Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Peon

Why are we naked?

Recommended Posts

Precisly Theory are not proven compleatly the supposedly have enough evidnce for "evolution" i would recomend reading the book Darwins Black box!!! if u have not read it it explains that something as "simple" as blood clotting is not explainable with evolution. Darwin took what is called an incorrect Extrapolation which is ment to only take small guesses.

The only reason evolution isn't presented entirely as fact is because we haven't got a time machine to go prove it definitively. Irreducible complexity, as you have made a reference to, is false; read http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html

 

 

Do you have any idea how much energy goes into keeping the sun hot? that allone should give u an idea of why the earth and sun cannt be millions of years old!!

Do you have any idea how huge the Sun is?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

 

 

Carbon dating is accurate up to a certain time. do you even know how carbon dating works?

Yes, I do. Carbon dating is accurate to about 50,000 years ago. It has been tested and compared with tree-ring data, as well as observations of radioactive decay, and it is very accurate up to that point.

 

Shells have been found in all rock layers (if evolution where true then there shouldnt be). there has never been any real physical evidence for evolution

a) What's wrong with shells in all fossil layers? Perhaps they're well adapted so they don't have to evolve anymore.

b) You didn't read my link to plenty of evidence for evolution.

 

Scientist have not been able to succesfully create the protiens needed for DNA admitadly this does not prove that evolution is not true. there are 200 proteins in the DNA they are all different

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

 

i belive also Evolution says that there was a big bang. how would this be so in the vacuum of space??? out side of galexies there is NOTHING so how would there even be able to be a big bang??

You're a moron. Evolution says NOTHING about the Big Bang. Nothing. Please understand what you're trying to argue against before you make a fool of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a moron. Evolution says NOTHING about the Big Bang. Nothing.[/b'] Please understand what you're trying to argue against before you make a fool of yourself.
He already swallowed that bullet with his first post.

 

Do you have any idea how huge the Sun is?
ALso consider that it's so friggin' enormous that it takes thousands or even tens of millions of years for the energy to reach the surface from where it's produced. Just the time it takes light to reach the surface at it's quickest is 11 thousand years longer than the common six thousand year old young earth extreme literal creationists favor.

 

Yes, I do. Carbon dating is accurate to about 50,000 years ago. It has been tested and compared with tree-ring data, as well as observations of radioactive decay, and it is very accurate up to that point.
Not to mention that other equally effective dating methods can be used to trace even further back.

 

Shells have been found in all rock layers (if evolution where true then there shouldnt be). there has never been any real physical evidence for evolution

Fellbeast; please explain why this means what you claim it does so we can know what variation of absurdity you're clinging to so that we might better beat some actual information into you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and i suppose you read carefully the first paragraph talking about carbon dating

It's rather difficult when I can't understand your grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azure Phoenix, If evolution where true then there shouldnt be shell fish found in all rock layers(becouse they all are the same)

 

 

Cap'n Refsmmat the first paragraph in your carbon dating article says that SOMETIMES carbon dating is wrong and that if younger C-12 and older C-12 are mixed it couses the readings to be inacurate. tree ring dating is also faulty( becouse of the way tree rings are made)

 

 

This is from Darwins Black Box The Bio Chemical Challenge to Evolution :Behe has identified a number of biochemical systems that he says are 'irreducibly complex'. An irreducibly complex system is one made of well matched interacting parts that all contribute to the basic function. Take any one of them away, and the whole system stops working. A mouse-trap is an example of an irreducibly complex system - if you take any single part away, the trap does not work, and the mouse escapes. Behe says that such irreducibly complex biochemical systems could not be formed by a series of small changes, because the intermediate systems would not work.

Check this website out http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azure Phoenix, If evolution where true then there shouldnt be shell fish found in all rock layers(becouse they all are the same)
That's simply absurd. The shellfish seen in rock layers DO change throughout eras, and even if they didn't, they don't have to change, there's nothing saying they do. Even say they did evolve into something else; the "parent" species wouldn't necessarily go extinct, leaving living shellfish. This argument of your simply ISN'T an argument at all; it's a childishly stupid grasping of malformed straws.

 

This is from Darwins Black Box The Bio Chemical Challenge to Evolution
You say that as if this source held anymore weight than your hole-riddled brain. I would like to point out that Capn gave you a link earlier to a source explaining why this irreducable complexity crap is nothing more than a pile of stinking garbage. The fact that you're still arguing it means you didn't take the time to read it, which tells me that you don't even care try to understand the concept at all, just that you wish to make others accept your "truth" whether or not it's argument is even remotely accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellbeast, the age of the sun is a matter of basic physics. I am curious how much of basic science you think is wrong, so far it sounds like:

 

Astronomy (the amount of time it takes to form planets, stars, etc)

Cosmology (the evidence supporting a very long history to the universe)

Classical Physics (mass of the sun by volume and how much hydrogen fuel it actually contains)

Nuclear Physics (ie, how the sun can turn hydrogen into helium and release so much energy)

Evolutionary Biology (if all mutations are negative or neutral, I guess the evolutionists still have credibility simply because they never went up against a genius like yourself who could point out such a simple flaw in their work)

Geology (again, the age issue)

 

...to start with. It sounds to me like those disiciples have really simplistic reasons why they are simply and incontravertably flawed, yet somehow people still dedicate whole lives to those fields.

