What almost all scholars agree on is that whoever the beast may be is irrelevant when one simply holds to the principles that the bible teaching when dealing with the beast as with dealing with anyone, thus finding the beast is pointless. Unfortunately, not all Christians are scholars and some like to draw shaky parallels and make accusations without merit.
Your "almost all scholars" are terribly missinformed. The specific scriptures regarding "finding the beast" state clearly that it is neither "pointless" nor "irrelevant". It is actually "wise" to do determine who the beast is and scripture even tells you how to determine who the beast is (calculate the number of his name), which you contradict readily without any references to back up your statement other than a vague reference to "almost all scholars", here's the scriptures your scholars would have to use as the basis of your arguement.
---------
It is not a good thing to get the mark. So avoiding this is important...
Rev 14:9-11
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
Being decieved by the beast and false prophet is directly related to recieving the mark.
Rev 19:20
And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
This says it's _wise_ to determine who the beast is.
Rev. 13:18 Here is wisdom Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.
[/ducks and runs in fear of anti-religious bashing that is about to ensue from non-relgious zealotry in reply to joking about religion with those that do not believe in any religion yet are unable to explain why they are so zealous for their beliefs that they'd spend so much time posting about them but deny their actions are religious... aghh!!]
I'm not trying to spin circles here, I really am trying to understand what everyone sees with this theory. Instead of replying again, here's where I sum up my issue. It's a school/teaching/children/complex science concepts sort of problem.
The reply posted below the parent post is the one I am intending to link to. It starts off like this...
I can at least explain _what_ Pythogarean theorem is. What _is_ evolution? The definition is _required_ as a starting place, without step 1, there is no step 2. You can't possibly expect me to understand any examples of complex bacteria describing evolution without understanding what the definition of evolution is.
Ok, I'm not trying to spin things, I'm not trying to make up arguments just to knock them down, I really do have an issue. I am a parent, I have kids, they are going to be learning science in school. I have a vested interest in what is taught in the schools.
So when I have an issue with what is being taught in the schools, I'd expect that:
1. What the kids are being taught, should be understandable by the parents (ie, me).
2. If I don't understand it, I should be able to have an administrator/teacher (ie, you) explain it to me.
3. If the teacher cannot explain it without a lot of time and tons of reading, then I don't see that it is possible to teach children this in a public classroom.
4. I am a teacher. I teach college students. If I have to have a large book to explain something to adults, then they won't get it.
5. Even with adults you have to teach the most basic priniciples and foundations of an idea before getting to the complex aspects.
6. If I can't explain the simple basic foundations of an idea, there is absolutely no chance of ever teaching the more complex aspects that _require_ understanding of the basics.
Here's how this plays out in grade school.
Teacher: Evolution says when there was single celled organisms, they had to adapt to survive, so they became more complex.
Teacher: Today we have examples of evolution with bacteria adapting to survive in a toxic environment by all the weak one's dying off and the strong reproducing.
Student: Isn't "weak ones dying off" and "become more complex" two totally different concepts?
Teacher: You just don't understand because you aren't a scientist and haven't read tons of books, are in denile, don't want to see the evidence in front of you. Just trust me, I am telling the truth.
This is _exactly_ what I deal with as a teacher. I am presenting arguments to this board that I myself have had as a kid, and yet I am simply told I just don't get it or I am intentionally denying the evidence.
What is the basic foundation of evolution? It seems this is it here. If this is not it, then please post a link to what is. No point in arguing any further without a mutal agreement about what the foundation of the theory of evolution is.
Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?
Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?
No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?
This entire thread is about what is taught in public schools to children. I'm sure if you understand it so well it would be easy to explain the basics of the theory.
Would you agree that this is the definition of evolution?
evolution n.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
The original topic is about teaching this in schools. If this topic is so complex that only extremely educated people can understand it, then it has no place being taught in grade school science.
