Also, it is more supernatural to believe in the absence of a Higher Power than the presence of a Higher Power. All the marvels of this world we live in are without a doubt a grand testimony to that.


Oh, OK. Without a doubt. Of course. (cue twilight zone music)

One can still safely argue that God's hand is behind the evolutionary process, I suppose, but it sure looks like evolution did occur, as did teh big bang, etc.


Yup, still safe in that arguement, I suppose. Or not. Sure looks like it occurred. But who knows. You got teh big bang, you got teh fossil record, but you got teh hand of god too. It's a 12 of one, half-dozen of the other, good point.

#35 luv2increase

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 17 November 2008 - 03:33 PM

On the contrary, we can be assured of the fact that science has yet to show how life came out of inorganic matter, and that this is the least of them all.


Life is the least of them all? Wow, I thought that would have been one that would be up there pretty high. Shows what I know about ranking the amazements of this universe and the wonders of god. :shakehead:

Also, it is more supernatural to believe in the absence of a Higher Power than the presence of a Higher Power. All the marvels of this world we live in are without a doubt a grand testimony to that.


Oh, OK. Without a doubt. Of course. (cue twilight zone music)

One can still safely argue that God's hand is behind the evolutionary process, I suppose, but it sure looks like evolution did occur, as did the big bang, etc.


Yup, still safe in that argument, I suppose. Or not. Sure looks like it occurred. But who knows. You got teh big bang, you got teh fossil record, but you got teh hand of god too. It's a 12 of one, half-dozen of the other, good point.



Leave this discussion for those whom want to be serious about it.


What makes any of you think that just because human beings are the foci of this God created dimension, that they would have to be created right at the very beginning, billions of years ago, with everything else?

Bio-Diversity... Isn't it amazing? Think of God as a programmer. Think of Biodiversity and Evolution as program modules which God created for this programmed dimension which we are living in. Now, also think of the word "perfect"; what is considered perfect to you may not be considered perfect to someone else, let alone God. From this, we can understand that these two constructs are marvelous and miraculous. They are not to be thought of as something that a "Higher Power" would not have created. They are not to be thought of as constructs which are not perfect.

It says in Genesis 1:1; "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The "Big Bang" may have been God's way of created it, just as a programmer may use one programming language over another or even one code construct over another, each ultimately having the same end-product. It doesn't say in the Bible how "the heavens and the Earth" were created. What makes you think anyone would have understood it. Considering the fact that only now in the late 20th century on into the 21st century are we now only really beginning to understand God's workshop. It would be silly to think that the Bible should have read like a 21st century Biology, Ecology, or any scientific textbook.

Edited by luv2increase, 17 November 2008 - 03:34 PM.


#36 Brainbox

  • Guest
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 17 November 2008 - 04:08 PM

Bio-Diversity... Isn't it amazing? Think of God as a programmer. Think of Biodiversity and Evolution as program modules which God created for this programmed dimension which we are living in. Now, also think of the word "perfect"; what is considered perfect to you may not be considered perfect to someone else, let alone God. From this, we can understand that these two constructs are marvelous and miraculous. They are not to be thought of as something that a "Higher Power" would not have created. They are not to be thought of as constructs which are not perfect.

Yes, I agree. And Bio-Diversity is also the cornerstone of evolution, combined with selective processes.
But, I also see some light in your reasoning as it develops, are you suggesting that god created evolution? :)

Edited by Brainbox, 17 November 2008 - 05:35 PM.


#37 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 17 November 2008 - 05:47 PM

I'm with Brainbox, your argument seems to be changing. In the first post it was standard creationism, now you're arguing standard intelligent design in the framework of accepted evolutionary theory?

Edited by shepard, 17 November 2008 - 05:48 PM.


#38 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:24 PM

One can still safely argue that God's hand is behind the evolutionary process, I suppose, but it sure looks like evolution did occur, as did teh big bang, etc.


Yup, still safe in that arguement, I suppose. Or not. Sure looks like it occurred. But who knows. You got teh big bang, you got teh fossil record, but you got teh hand of god too. It's a 12 of one, half-dozen of the other, good point.


The internet is screening out whether you're genuinely agreeing with me or being sarcastic here, so forgive me if I'm quibbling unnecessarily! I'm not saying that God is behind all these phenomena. I'm just saying that God is on a different ontological plane than matter, energy, space, etc. so no scientific experiment or observational data can either suggest or refute God's existence. Where you and I see a bunch of photons and massive particles interacting based on physical laws, some people see the ubiquitous guiding hand of a supreme being.