 

So, how is it that people of science can be so dumb as to be so wrong about so many things, and yet we can send probes to mars, collect samples from comets, and the computer you yourself are using doesn't fissle and blink out?

 

 

I am not saying you should accept scientific findings at face value, but have some respect for what the disciplines have accomplished and put more thought into your arguments. If you think you have found a really simple reason why evolution cannot be true, then see who else has asked that and find the rebuttals, and make a great effort to understand them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azure Phoenix, If evolution where true then there shouldnt be shell fish found in all rock layers(becouse they all are the same)

Even if what you are saying is correct (I can't find references), one example does not make the whole theory wrong.

 

Cap'n Refsmmat the first paragraph in your carbon dating article says that SOMETIMES carbon dating is wrong and that if younger C-12 and older C-12 are mixed it couses the readings to be inacurate. tree ring dating is also faulty( becouse of the way tree rings are made)

a) Sometimes does not invalidate all carbon dating results. Many readings have been validated with others sources, such as other objects found in the same location and such.

b) Expain to me how tree ring dating is faulty.

 

This is from Darwins Black Box The Bio Chemical Challenge to Evolution :Behe has identified a number of biochemical systems that he says are 'irreducibly complex'. An irreducibly complex system is one made of well matched interacting parts that all contribute to the basic function. Take any one of them away, and the whole system stops working. A mouse-trap is an example of an irreducibly complex system - if you take any single part away, the trap does not work, and the mouse escapes. Behe says that such irreducibly complex biochemical systems could not be formed by a series of small changes, because the intermediate systems would not work.

a) Irreducible complexity is an argument from incredulity - "I can't imagine any way thing x could have evolved, so it couldn't have happened.

b) A reducibly complex mousetrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellbeast, your reasoned and obviously well informed arguments have totally changed my mind. I now believe the theory of evolution by natural selection to be work of Satan and have put everything down to the behaviour of a superior being I like to call God.

 

You are possibly the world's most intelligent person. Have you ever considered getting published?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people in this thread still naked.

Put some clothes on for crying out loud.

 

Definitely one of the funnest threads.

Which came first, the skinny dipping, or the blushing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you know what ENTROPY is? If not here is the definition Entropy-A measure of the disorder that exists in any system. How does this apply to there theory of evolution? Well you first have to look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What is this law? Well here it is The Second Law of Thermodynamics- The entropy of the universe MUST allways stay the same or increase. It can never decrease. How is this applicable to evolution? Well, if an advanced species(which is highly ordered) did evolve from a simple species(which is less ordered), then that organism would have, indeed, experienced a decrease in entropy. To make this consistent with the seconed law of thermodyanmics, then the organisms surroundings would have had to become more disordered so that the decrease in entropy of the organism could be offset. This is the only way evolution can be consistent with the seconed law of thermodyanmics.

 

Thus suppose a single-celled creature where to evolve into a cell that would cooperate with other cells. Evolutionists will tell you that this can happen if the cell's DNA were to undergo a mutation that would make the DNA a little more advanced. The problem is that the very instant that DNA mutated and became more ordered, there would have to be a corisponding increase in entropyin the organisms surroundings so the the total entropy of the universe would still increase or stay the same. No scientist can come up with a single idea of as to how that can happen. As far as anyone can tell, mutating DNA does not significantly increase the entropy of the surroundings.

 

So you see that the seconed law of thermodynamics doesnt really disprove evolution, but it does put some pretty strong conditions on it. The seconed saws that if evolution where to occure, then each step of that evolution must be accopanied by an immediate increase in the entropy of the surroundings. If anyone ever comes up with a mechanism by which this might happen, evolution could at least be made consistent with the seconed law of thermodynamics. Currently no one can come up with even a vague notion as how to this might happen. As a result, the current theories of evolutionare not consisten with the seconed law. this does not meen that the seconed law disproves these theories, however. It just meen that no one has come up with a proper mechanism for which this can happen. my personal opinion is that there is no such one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entropy refers to heat and such, not evolution. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellbeast.

For every mutation leading to an increase in organisation in a living organism, there are a thousand leading to a decrease. The second law of thermodynamics is not the least bit threatened by evolution. The total entropy of the universe increases.

 

I have just picked up this thread, and see 110 postings. Being too lazy to read all 110, I am going to present my answer to the original query, and hope no-one else has beaten me to it.

 

Why are humans naked? In other words, functionally hairless (mostly).

In a word; technology. Very primitive technology to be sure.

 

Explanations I have seen include the aquatic life, the benefits of removing parasites, and the benefits of cooling the body.

 

The first idea fails on the question : "why are there no marine pre-human fossils?" The sea is an ideal site for fossilisation, and if we had spent enough time fishing in the shallows, a number of our ancestors would have died there. Most pre-human fossils would be in marine sediments. It ain't so.