But, if it can be taught to grade schoolers, I am sure you could explain it to me in less than a paragraph. So far, with the numerous posts on this subject with (I think) 4 people, no one has been able to be clear about what they think evolution is themselves.
I have one issue at the core of it, evolution says a single celled protazoan (from memory here) mutated/morphed/changed, through whatever process to a more complex multicelled organim.
I agree with you, I absolutely do _not_ want ID taught in schools, it's a relgious matter. But I also feel that evolution is so baseless and unproven that it should not be taught in schools either. Every observervation I've been shown that supposedly proves evolution is easily explained as something else entirely.
Keep in mind the massive amounts of fraud that have been foisted on the public to prove evolution. Pure lies were even in my own science books when I was a kid...
I showed your assertion was wrong by providing several examples of organisms that do this. Now you are claiming that this is invalid because it isn't evolution. Again, the typical anti-evolution tactic of moving the goal-posts when somebody shows that you are talking utter rubbish.
You showed me examples of cells that combined/joined/etc.. , _not_ split themselves into multicelled organisms. (as evolution says the very first single celled organisms did)
I wonder why you are discussing this anyways, if you want to educate you would do so, if you want to make someone look dumb you say they don't get it. Which are you really doing here?
The crux of the problem is that you want this theory to be taught in schools, yet you can't even prove it's possible on an extremely simple level. You said "slime moulds combine", they do this all the time, yet they are still slime moulds, they aren't evolving into something new. Rats, bacteria, all the same, they aren't new. They may have a "stronger" ability to deal with something, but then again I pass on traits to my children as well, which include chemical dependencies and resistance to toxin. Still not evolution.
So, no, you really haven't shown that anything can "mutate" into something more complex, only change be refined in it's current state.
yes of course there is, but the thread's issue isn't a debate about whether they exist, only (my point here) there is no proof that a single celled organism can turn into a multi-celled organism, which is the most basic aspect of theory evolution. If this can't happen, then none of the rest of the "evolutions" throughout history could...
btw, I had a logical error in my parent post, I meant to say single celled organisms splitting into 2, not combining. Meaning that a singe celled organism developing into multi-celled.
You said a thing did not exist, and I proved you wrong by citing some examples
What you demonostrated with your example _is not evolution_, therefore is _not an example_ of evolution. Reread my post.
slime moulds change into multi-cellular organisms because they have genetically-coded "behaviour"
Exactly my point, it's already a part of their structure, they do it because that is what they are. The act of them combining is _not_ evolution.
I have already given you examples of evolution, i.e. rats and bacteria evolving immunity to poisons and antibiotics.
I can develope an immunity to poisons as well, this is not evolution.
arguments against a grossly over-simplified
This is the problem for evolution, not the arguments, if you can't prove the most basic aspects of the theory. (one celled organisms becoming more complex) none of your "non-over-simplified" arguments in support have worth. Unless you feel that we can just skip this aspect of evolution and just have faith that this has/does happen...
Your growth from a fertilized egg is a completely obvious example that there is no essential biological barrier to single cells developing into multicellular organisms with NO INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY
You are totally correct, because the egg/sperm _already have_ the DNA needed to make a complete human. That is why humans growing from one cell to a full human isn't evolution. But, the theory of evolution you apply to cells changing into something other than their original form doesn't happen.
Step back and look at this purely from a simple logic issue.
If you are a programmer, trying running this experiment. Make a random text generator, run it for as long as you think is possible (theoretically run it for a million years) and tell me the possibility of it ever spitting out the code needed to display a webpage, or come up with the millions of lines of code it takes to run windows or other complex software.
Then consider size of DNA and what it represents. Look up the statistical number for what is impossible. Compare this with all the steps it would take to even get a basic form of life to change into something more complex.
I will not venture to prove God created life, but I can say without a doubt it only takes some very basic logic to see that complex life was not created through evolution.
If you perceive me as a blockhead, show me some proof that actually is proof. Your current logic only satifies those that already believe in evolution.
