Bill Gates: There's no scientific explanation of how it (the universe) came about!
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Don't really care about this discussion all that much, but I will drop this here for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
All I want to point out in this video is that most of the people that were so confident to proclaim themselves as athiests seem completely clueless when asked questions that should be easily answered given how strongly they stand on their beliefs. I'm not saying the interviewer is right or wrong here, but he was pretty easily able to get most of those people to admit that they don't believe there is any proof in something like evolution, but they have faith that the scientists are right.
Now I believe in ? , but I'm not a fanatical believer. What I mean is I can easily see how someone on the outside might think it's silly for me to believe in a being that I've never seen and have no concrete proof exists. At the end of the day, all I can go with is my own personal faith and that feeling that just exists in me that there is a higher being out there. But tell me, how is it any less silly for people to have blind faith in scientists who are essentially just human beings who can be wrong, have been before, and will undoubtedly be wrong again. If you want to believe has all the answers or will one day have all the answers, that's fine. But it's a bit laughable how these athiests go around belittling and talking down about religious people, but in turn can't intelligently defend their beliefs any better than those same people the criticize. Blind faith is part of many religious tenants. It's the exact opposite of how you should proceed if you're an athiest. So who is really sillier here?
youre silly for limiting yourself to the Whole atheist vs theist debate and sides.
in the grandscheme of things(reality now/universe). Relativization is needed here.
check this out(mute it music is ? lol):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBZkyXMQwGw
you wanna sit there and tell me what you just saw makes any sense? -
damobb2deep wrote: »
but how if the creature didnt have feathers before?damobb2deep wrote: »Thing is, birds did come from dinosaurs but pigs have never had one species down its evolutionary line that had wings, or even hinted at it.
That's why I'm saying it's silly, it's unheard of and is illogical.
but before came no other animal had feathers... so who is 2 say it cant happen 200 million years from now according 2 evolution...
under the laws of evolution it is possible for another creature to appear with feathers
Every generation has slight mutations and those that provided a survival benefit to an individual animal survive -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Don't really care about this discussion all that much, but I will drop this here for thought.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
All I want to point out in this video is that most of the people that were so confident to proclaim themselves as athiests seem completely clueless when asked questions that should be easily answered given how strongly they stand on their beliefs. I'm not saying the interviewer is right or wrong here, but he was pretty easily able to get most of those people to admit that they don't believe there is any proof in something like evolution, but they have faith that the scientists are right.
Now I believe in ? , but I'm not a fanatical believer. What I mean is I can easily see how someone on the outside might think it's silly for me to believe in a being that I've never seen and have no concrete proof exists. At the end of the day, all I can go with is my own personal faith and that feeling that just exists in me that there is a higher being out there. But tell me, how is it any less silly for people to have blind faith in scientists who are essentially just human beings who can be wrong, have been before, and will undoubtedly be wrong again. If you want to believe has all the answers or will one day have all the answers, that's fine. But it's a bit laughable how these athiests go around belittling and talking down about religious people, but in turn can't intelligently defend their beliefs any better than those same people the criticize. Blind faith is part of many religious tenants. It's the exact opposite of how you should proceed if you're an athiest. So who is really sillier here?
youre silly for limiting yourself to the Whole atheist vs theist debate and sides.
in the grandscheme of things(reality now/universe). Relativization is needed here.
check this out(mute it music is ? lol):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBZkyXMQwGw
you wanna sit there and tell me what you just saw makes any sense?
I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is. I'm also not sure how I limited myself to anything, but ok. -
I can't quote you w/o an error but I see nothing out of the ordinary.
Like it states, it's not uncommon to find land animals in water like that. -
I can't quote you w/o an error but I see nothing out of the ordinary.
Like it states, it's not uncommon to find land animals in water like that.
Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc."3 If museums displayed these real fossils instead of adorning dinosaur dioramas with feathers, then the evolutionary story that "dinosaurs evolved into birds" would be quickly seen as the fiction that it is.4
That sounds ordinary? -
Where is HIS proof?
Photos?
Video?
Why doesn't he turn evolution upside down and expose it?
Why is a creationist site releasing the info?
-
Where is HIS proof?
Photos?
Video?
Why doesn't he turn evolution upside down and expose it?
Why is a creationist site releasing the info?
I think thats kind of the point of the article -
Nah, he ha made books but you, of course, gotta buy them to see his "proof".
I see no one but creationists co-signing the guy, not one reputable source.
Kinda hard to take what he has to say in any type of way seriously. But I'll look into him and his research, for sure. -
There is no scientific explanation why I'm such a ?
-
Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.
Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.
Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.
Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?
This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.
We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce. -
Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.
Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.
Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.
Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?
This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.
We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.
Males eat at the top, females eat at the bottom. Evolution doesn't promise that a species is guaranteed to live if they don't adapt properly or fast enough. -
Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.
Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.
Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.
Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?
This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.
