Evolution vs Creation

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

There must be good money in misleading the uneducated. Seems to be a few of them making a living at it.

They are misleading the educated. They prey on the fiction that what is true for one field of study is automatically true for another.

Physics has hard and fast mathematical models. Biology does not because there are so many variables. They have biological mathematical models such as Hardy Weinberg equilibrium that have direct applications to evolution and public health.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by JD848

I know there is billions if not trillions of stars and planets,if you think there there for the heck of it fine,i would like to know who put them there.

Not a matter of a billion years or what ever how did this all come to be and who can say I am right or wrong,plus I have no answer to it all,but I just don't think a monkey made this whole deal and made such a vast universe ,some higher power or intelligence made this happen,what who and how did this is the 99 dollar question and answer,most guys don't know how the camera is put into there cell phones and what is hid under the sahara desert,but yet can tell you when this and that became to be,the FBI worked liked crazy to figure out how to reboot an iphone to get info out of it,but then there's wacko's that know who think they know when it all began.

These same guys don't know where the sidewalk ends and the road begins,so go figure,this topic can go on longer than my computer or yours will last,all I know for sure is that if you look straight down and not move your looking at the center of the planet,same thing if your sitting on the toilet ,the water turns clock wise and below the equator it turns counter clockwise,but it's still the center if you focus hard enough.

No it doesn't. More stupid made up crap that takes a nugget of science and spins it into fiction. And the rest of your post is gibberish.

[Bonescreek]

I have one of 2 thoughts.

1 If there is life out there and they are happy why would even spend time
to think about coming here ?

2 If it's true the universe is expanding then that would mean mars was earth
a long time ago, when it was in earths orbit from the sun.
If that's true then earth should move out soon into mars's orbit and let venus
expand it's orbit to become the new earth planet.

And so it goes on.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by sjemac

No it doesn't. More stupid made up crap that takes a nugget of science and spins it into fiction. And the rest of your post is gibberish.

Pretty sure it's the angle the water is shot into the toilet that creates the direction of spin. Not whether or not you're in Australia.

X2 on the gibberish. You didn't happen to take a double dose of NyQuil before typing that did you? Iol

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Where did you read that?
There are three recognized species currently alive in the wild in Canada today by biologists .

Really! And what species are those?

Black Grizzly and Polar right?

Only that's not correct according to science.

[Bonescreek]

Wow, you guys are serious about bears and toilets.
Think I'll bow out of this one.

I was only jokin' my friend. -- rod stweart.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Bonescreek

I have one of 2 thoughts.

1 If there is life out there and they are happy why would even spend time
to think about coming here ?

2 If it's true the universe is expanding then that would mean mars was earth
a long time ago, when it was in earths orbit from the sun.
If that's true then earth should move out soon into mars's orbit and let venus
expand it's orbit to become the new earth planet.

And so it goes on.

No. We are held in orbit by the sun. So Mars has been Mars and earth is earth. Because our existence is based on our sun. Relative to the sun both Mars and earth have always held the same positions.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Really! And what species are those?

Black Grizzly and Polar right?

Only that's not correct according to science.

So explain. I'm on the 3 species band wagon as an experienced wildlife biologist.

[sjemac]

.............

[JD848]

Originally Posted by sjemac

No it doesn't. More stupid made up crap that takes a nugget of science and spins it into fiction. And the rest of your post is gibberish.

I am very happy to see you caught on to this,so please give the correct answer because I don't have a clue,plus if you can't laugh at what you don't know nothing about like I am doing ,how can you answer with an exact answer.Don't get your feathers to ruffled,this is not do or die,it's just a topic on AO plus the end of the universe starts after your response,Cheers.All BS a side tell us exactly when it began and where it will end,give or take a few years so I can figure out weather to buy new optics and ming my new truck or pay of my credit cards.

Don't worry be happy,nothing lasts for ever,every beginning has and end,it just depends on how long and that is it,if you spin fiction does that cause friction ,only if it makes contact and that's not gibberish,thinking your right is gibberish the rest of this is just a bit of humour,nothing else.

[jcurl]

dd

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by sjemac

So explain. I'm on the 3 species band wagon as an experienced wildlife biologist.

You are an experianced wildlife biologist and you don't know that Grizzly are a subspecies, not a species!!!!!