You said there were no examples of single celled organisms becoming multi-cellular ones. I then gave you several examples of just such organisms
You gave an example of how a particular set of organisms behave, not how they evolve, two different concepts. The example you gave starts as a mould, and ends as a mould, it has not become something different. If the mould then reproduced as the multi-cellular organism and the offspring were such then perhaps it would be closer, but I doubt this is the case, as you have described the mould to be single cells attaching for mutual benefit, which is a behavior.
Evolution does not claim that you evolved from a collection of single celled organisms into a foetus,
This is _exactly_ what evolution states, only the process started a millions of years ago when all humans were one celled organisms, they just had not yet evolved. Though using the word fetus is a misnomer as it denotes only a specific stage in human developement.
Two of the three types of slime moulds are examples of independent, single-celled organisms
This is interesting (not having known about slime moulds), but considering their actions are consistent, this would only consitute a behavior of the organism, not an aspect of evolution. Fish do this on a larger scale, as do birds (staying flocks) and other animals.
Considering that my body started as one cell at one point (2 actually coming together), then by the definition of evolution I evolved from a single celled organism into a fetus, then into a person...
Based on this concept it seems that the theory is correct, but completely misapplied to something it doesn't actually work with. (ie, new forms of life vs continuing forms of life)
Your argument is seriously confused. Sexual reproduction does not argue for or against evolution per se.
You have 2 single celled organisms that during fertilization completely defy the definition of evolution. You can only argue about opinions, not facts. This is a fact.
An egg and sperm are not viable organisms.
I contest that _any_ one celled organism is a viable organism by the definition of "one celled organism".
We don't classify them as different species.
Classification is purely a documentation of reality. It doesn't change the fact that they are one celled organisms.
Many forms of life, even vertebrates, reproduce asexually.
They certainly do, but this does not invalidate the point that 2 single celled organisms _do_ come together (sexually) to create a more complex organism, which you previously stated no one believes occurs.
No, it was a logical error, I meant to say a single cell organism that split/developed/changes/etc.. into a multicelled organism. (a form of mental dyslexia I feel prone to blame for this...)
I agree with your statement regarding the humans being single cells, but you error'd in your analysis of this. We are actually 2 cells that actually _do_ come together and become one. (sperm + egg) So in effect, my original statement (though I admit it was not what I was thinking) _is_ accurate.
NO ONE BELIEVES THAT SEPARATE, GENETICALLY DIFFERENT, SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS SIMPLY COMBINED TO FORM MULTICELLULAR ORGANISMS
Every single mamal, reptile, fish, etc... is created this way. (sperm+egg) Even flowers and trees reproduce this way. So if what you are saying is true (I would venture to say an egg is quite a bit different than a sperm), then how come there is so much life on this planet that is created this way? You seem to be arguing against your own theories.
It is much more likely that multicellular life first formed because single-celled organisms that reproduced by dividing continued to divide, but without separating into single-celled organism, but forming multicellular colonies. Then, it is a natural step that such colonies would adapt so that different cells could be specialized to perform different functions.
But this idea has never been proved to actually happen, it's a nice idea, but has never been replicated.
Let me clarify again, I think ID is a bogus theory, religion is not a scientific thing to be studied and analyzed. I'm not arguing in support of it.
All you have to do is prove that it's even possible for a single celled organism to change into a more complex, say with 2 cells. Considering this has never been done or proved even remotely possible, the core elements of the theory of evolution are fiction.
grown stronger over time as more and more evidence has been gathered from new, emerging sciences and an ever larger volume from older, more established ones. The fossil record supports it; the genetic record supports it; and observations of living things support it.
None of this matters if simple celled organisms can't evolve into more complex organisms. Observations that _seem_ to support evolution can easily be dismissed as a function of each organism.
All the evolutionist needs to do is prove the basic concepts, the big complex issues can be worded and used by elitists to prove anything us ignorant masses (just look at statistics) so it's not viable proof of anything.