We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.While the giraffe as we know it is native to Africa, more than 50 million years ago they also roamed along Europe and Asia. It is believed that giraffes were introduced to Asia about 15 million years ago. There aren’t very many fossils of the early giraffes but enough information for scientists to come up with some theories that they believe are parallel to what occurred for them in regards to evolution. The oldest fossil that has been identified is about 1.5 million years old.
These early giraffes likely looked like deer and were much shorter than what we know of them today. What is widely debated is how they ended up with the extremely long necks of today’s giraffes. There are a couple of ideas that circulate about that which you may be interested in. Many believe it occurred slowly, over plenty of time due to the trees in the areas where they lived getting taller. This process took place to allow them a way to continue feeding from them.
This is known as the Lamarck Theory and it was introduced in 1808. It is possible that the food on the ground was scarce and that these animals were instinctively raising their necks as high up as they could in order to reach what was there. Maybe they observed other animals including elephants doing so. Over time, the size of those necks was longer and longer to allow them this adaptation and survival method.
Charles Darwin has another theory about survival of the fittest. He believes that some of the giraffes had a genetic mutation that allowed them to develop longer necks. These individuals where able to eat more and so they were stronger. That means those males were the ones breeding and that genetic pattern was passed down to others. Those that couldn’t get enough to eat weren’t strong enough to be able to mate with the females and they eventually died without passing along their own genetic materials.
Another theory is that the necks of males grew longer in order to help them be more different from the females. However, that created problems when it was time for mating to occur so eventually the necks of the females were also getting longer due to genetic factors. However, most researchers have found this idea to be one that they can’t prove and that they aren’t really willing to accept on theory alone.
In 1996 a new theory came along that offers us a new angle to look at. Instead of the necks growing dramatically for them to feed, perhaps it was their legs that were able to give them the additional height required. It could have been a combination of both of them as they evolved too which helped them to be able to carry their body weight around as they do.
The most amazing thing about the evolution of giraffes is that their internal anatomy was able to be modified as well to take care of these changes. In order to help with that long neck they had to develop strong shoulders and muscles. They had to develop a complex and fascinating heart and cardiovascular system so that the blood wouldn’t rush to their brains as they bent to drink.
Perhaps one day we will have many more answers about giraffe evolution. That way we can know with certainty what their past was and how they have come to be the amazing creatures that we known and admire today. New technology and new fossils are discovered all the time out there so we will just have to wait and see. In the meantime though it can be fun to explore the different theories and to discuss what your own thoughts about it all are. -
-
I've seen a lot of smart people on this board lose debates. Doesn't take away from their intelligence or the fruits of their research. I consider myself uninformed concerning a host of issues so I rarely participate, but I truly enjoy reading the back and forths even the jokes that lighten things up. Even some that I don't agree with, I appreciate their input. Yet you have some fanatical individuals that act like irrational, unruly children that would dispute trigonometry or quantum physics because they either can't or refuse to follow the steps necessary to receive accurate answers.
-
I've seen a lot of smart people on this board lose debates. Doesn't take away from their intelligence or the fruits of their research. I consider myself uninformed concerning a host of issues so I rarely participate, but I truly enjoy reading the back and forths even the jokes that lighten things up. Even some that I don't agree with, I appreciate their input. Yet you have some fanatical individuals that act like irrational, unruly children that would dispute trigonometry or quantum physics because they either can't or refuse to follow the steps necessary to receive accurate answers.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.
Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.
Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.
Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?
This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.
We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.
Males eat at the top, females eat at the bottom. Evolution doesn't promise that a species is guaranteed to live if they don't adapt properly or fast enough.
Why would there be a need to evolve then? -
Watched the video....
Smh @ people and their dogs... -
Shizlansky wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »
but how if the creature didnt have feathers before?damobb2deep wrote: »Thing is, birds did come from dinosaurs but pigs have never had one species down its evolutionary line that had wings, or even hinted at it.
That's why I'm saying it's silly, it's unheard of and is illogical.
but before came no other animal had feathers... so who is 2 say it cant happen 200 million years from now according 2 evolution...
under the laws of evolution it is possible for another creature to appear with feathers
Bruh, you can't be this stupid.
how is this stupid if the statements contradict themselves.... -
Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.
Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.
Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.
Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?
This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.
We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.While the giraffe as we know it is native to Africa, more than 50 million years ago they also roamed along Europe and Asia. It is believed that giraffes were introduced to Asia about 15 million years ago. There aren’t very many fossils of the early giraffes but enough information for scientists to come up with some theories that they believe are parallel to what occurred for them in regards to evolution. The oldest fossil that has been identified is about 1.5 million years old.
These early giraffes likely looked like deer and were much shorter than what we know of them today. What is widely debated is how they ended up with the extremely long necks of today’s giraffes. There are a couple of ideas that circulate about that which you may be interested in. Many believe it occurred slowly, over plenty of time due to the trees in the areas where they lived getting taller. This process took place to allow them a way to continue feeding from them.