Scientific and theological propositions are epistemologically distinct, and shouldn't be comingled (or else you get intelligent design taught in teh classroom :) )

#39 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 18 November 2008 - 01:34 PM

Leave this discussion for those whom want to be serious about it.


There's no way to discuss fantasy seriously.

Edited by Moonbeam, 18 November 2008 - 01:34 PM.


#40 luv2increase

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 18 November 2008 - 03:25 PM

Leave this discussion for those whom want to be serious about it.


There's no way to discuss fantasy seriously.



Maybe some just do not have the intellect and philosophical insight?



My position has not changed. I do not care what the core beliefs of intelligent design are; they probably change from denomination to denomination anyways. I do not believe in denominations, dogmas, or creeds. I do not care what the core beliefs of evolution are. I am a realist and believe that each and every word in the Holy Bible is the infallible truth. When it says that God created everything, I believe it. I believe that the way in which He did it was perfect and all for Him. The world we live in is for His glory. Think of it as a test. If one pasts the test by believing God sent his Son to be crucified in order for us to obtain salvation and for the Holy Spirit to dwell in His bride, and Jesus arose from the dead, and you be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; you will enter the gates of Heaven ultimately passing the test.

Think of everything around you as a mirage. It isn't real. It is only clutter trying to keep your mind off of God. If you notice, God is becoming less and less a part of peoples' lives. Also, religions are altering the Word of God and going against what the Bible teaches. This is AntiChrist. This is Satan's Eden. When there is no one left who is to be saved, what reason would God have in letting this world to continue on? There isn't one. That is when His second coming will take place, the Rapture.

Back to the topic at hand; I believe some aspects of Evolution are true such as the belief of the survival of the fittest. I don't believe, however, that one species can evolve into another. It says in Genesis that God created every creature in the sea and land. The fossil records that we have that scientists claim are of one species in time in their transition into another are just that of a creature who was already here. It says in the Bible that everything comes forth from its own kind. This means a pig comes from a pig. A lion from a lion, etc...

Here are some sources of this information:

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


From this one can see that everything was already created in the beginning.

Let's take an example of marijuana. I know there are several different strains of marijuana. I know that their are new strains of marijuana being formed almost daily by people crossing older strains. This does not contradict what the Bible says though because you have to remember that marijuana is marijuana. This same reasoning can be applied to other plants as well. It isn't that new ones evolved in the sense as evolution says though because they are always after their own kind.

#41 bran319

  • Guest
  • 175 posts
  • 6

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:43 PM

luv2increase--

Taking your statement into consideration about the Holy Bible being the infallible truth do you also take a literalist stance to the Bible and believe that the earth and heavens were created in 7 days?

#42 luv2increase

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:56 PM

luv2increase--

Taking your statement into consideration about the Holy Bible being the infallible truth do you also take a literalist stance to the Bible and believe that the earth and heavens were created in 7 days?



Scripture Declares the Days to be Long

Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:

1. The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.
2. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
3. The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."
4. In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:

For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

5. The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).
6. The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
7. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.
8. The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.
9. The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalms 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).


Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long

The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research.

All of this biblical and historical evidence has led us to conclude that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24 hour days, but long periods of time during which God chose to create different species of life.


Appearance of Age

If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character (7). The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness (8). God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9).

Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.

Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.


Appearance of Age Rebuttals

Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."

Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.

Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.


http://www.godandsci...h/longdays.html

Edited by luv2increase, 18 November 2008 - 05:08 PM.


#43 bran319

  • Guest
  • 175 posts
  • 6

Posted 18 November 2008 - 05:31 PM

Ok, I'll assume that you are in agreement with the qoutes you posted then. I'm aware of those verses and the early church view on the subject, I was just curious as to your personal view in light of the former statement I used for context. Thanks.

#44 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 18 November 2008 - 07:04 PM

It says in the Bible that everything comes forth from its own kind. This means a pig comes from a pig. A lion from a lion, etc...


So are sterile hybrids from The Dark Lord?

DCLXVI

#45 luv2increase

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 18 November 2008 - 07:31 PM

It says in the Bible that everything comes forth from its own kind. This means a pig comes from a pig. A lion from a lion, etc...


So are sterile hybrids from The Dark Lord?

DCLXVI




Notice they are sterile, therefore, they cannot produce anything of themselves. It was a good question though.

#46 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 18 November 2008 - 08:00 PM

It says in the Bible that everything comes forth from its own kind. This means a pig comes from a pig. A lion from a lion, etc...