Please don't say we should trust the scientist, and that everyone is telling the truth. The proving of evolution has been full of fraud from the beginning. And this can actually be proved with real evidence.
In the end it seems anyone who believes in evolution can do when debating this is simply state things like "Bring some some real facts to the table". Would I be out of order in asking you to do the same?
If evolution has been proved to be true, there wouldn't be this debate. All it takes is for the scientists of the current world to simply not understand the basic structure of how single cell organisms live for all that data to be meaningless.
We have an incredible capacity for arrogance, thinking we know something. All you have to do is read some history, and every generation of scientists has believed something that we now consider totally ridiculus.
Show me the evidence of the core of evolution working, where 2 single celled organisms come together to form a more complex organism, and then keep getting more complex (and of course without any "creator" helping it along). This is the most basic element of the theory. Anything as complex as everyone else has suggested as evidence of evolution is completely irrelevant without this.
Would it be any different for a Christian to try and convert a "non-believer" without being able to prove what he is saying? You are trying to convert me to believe in evolution yet this does nothing to convince, "are either incapable or unwilling to observe the massive amount of scientific evidence".
Why bother standing up for something, only to simply sit right back down again?
I am truly interested in understanding why people believe in this concept so vehemently that they will stand up and argue against any idea that is contrary to it. The more vehement people become about a "fact" they can't prove, the more belief in evolution looks like a religion.
At what lengths will people go to keep the teachings of evolution in the schools? Btw, I don't want ID taught in schools anymore than I want evolution, neither faiths should be taught, or if they are then purely as a study course, not in science class.
Perhaps you have misunstood my position. I don't want ID taught in schools. The last thing I want is the state to force _any_ religion on my children. I fully agree with the concept of the seperation of church and state. Just in the last 2 centuries Christians have been persecuted by other Christians with the support of the US government. (late 1700's early 1800's)
What I do take issue with is that a theory (evolution) is not being taught as a simple theory, and left to the students. It's being taught as fact. Maybe you don't think so, but I have personally experienced this. In 6th grade our sceince books had drawings of the human fetus an how it looks like a fish, salamander, chicken, etc... through it's process of developement in the womb. This is a lie.
The same people that are fighting for evolution to be taught (I fight for neither idea) support these kinds of lies. Maybe you don't believe all the fraudulent data, but others do. It's no different than what governments have done with religion, lying about what the bible says (keeping it in latin) and manipulating the people with it. Evolution is no different, other than it has the support of a new group of zealots, those that want to prove evolution at all costs, even if it includes manipulation and fraud.
All of the events/facts you presented don't prove that a single celled organism can combine to make a 2 celled organism, etc... this has never, ever been observed or proved, and yet is the very pinnicale of the theory. Without this, there is no evolution. None of other things you mention even matter if 2 cells can't come together and make a more complex unified organism.
This is taught in grade school, and is a very basic concept. Please explain how a seed has this ability to germinate? The closer you look at this process and the more you try to define how it works, the more it will look like magic. Finally at the end of your analysis you will not be able to explain how something how a seed contains life, not just sugars. Otherwise our scientists would be able to create life, but it just can't
This is where you might argue the system is now decreasing in entropy
Yes, and if you analyze the process of a plant growing down to the most minute level, there is a decision process happening, how does the plant know to turn into a tree vs weed? There is information in the seed that describes the entire plant before it even sprouts. The entire process of the plant growing must follow a map or a plan in duplicating cells to eventually create the end plant. How do the cells know which cell they will become? A root, a leaf, bark, etc... Anytime there is work done there needs to be enery to do this work, making a decision is work, when the plant cells split to create new leaves or branches there has to be decision as far as what it will become.
Please explain where the energy comes from to make this happen. The sun does not decide, though provides the raw work energy, the water does not, the seed does not contain the entire plant. All complex organisms have this same structure. In a human our DNA splits and recombines, what makes this happen? More chemistry makes a decision? We start off as a few cells, chemistry cannot make decisions, and DNA of itself is simply a map, not a decision making apparatus.