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by JD848

I am very happy to see you caught on to this,so please give the correct answer because I don't have a clue,plus if you can't laugh at what you don't know nothing about like I am doing ,how can you answer with an exact answer.Don't get your feathers to ruffled,this is not do or die,it's just a topic on AO plus the end of the universe starts after your response,Cheers.All BS a side tell us exactly when it began and where it will end,give or take a few years so I can figure out weather to buy new optics and ming my new truck or pay of my credit cards.

Don't worry be happy,nothing lasts for ever,every beginning has and end,it just depends on how long and that is it,if you spin fiction does that cause friction ,only if it makes contact and that's not gibberish,thinking your right is gibberish the rest of this is just a bit of humour,nothing else.

I don't know where it began. I don't know where it ends. You may have 500 billion years or you may have 10 seconds. It is a roll of the dice.

Some people need to have all the answers. And if they aren't there they put them in place with other beliefs systems.

Between the beginning iand the end however, evolution is certainly a driving force in the change of species.

[JD848]

Originally Posted by sjemac

I don't know where it began. I don't know where it ends. You may have 500 billion years or you may have 10 seconds. It is a roll of the dice.

Some people need to have all the answers. And if they aren't there they put them in place with other beliefs systems.

Between the beginning iand the end however, evolution is certainly a driving force in the change of species.

Thank you very much and do I believe you are right on your answer,i hope I get this message out in time.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

You are an experianced wildlife biologist and you don't know that Grizzly are a subspecies, not a species!!!!!

Brown bear/grizzly are interchangeable in biologist circles. That is why we use scientific names not common names . Ursus arctos, Ursus americanus, and Ursus maritimus are our three species if you want to be a douche and split hairs.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Brown bear/grizzly are interchangeable in biologist circles. That is why we use scientific names not common names . Ursus arctos, Ursus americanus, and Ursus maritimus are our three species if you want to be a douche and split hairs.

I was under the impression that polar and grizzly bears were at one time the same but over time, evolved to the conditions they are in today. Is that correct or false?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Brown bear/grizzly are interchangeable in biologist circles. That is why we use scientific names not common names . Ursus arctos, Ursus americanus, and Ursus maritimus are our three species if you want to be a douche and split hairs.

Actually if you want to split hairs it is Ursus arctos horribilis, Ursus americanus and Ursus maritimus.

At least that's what AEP says.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Actually if you want to split hairs it is Ursus arctos horribilis, Ursus americanus and Ursus maritimus.

At least that's what AEP says.

This may appear to be a derail but I participated because it demonstrates very well what I consider to be a big part of the problem in the debate between creation and evolution.

Science has been unable to come to a consensus on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
They do indeed use Brown Bear and Grizzly interchangeably because they can't make up their minds which is the subspecies..

My point is that if science can not agree on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
Then how are we to believe science knows what the origin of life was.

[bigskinner]

So wheres the mods , if any thread needs to be closed its this one ,

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by sjemac

I think the thing that truly scares me about this debate and holistic medicine and naturopaths and and and... is that charlatans are co-opting the terminology and language of the scientific method to try to endow their superstitions and snake oil with legitimacy. While they talk of science, they aren't actually doing it.

The end result is a fear and distrust of the scientific method. On the light end, people avoid MSG for no reason at all. On the dark end, smallpox comes back because morons won't vaccinate their kids --- but that's another thread – – often beaten to death.

This isn't a discussion about vaccines etc....

What puzzles me is how many great scientists have subscribed to the creation theory, and used science to back up their claims, but yet are called unscientific? They go about their discoveries the same way evolutionists do...

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

please clarify this? Do you mean fossils that appear in several strata before disappearing?

This is really interesting science and its really what we do here in AB with index fossils etc when we are looking for oil.

I mean that one fossil (not one type, but one as in a single) can extend through multiple layers. This has been discovered.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

This may appear to be a derail but I participated because it demonstrates very well what I consider to be a big part of the problem in the debate between creation and evolution.

Science has been unable to come to a consensus on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
They do indeed use Brown Bear and Grizzly interchangeably because they can't make up their minds which is the subspecies..

My point is that if science can not agree on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
Then how are we to believe science knows what the origin of life was.