So are sterile hybrids from The Dark Lord?

DCLXVI




Notice they are sterile, therefore, they cannot produce anything of themselves. It was a good question though.


there are non sterile hybrids

#47 luv2increase

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 18 November 2008 - 08:14 PM

It says in the Bible that everything comes forth from its own kind. This means a pig comes from a pig. A lion from a lion, etc...


So are sterile hybrids from The Dark Lord?

DCLXVI




Notice they are sterile, therefore, they cannot produce anything of themselves. It was a good question though.


there are non sterile hybrids



Hybrids for what? Be specific here. Are you saying without man's influence? Are you saying there are non sterile hybrids between something like a lion and a pig or a dog and a cat? Be specific.

#48 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 18 November 2008 - 11:59 PM

Maybe some just do not have the intellect and philosophical insight?


Good point.

I am a realist and believe that each and every word in the Holy Bible is the infallible truth.


Think of everything around you as a mirage. It isn't real. It is only clutter trying to keep your mind off of God.



#49 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 November 2008 - 12:23 AM

Hybrids for what? Be specific here. Are you saying without man's influence? Are you saying there are non sterile hybrids between something like a lion and a pig or a dog and a cat? Be specific.


Female ligers and tigons as well as the occasional mule can reproduce.

ugh. This is my last post in your fantasy thread.

#50 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 19 November 2008 - 02:56 AM

Female ligers and tigons as well as the occasional mule can reproduce.

ugh. This is my last post in your fantasy thread.


But since the male hybrids are sterile the women folk have to mate with a regular lion and tiger and breed out the evil in a few generations.



#51 luv2increase

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 19 November 2008 - 03:21 AM

Hybrids for what? Be specific here. Are you saying without man's influence? Are you saying there are non sterile hybrids between something like a lion and a pig or a dog and a cat? Be specific.


Female ligers and tigons as well as the occasional mule can reproduce.

ugh. This is my last post in your fantasy thread.




Are they not all considered cats? Am I missing something here? I know it hurts being wrong, but you can do better than that, or maybe I have assumed wrong in this instance?


No one is telling you to keep posting in my thread. I sure don't appreciate you calling it a fantasy though. That hurts my feelings :)

If I could have the luck of getting one more post from you filled with your fantasy discerning wisdom, could you please elaborate of the errors rather than just calling it a "fantasy thread" and leaving it as that?

I would be extremely "enlightened" if you would...



edit: I was just thinking again; you all know how that goes... Seeming that we have all come to agree that life can only reproduce after its own kind, how in the world did mammals evolve from non-mammals, let alone into mammals not of themselves? I would bet that none of you would care to answer this question because it may be too disturbing to your thinking :)

Edited by luv2increase, 19 November 2008 - 03:36 AM.


#52 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 November 2008 - 03:42 AM

I was just thinking again; you all know how that goes... Seeming that we have all come to agree that life can only reproduce after its own kind, how in the world did mammals evolve from non-mammals, let alone into mammals not of themselves? I would bet that none of you would care to answer this question because it may be too disturbing to your thinking


this is exactly what I mean by fantasy.

#53 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 19 November 2008 - 03:43 AM

Indeed.

#54 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 19 November 2008 - 03:59 AM

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a platypus maybe it is just a marsupial.

#55 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 19 November 2008 - 04:00 AM

It doesn't matter what anyone says, as there is always a religious argument to be made to counter it. See also: George Lucas when anyone brings up plot holes in the Star Wars franchise.

Anyway, mammalian evolution is the best documented macroevolution present in the fossil record. But, you don't believe in fossils, so it doesn't matter. You claim to have been a biology major in college, did you not take any evolution courses? Because, they pretty much cover the scientific stance on the questions you're bringing up in all this deep thought you're doing.

#56 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 19 November 2008 - 04:32 AM

Are they not all considered cats? Am I missing something here?


Yes, you are missing something.

Cats do not exist as a scientific nomenclature. Do you mean felines?

Felines are not even a species they are a family, the family of mammals known as felidae.

Did you know they share a common ancestor with canines?

Another distinct family of mammal species. Please note in this instance the plural form of species is written the same way as the singular but I am referring to the many species within the various genera of the family of felines.

Hence not just the family of felines but the family of canines are linked yet they can no longer interbreed, however many felines can interbreed with other felines and many canines can interbreed with other canines. Most of this reflects genetic divergence and has left a distinct record not only in the fossils (transition ones as well BTW) all around the world but in the GENETIC record that is being deciphered like an ancient lost language, revealing even more significant evidence of evolution.