Obviously we aren't going to convince anyone of our own perspective. I am interested though in how you , and other's with your beliefs, justify having faith in a theory that cannot explain the core workings of life yet is used to describe how life started simple and became complex. (against the laws of thermodynamics)
So far it is the best theory that fits all the available observable facts
Doctors a hundred years ago didn't think anything they could not see (ie, bateria) could possibly be killing their patients. (the doctors were not washing their hands between working on cadevers and deliverying babies) Yet the mothers were dying.
I do not have confidence in any science that runs on the black box theory, so the only way to accept evolution is through faith. There have never been any organisms that have evolved and have been observed.
The theory of evolution is a theory about how life evolved not about how life started....But evolution does not even touch on that particular subject.
This is a major part of the problem, some geeky scientists may believe this, but this is not what is being taught in public schools. Who is the maintainer of what exactly the definition of evolution is? If we can use it label all sorts of things, (and yes I have seen/read/heard people use it to define how life began) then why should it be taught in science classes in public schools?
Slashdot Mirror
Your "almost all scholars" are terribly missinformed. The specific scriptures regarding "finding the beast" state clearly that it is neither "pointless" nor "irrelevant". It is actually "wise" to do determine who the beast is and scripture even tells you how to determine who the beast is (calculate the number of his name), which you contradict readily without any references to back up your statement other than a vague reference to "almost all scholars", here's the scriptures your scholars would have to use as the basis of your arguement.
---------
It is not a good thing to get the mark. So avoiding this is important...
Being decieved by the beast and false prophet is directly related to recieving the mark.
This says it's _wise_ to determine who the beast is.*drum roll*
disbelief!
*symbol crash*
[/ducks and runs in fear of anti-religious bashing that is about to ensue from non-relgious zealotry in reply to joking about religion with those that do not believe in any religion yet are unable to explain why they are so zealous for their beliefs that they'd spend so much time posting about them but deny their actions are religious... aghh!!]
Is this how you would have evolution taught in our schools?
The reply posted below the parent post is the one I am intending to link to. It starts off like this...
Ok, I'm not trying to spin things, I'm not trying to make up arguments just to knock them down, I really do have an issue.
I can at least explain _what_ Pythogarean theorem is. What _is_ evolution? The definition is _required_ as a starting place, without step 1, there is no step 2. You can't possibly expect me to understand any examples of complex bacteria describing evolution without understanding what the definition of evolution is.
So when I have an issue with what is being taught in the schools, I'd expect that:
1. What the kids are being taught, should be understandable by the parents (ie, me).
2. If I don't understand it, I should be able to have an administrator/teacher (ie, you) explain it to me.
3. If the teacher cannot explain it without a lot of time and tons of reading, then I don't see that it is possible to teach children this in a public classroom.
4. I am a teacher. I teach college students. If I have to have a large book to explain something to adults, then they won't get it.
5. Even with adults you have to teach the most basic priniciples and foundations of an idea before getting to the complex aspects.
6. If I can't explain the simple basic foundations of an idea, there is absolutely no chance of ever teaching the more complex aspects that _require_ understanding of the basics.
Here's how this plays out in grade school.
Teacher: Evolution says when there was single celled organisms, they had to adapt to survive, so they became more complex.
Teacher: Today we have examples of evolution with bacteria adapting to survive in a toxic environment by all the weak one's dying off and the strong reproducing.
Student: Isn't "weak ones dying off" and "become more complex" two totally different concepts?
Teacher: You just don't understand because you aren't a scientist and haven't read tons of books, are in denile, don't want to see the evidence in front of you. Just trust me, I am telling the truth.
This is _exactly_ what I deal with as a teacher. I am presenting arguments to this board that I myself have had as a kid, and yet I am simply told I just don't get it or I am intentionally denying the evidence.