 

The second and third ideas are good, but fail to address a more important issue. Fine for conferring benefits, but how do they overcome the major detriment? Humans are the only terrestrial mammal in our size range to be functionally hairless. Any benefit related to parasites or cooling surely would apply to other animals, which would also evolve hairlessness. They did not.

 

The problem with becoming hairless, despite the advantages, is that it leaves the organism vulnerable to low temperatures. Even in equatorial areas, it sometimes gets so cold in the early morning, that death by hypothermia is almost inevitable, without a good coat of fur.

 

To gain the benefits of lacking hair, first the organism must overcome the vulnerability to cold. For humans, the answer is technology, no matter how basic. It may have taken the form of nests of composting plants that our ancestors covered themselves with in cold mornings. or some form of basic clothing? Or fire?

 

Once an alternate method of keeping warm is present, then evolution to hairlessness becomes an adaptive advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entropy does actually apply to evolution. Hence the fact that our genome is 4 billion bp rather than less than much less than 1 billion. However, AiG has misinformed yet another person. Entropy always increases (it's actually never neutral), but not always at the maximum rate. If that were true, there would be no crystals on this planet. And yet there are. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, which is what makes this argument so stupid.

 

And there are many proofs of how entropy can act in an open system to increase complexity, which I'm not going to post because Fellbeast won't read it or synthesize it in any way. I just pray to the God who doesn't exist that you never vote, Fellbeast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in terms of the original point of this thread (which, again, I'm not surprised that Fellbeast failed to understand), there is also the runaway sexual selection hypothesis.

 

Because nearly all land mammals in every environment possible have fur, and we don't. Just as no other birds beside the peacock have >1m tailfeathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well here it is The Second Law of Thermodynamics- The entropy of the universe MUST allways stay the same or increase. It can never decrease.

Um no it does not mean that at all. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, as JustStuit said, is to do with heat, to explain macroscopic irreversibility of isolated systems which aren't at thermal equilibrium. This is stuff you learn in your first year of a physics degree, and interpreting it in the way creationists are quickly become famous for is laughable and only goes to show a lack of education on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is true that the seconed law is aplicable to heat but no where does it say that is all. have any of u read the article on fox about how people have supposedly found that common fish ancestor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is true that the seconed law is aplicable to heat but no where does it say that is all. have any of u read the article on fox about how people have supposedly found that common fish ancestor?

Well that's like me saying "all peaches taste like apples" when i've never tried a peach before;

It might be completely true (hypothetically) but I have no way of knowing that.

The law was defined for one purpose and to twist that purpose into something completely unrelated isn't something I think is very productive at all.

 

Yeah I saw the article, pretty cool stuff :)

Add it to the collection of evidence for evolution :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't apply a theory to an area it wasn't developed or tested in. You would have to prove that it also applies there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...so after reading 6 pages I found no argument that looked into our actual recorded history to determine how we arrived at who we are today.

 

While I do NOT consider myself a creationist, I am a historian. There are problems, in my mind, with saying evolution or adaptation were the sole causes for our present condition. These stances ignore the possibility that we may have been acted upon by an outside force, as our religious/historical texts indicate: "...Sons of God saw daughters of men, and that they were beautiful, and they took wives of which they chose..." Then the giants, men of renown thing.

 

While I refuse to take such tales at their face value, I think it likely that there was some truth to these tales, as evident in what and who we are compared to our wild primate cousins.

 

What's sexy about the hairless shivering guy, who kills animals to use their rotting skin for cover? It literally makes no sense to lose our hair/protective covering, only to harvest one from another animal. And have you ever wondered why even really hairy folk, lack the 'complete' hair suit? Why is the neck almost always bald? My italian uncle had a very full beard, head of hair, and enough arm, leg, and back hair to slightly cover 3 men, but his neck had the fine short invisible hair.

 

And why are there NEVER any reports of a hairless bigfoot, another bipedal primate who evolved right along side us (if they exist, I mean)?

 

MAYBE, just maybe we WERE set apart from other animals, and made part of some selective breeding program...?

 

I've read much on Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man. One NOT having given rise to the other (sure maybe some interbreeding), but that they both evolved independently. That said, these two lines are VERY different, in both appearance and lifestyle. Which means that Cro-Magnon made a dramatic 'leap' forward at the same time Neanderthals were just mastering fire, and fashioning crude animals skins for clothing. Cro-Magnon wore tailored clothes and jewelry, while Neanderthals were wearing draped untanned rotting animal skins.

 

And they both came from an even less evolved line...?

 

What 'I' propose is that our history contains the solution. While evolution and adaptation have clearly brought us a long way, there has been another influence...a "heavenly" one. At some point in our ancient past, we were nudged forward, while other lines were left to their own devices.

 

There are NO other bald primates. It isn't functional 'in the wild'. We were brought in from the outside and domesticated. Animalism was shown and proven to be less effective than the new order.

 

Again EVERY report of a bigfoot is of a 'hairy' bipedal tall thing. They are NEVER reported as wearing clothes, or being hairless.

 

Evolution alone won't account for what we are today, when we begin comparing us to our wild cousins. Something's missing...

 

Once again, Science is ignoring History at the peril of actual truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.