The point is that mammals (mammalia) are a class in the phylum of chordata, which is below a kingdom and above the order known as carnivora. Both felines and canines are carnivora but that is also when they diverge into distinct families. After that they are still broken down further into genus before being again divided into species.

For example:

The generic name is written with an initial upper-case letter, the species name is in lower case, e.g. Canis lupus is the Grey wolf's scientific name, Canis (dog) and lupus (wolf).


Here is the explanation in more detail:

Types and genera

Because of the rules of scientific naming, or "nomenclature", each genus must have a designated type species (see Type (zoology) ) which defines the genus; the generic name is permanently associated with the type specimen of its type species. Should this specimen turn out to be assignable to another genus, the genus name linked to it becomes a junior synonym, and the remaining taxa in the now-invalid genus need to be reassessed. See scientific classification and Nomenclature Codes for more details of this system. Also see type genus.Binomial Nomenclature

The present system of binomial nomenclature identifies each species by a scientific name of two words, Latin in form and usually derived from Greek or Latin roots. The first name (capitalized) is the genus of the organism, the second (not capitalized) is its species. The scientific name of the white oak is Quercus alba, while red oak is Quercus rubra. The first name applies to all species of the genus—Quercus is the name of all oaks—but the entire binomial applies only to a single species. Many scientific names describe some characteristic of the organism (alba=white; rubra=red); many are derived from the name of the discoverer or the geographic location of the organism. Genus and species names are always italicized when printed; the names of other taxa (families, etc.) are not. When a species (or several species of the same genus) is mentioned repeatedly, the genus may be abbreviated after its first mention, as in Q. alba. Subspecies are indicated by a trinomial; for example, the southern bald eagle is Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus, as distinguished from the northern bald eagle, H. leucocephalus washingtoniensis.


The other point is that we are finding that more and more species will interbreed in the wild, especially when under survival threat for their species and thus preserve their genetics in hybrids. This is true for plants and true for animals. The phenomenon is not to be confused with convergent evolution though, as that only describes the phenotypic characteristics of a species, not the genetics. However when these bottlenecks occur if the hybrids do not die out during the extinction threat then they adapt and eventually start to breed true to the now successfully adapted form.

#57 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 19 November 2008 - 05:47 AM

It never ceases to confuse me that people who readily understand that you can selectively breed wolves into chihuahuas, but cannot believe that an ape can be bred into a human (which shares 99.9% of its dna...)

Luv, if you confront all scientific evidence with: "nuh uh, God says otherwise!", how are we supposed to get anywhere?

#58 luv2increase

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 19 November 2008 - 10:54 AM

It doesn't matter what anyone says, as there is always a religious argument to be made to counter it. See also: George Lucas when anyone brings up plot holes in the Star Wars franchise.

Anyway, mammalian evolution is the best documented macroevolution present in the fossil record. But, you don't believe in fossils, so it doesn't matter. You claim to have been a biology major in college, did you not take any evolution courses? Because, they pretty much cover the scientific stance on the questions you're bringing up in all this deep thought you're doing.



You believe in the information taught in those courses and/or chapters of books as 100% truth, yet they are only theories. Now, you call me believing in the Bible as pitiful? I beg to differ :)

Ah, the fossil record. Did I not say in a previous post that all was created in the beginning? Yes, I did. This would include, obviously, all those fossils which are and were discovered. There is no such thing as life evolving into other life. It just is not seen in nature. If all you have to theorize off of is some chapter in a textbook which is ever changing, then that just isn't right. You are grasping the ideas of man like if you were to question those unproven ideas, you would be questioning your own intelligence... You are forfeiting your wannabe scientific nature.


One thing beautiful about the Holy Word is that it never changes. Sure, you may have different translations, but the words never change. It was set in stone before the foundations of the world.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

How wonderful it is to believe in an absolute! If you believe in God, you have to believe in the Word as well.

Edited by luv2increase, 19 November 2008 - 11:07 AM.


#59 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 19 November 2008 - 01:08 PM

You believe in the information taught in those courses and/or chapters of books as 100% truth, yet they are only theories. Now, you call me believing in the Bible as pitiful? I beg to differ :)


You still don't understand what science is about and don't understand the meaning of the word "theory" when used in science.

Edited by shepard, 19 November 2008 - 01:08 PM.


#60 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 November 2008 - 01:26 PM

do you have an axis 1 diagnosis?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users