What is the basic foundation of evolution? It seems this is it here. If this is not it, then please post a link to what is. No point in arguing any further without a mutal agreement about what the foundation of the theory of evolution is.
Evolution
Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?
Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?
No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?
So please explain to me then why this should be taught in public schools to grade children if it takes an entire book to explain?
I fail to see how any of this is such an insurmountable problem or implausible scenario that you think it is sufficient to reject evolution.
Because _none_ of it has ever been proved to actually happen.
Would you agree that this is the definition of evolution?
evolution
n.
But, if it can be taught to grade schoolers, I am sure you could explain it to me in less than a paragraph. So far, with the numerous posts on this subject with (I think) 4 people, no one has been able to be clear about what they think evolution is themselves.
I have one issue at the core of it, evolution says a single celled protazoan (from memory here) mutated/morphed/changed, through whatever process to a more complex multicelled organim.
Is this true or not true?
Keep in mind the massive amounts of fraud that have been foisted on the public to prove evolution. Pure lies were even in my own science books when I was a kid...
You showed me examples of cells that combined/joined/etc.. , _not_ split themselves into multicelled organisms. (as evolution says the very first single celled organisms did)
I wonder why you are discussing this anyways, if you want to educate you would do so, if you want to make someone look dumb you say they don't get it. Which are you really doing here?
The crux of the problem is that you want this theory to be taught in schools, yet you can't even prove it's possible on an extremely simple level. You said "slime moulds combine", they do this all the time, yet they are still slime moulds, they aren't evolving into something new. Rats, bacteria, all the same, they aren't new. They may have a "stronger" ability to deal with something, but then again I pass on traits to my children as well, which include chemical dependencies and resistance to toxin. Still not evolution.
So, no, you really haven't shown that anything can "mutate" into something more complex, only change be refined in it's current state.
yes of course there is, but the thread's issue isn't a debate about whether they exist, only (my point here) there is no proof that a single celled organism can turn into a multi-celled organism, which is the most basic aspect of theory evolution. If this can't happen, then none of the rest of the "evolutions" throughout history could...
btw, I had a logical error in my parent post, I meant to say single celled organisms splitting into 2, not combining. Meaning that a singe celled organism developing into multi-celled.
What you demonostrated with your example _is not evolution_, therefore is _not an example_ of evolution. Reread my post.
slime moulds change into multi-cellular organisms because they have genetically-coded "behaviour"
Exactly my point, it's already a part of their structure, they do it because that is what they are. The act of them combining is _not_ evolution.
I have already given you examples of evolution, i.e. rats and bacteria evolving immunity to poisons and antibiotics.
I can develope an immunity to poisons as well, this is not evolution.
arguments against a grossly over-simplified
This is the problem for evolution, not the arguments, if you can't prove the most basic aspects of the theory. (one celled organisms becoming more complex) none of your "non-over-simplified" arguments in support have worth. Unless you feel that we can just skip this aspect of evolution and just have faith that this has/does happen...
You are totally correct, because the egg/sperm _already have_ the DNA needed to make a complete human. That is why humans growing from one cell to a full human isn't evolution. But, the theory of evolution you apply to cells changing into something other than their original form doesn't happen.
Step back and look at this purely from a simple logic issue.
If you are a programmer, trying running this experiment. Make a random text generator, run it for as long as you think is possible (theoretically run it for a million years) and tell me the possibility of it ever spitting out the code needed to display a webpage, or come up with the millions of lines of code it takes to run windows or other complex software.
Then consider size of DNA and what it represents. Look up the statistical number for what is impossible. Compare this with all the steps it would take to even get a basic form of life to change into something more complex.
I will not venture to prove God created life, but I can say without a doubt it only takes some very basic logic to see that complex life was not created through evolution.
If you perceive me as a blockhead, show me some proof that actually is proof. Your current logic only satifies those that already believe in evolution.