And there lies the problem...people telling, writing stories, as in the bible, biology reports etc...now you jump on what you believe and follow one, the other, or both...people...the part that is sickening is when people jump on a band wagon and seek to make one all, killing others who don't believe or are walking a different walk...that's the problem....brainwashed people that even though there following or belief is wrong they still follow and do hideous things and then fall back on ohhhhh it's what he wanted...etc

Why can't we just follow our beliefs and be peaceful? Because we are a driven species to hunt, gather, conquer, learn from those we conquer and move on...good thing is that someone is telling us to slow down and enjoy the ride...only learnt usually when you get older and shake your head and say and we all have " what was I thinking back then" if I only new then what I know now I would have done things differently...

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by bigskinner

So wheres the mods , if any thread needs to be closed its this one ,

It's pretty civil so far....

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

This may appear to be a derail but I participated because it demonstrates very well what I consider to be a big part of the problem in the debate between creation and evolution.

Science has been unable to come to a consensus on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
They do indeed use Brown Bear and Grizzly interchangeably because they can't make up their minds which is the subspecies..

My point is that if science can not agree on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
Then how are we to believe science knows what the origin of life was.

That makes a stronger argument for evolution than for creation.

Species are a man-made tool that we use to help classify. Nature doesn't come in categories.

We could decide that all people are black haired, brown haired, ginger or blonde to make classifying them easy - but where do you put a strawberry blonde?

When populations of a species are cut off from one another the theory of evolution predicts that they will drift apart, genetically. When we see a population of a species that doesn't quite fit, that's what we're seeing.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Actually if you want to split hairs it is Ursus arctos horribilis, Ursus americanus and Ursus maritimus.

At least that's what AEP says.

The third name horriblis is the subspecies name denoting grizzly -- 1 of arguably sub species of brown bear that existed or exists in North America.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

This may appear to be a derail but I participated because it demonstrates very well what I consider to be a big part of the problem in the debate between creation and evolution.

Science has been unable to come to a consensus on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
They do indeed use Brown Bear and Grizzly interchangeably because they can't make up their minds which is the subspecies..

My point is that if science can not agree on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
Then how are we to believe science knows what the origin of life was.

They are both sub species. The species is Ursus arctos. That represents all brown bears both in Europe and North America. Names added after the second one are the sub species .

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

This may appear to be a derail but I participated because it demonstrates very well what I consider to be a big part of the problem in the debate between creation and evolution.

Science has been unable to come to a consensus on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
They do indeed use Brown Bear and Grizzly interchangeably because they can't make up their minds which is the subspecies..

My point is that if science can not agree on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
Then how are we to believe science knows what the origin of life was.

I'll answer this because it's what I consider to be part of the problem ... people maybe grab a hold of a small part of an idea without understanding the whole thing. They think they have a gotcha moment and wave it around and trying to use it to prop up their stance without knowing what they're talking about.

I've done it too no worries.

There's some fine examples in this thread of many others doing it.

Sounds like science agrees just fine on how many species of Bear there are.... I still don't think anybody knows where life comes from though.

[58thecat]

Poll is still a 70 to 30....wonder how the world would stack up if a vote was thrown out there?

At one point in evolution of mankind I am sure the numbers were reversed but those were the dark ages...

[alta270]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

This may appear to be a derail but I participated because it demonstrates very well what I consider to be a big part of the problem in the debate between creation and evolution.

Science has been unable to come to a consensus on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
They do indeed use Brown Bear and Grizzly interchangeably because they can't make up their minds which is the subspecies..

My point is that if science can not agree on which brown bear is a subspecies and which is not.
Then how are we to believe science knows what the origin of life was.

The difference between a brown bear and a grizzly is an artificial dividing line in Alaska basically. I recall an incidence relayed to me years ago about a very large grizzly that was tagged in the Wapiti area in the Peace. Three months later it was shot as a brown bear in the Alaska panhandle.

Was it a grizzly in Alberta, but a brown bear in Alaska? No, it was the same species, only local made the difference.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Poll is still a 70 to 30....wonder how the world would stack up if a vote was thrown out there?

At one point in evolution of mankind I am sure the numbers were reversed but those were the dark ages...

I' surprised that the split has been that pretty well all along. Now, take this poll in Idaho or the Southern States, and it might well be the reverse. Frankly, I am a bit surprised how high the creation cohort is.