You gave an example of how a particular set of organisms behave, not how they evolve, two different concepts. The example you gave starts as a mould, and ends as a mould, it has not become something different. If the mould then reproduced as the multi-cellular organism and the offspring were such then perhaps it would be closer, but I doubt this is the case, as you have described the mould to be single cells attaching for mutual benefit, which is a behavior.
Evolution does not claim that you evolved from a collection of single celled organisms into a foetus,
This is _exactly_ what evolution states, only the process started a millions of years ago when all humans were one celled organisms, they just had not yet evolved. Though using the word fetus is a misnomer as it denotes only a specific stage in human developement.
This is interesting (not having known about slime moulds), but considering their actions are consistent, this would only consitute a behavior of the organism, not an aspect of evolution. Fish do this on a larger scale, as do birds (staying flocks) and other animals.
Considering that my body started as one cell at one point (2 actually coming together), then by the definition of evolution I evolved from a single celled organism into a fetus, then into a person...
Based on this concept it seems that the theory is correct, but completely misapplied to something it doesn't actually work with. (ie, new forms of life vs continuing forms of life)
You have 2 single celled organisms that during fertilization completely defy the definition of evolution. You can only argue about opinions, not facts. This is a fact.
An egg and sperm are not viable organisms.
I contest that _any_ one celled organism is a viable organism by the definition of "one celled organism".
We don't classify them as different species.
Classification is purely a documentation of reality. It doesn't change the fact that they are one celled organisms.
Many forms of life, even vertebrates, reproduce asexually.
They certainly do, but this does not invalidate the point that 2 single celled organisms _do_ come together (sexually) to create a more complex organism, which you previously stated no one believes occurs.
I agree with your statement regarding the humans being single cells, but you error'd in your analysis of this. We are actually 2 cells that actually _do_ come together and become one. (sperm + egg) So in effect, my original statement (though I admit it was not what I was thinking) _is_ accurate.
NO ONE BELIEVES THAT SEPARATE, GENETICALLY DIFFERENT, SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS SIMPLY COMBINED TO FORM MULTICELLULAR ORGANISMS
Every single mamal, reptile, fish, etc... is created this way. (sperm+egg) Even flowers and trees reproduce this way. So if what you are saying is true (I would venture to say an egg is quite a bit different than a sperm), then how come there is so much life on this planet that is created this way? You seem to be arguing against your own theories.
It is much more likely that multicellular life first formed because single-celled organisms that reproduced by dividing continued to divide, but without separating into single-celled organism, but forming multicellular colonies. Then, it is a natural step that such colonies would adapt so that different cells could be specialized to perform different functions.
But this idea has never been proved to actually happen, it's a nice idea, but has never been replicated.
All you have to do is prove that it's even possible for a single celled organism to change into a more complex, say with 2 cells. Considering this has never been done or proved even remotely possible, the core elements of the theory of evolution are fiction.
grown stronger over time as more and more evidence has been gathered from new, emerging sciences and an ever larger volume from older, more established ones. The fossil record supports it; the genetic record supports it; and observations of living things support it.
None of this matters if simple celled organisms can't evolve into more complex organisms. Observations that _seem_ to support evolution can easily be dismissed as a function of each organism.
All the evolutionist needs to do is prove the basic concepts, the big complex issues can be worded and used by elitists to prove anything us ignorant masses (just look at statistics) so it's not viable proof of anything.
Please don't say we should trust the scientist, and that everyone is telling the truth. The proving of evolution has been full of fraud from the beginning. And this can actually be proved with real evidence.
In the end it seems anyone who believes in evolution can do when debating this is simply state things like "Bring some some real facts to the table". Would I be out of order in asking you to do the same?
We have an incredible capacity for arrogance, thinking we know something. All you have to do is read some history, and every generation of scientists has believed something that we now consider totally ridiculus.
Show me the evidence of the core of evolution working, where 2 single celled organisms come together to form a more complex organism, and then keep getting more complex (and of course without any "creator" helping it along). This is the most basic element of the theory. Anything as complex as everyone else has suggested as evidence of evolution is completely irrelevant without this.
Would it be any different for a Christian to try and convert a "non-believer" without being able to prove what he is saying? You are trying to convert me to believe in evolution yet this does nothing to convince, "are either incapable or unwilling to observe the massive amount of scientific evidence".
Why bother standing up for something, only to simply sit right back down again?
I am truly interested in understanding why people believe in this concept so vehemently that they will stand up and argue against any idea that is contrary to it. The more vehement people become about a "fact" they can't prove, the more belief in evolution looks like a religion.
At what lengths will people go to keep the teachings of evolution in the schools? Btw, I don't want ID taught in schools anymore than I want evolution, neither faiths should be taught, or if they are then purely as a study course, not in science class.
What I do take issue with is that a theory (evolution) is not being taught as a simple theory, and left to the students. It's being taught as fact. Maybe you don't think so, but I have personally experienced this. In 6th grade our sceince books had drawings of the human fetus an how it looks like a fish, salamander, chicken, etc... through it's process of developement in the womb. This is a lie.
The same people that are fighting for evolution to be taught (I fight for neither idea) support these kinds of lies. Maybe you don't believe all the fraudulent data, but others do. It's no different than what governments have done with religion, lying about what the bible says (keeping it in latin) and manipulating the people with it. Evolution is no different, other than it has the support of a new group of zealots, those that want to prove evolution at all costs, even if it includes manipulation and fraud.
All of the events/facts you presented don't prove that a single celled organism can combine to make a 2 celled organism, etc... this has never, ever been observed or proved, and yet is the very pinnicale of the theory. Without this, there is no evolution. None of other things you mention even matter if 2 cells can't come together and make a more complex unified organism.
This is taught in grade school, and is a very basic concept. Please explain how a seed has this ability to germinate? The closer you look at this process and the more you try to define how it works, the more it will look like magic. Finally at the end of your analysis you will not be able to explain how something how a seed contains life, not just sugars. Otherwise our scientists would be able to create life, but it just can't
This is where you might argue the system is now decreasing in entropy
Yes, and if you analyze the process of a plant growing down to the most minute level, there is a decision process happening, how does the plant know to turn into a tree vs weed? There is information in the seed that describes the entire plant before it even sprouts. The entire process of the plant growing must follow a map or a plan in duplicating cells to eventually create the end plant. How do the cells know which cell they will become? A root, a leaf, bark, etc... Anytime there is work done there needs to be enery to do this work, making a decision is work, when the plant cells split to create new leaves or branches there has to be decision as far as what it will become.
Please explain where the energy comes from to make this happen. The sun does not decide, though provides the raw work energy, the water does not, the seed does not contain the entire plant. All complex organisms have this same structure. In a human our DNA splits and recombines, what makes this happen? More chemistry makes a decision? We start off as a few cells, chemistry cannot make decisions, and DNA of itself is simply a map, not a decision making apparatus.
Obviously we aren't going to convince anyone of our own perspective. I am interested though in how you , and other's with your beliefs, justify having faith in a theory that cannot explain the core workings of life yet is used to describe how life started simple and became complex. (against the laws of thermodynamics)
Doctors a hundred years ago didn't think anything they could not see (ie, bateria) could possibly be killing their patients. (the doctors were not washing their hands between working on cadevers and deliverying babies) Yet the mothers were dying.
I do not have confidence in any science that runs on the black box theory, so the only way to accept evolution is through faith. There have never been any organisms that have evolved and have been observed.
The theory of evolution is a theory about how life evolved not about how life started. ...But evolution does not even touch on that particular subject.
This is a major part of the problem, some geeky scientists may believe this, but this is not what is being taught in public schools. Who is the maintainer of what exactly the definition of evolution is? If we can use it label all sorts of things, (and yes I have seen/read/heard people use it to define how life began) then why should it be taught in science classes in public schools?