This is known as the Lamarck Theory and it was introduced in 1808. It is possible that the food on the ground was scarce and that these animals were instinctively raising their necks as high up as they could in order to reach what was there. Maybe they observed other animals including elephants doing so. Over time, the size of those necks was longer and longer to allow them this adaptation and survival method.
Charles Darwin has another theory about survival of the fittest. He believes that some of the giraffes had a genetic mutation that allowed them to develop longer necks. These individuals where able to eat more and so they were stronger. That means those males were the ones breeding and that genetic pattern was passed down to others. Those that couldn’t get enough to eat weren’t strong enough to be able to mate with the females and they eventually died without passing along their own genetic materials.
Another theory is that the necks of males grew longer in order to help them be more different from the females. However, that created problems when it was time for mating to occur so eventually the necks of the females were also getting longer due to genetic factors. However, most researchers have found this idea to be one that they can’t prove and that they aren’t really willing to accept on theory alone.
In 1996 a new theory came along that offers us a new angle to look at. Instead of the necks growing dramatically for them to feed, perhaps it was their legs that were able to give them the additional height required. It could have been a combination of both of them as they evolved too which helped them to be able to carry their body weight around as they do.
The most amazing thing about the evolution of giraffes is that their internal anatomy was able to be modified as well to take care of these changes. In order to help with that long neck they had to develop strong shoulders and muscles. They had to develop a complex and fascinating heart and cardiovascular system so that the blood wouldn’t rush to their brains as they bent to drink.
Perhaps one day we will have many more answers about giraffe evolution. That way we can know with certainty what their past was and how they have come to be the amazing creatures that we known and admire today. New technology and new fossils are discovered all the time out there so we will just have to wait and see. In the meantime though it can be fun to explore the different theories and to discuss what your own thoughts about it all are.
A great read as well.
Very long but it gives credence to what I'm saying.
http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm
Just a few of the many rebuttals
1) Since the taller, longer-necked, evolving giraffe ancestors were also larger and heavier, they would need more food than the animals they're competing with. Wouldn't this counterbalance their advantage in times of dearth? Would they really have any advantage over smaller members of the same and other species? Moreover, it is absurd to assume that only the leaves on high branches were available to the giraffe during a drought. Had this been the case, then the multitude of browsing and grazing antelope species in Africa would all have gone extinct (or never evolved in the first place). So, even without growing taller, the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.
2) Male giraffes today are up to one meter taller than female giraffes; newborn and young giraffes are much smaller. The moment this sexual dimorphism manifested in the evolution of the giraffe, it would have been the males that could have reached the higher branches. The females and young animals would have died and the species would have gone extinct (Pincher 1949).
Clearly, both Darwin's and Lamarck's conceptions of giraffe evolution were highly speculative. The idea that giraffes developed longer legs and necks to reach higher food seems plausible, even compelling, as long as we do not (1) think the idea through in all its implications and (2) take into account essential observations of giraffe behavior and ecology. In the end, the idea is neither logically compelling nor based on fact.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.
Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.
Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.
Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?
This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.
We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.
Males eat at the top, females eat at the bottom. Evolution doesn't promise that a species is guaranteed to live if they don't adapt properly or fast enough.
Why would there be a need to evolve then?
? happens. Terrains change, Animal habits change and animals that have multiple survival mechanisms do better and pass down those traits. Look how humans adapt to different terrain. Some people may have better breath control naturally so they move higher in the mountains while others stay by the valleys. They select people like them that have the same traits and then there is an entire nation living in high altitude like Chile. It takes thousands to millions of years to see dramatic change. There is still research being done so i don't have the absolute answer to why this happens. We can trace our own migration and the changes to us out of Africa. It wasn't a long enough time to create natural boundaries to procreation even though there are cultural boundaries which create ethnic groups. Even still, some humans don't have compatible blood donors because their group was so isolated for so long. Check this out, they found the isolated Jarawa Tribe on the Adaman islands between India and Mayanmar which share the same genetics as Asians. They predate Asians though. They are being wiped out just like Native Americans because they didn't adapt through generations to foreign disease.
-
@vibe.......
Proof, fossil record?.?.?.?.?.?Fossils Indicate Common Ancestor for Old World Monkeys and Apes
Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.
Chris Palmer
15 May 2013
http://www.nature.com/news/fossils-indicate-common-ancestor-for-two-primate-groups-1.12997
Two new Oligocene primates found in Tanzania, Rukwapithecus fleaglei (foreground left) and Nsungwepithecus gunnelli (background right), are shown here in an artist's reconstruction.
However......Many fossils from the late Oligocene are teeth, so it is common to use them for species identification. However, basing the identification of a new primate on a single tooth fossil has lead to the occasional case of mistaken identity in the fossil record.
LOL @ the nerve of these anti-creationists...........
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.
Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.
Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.
Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?
This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.
We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.
Males eat at the top, females eat at the bottom. Evolution doesn't promise that a species is guaranteed to live if they don't adapt properly or fast enough.
Why would there be a need to evolve then?
? happens.
Priceless.........
-
I should've specified, I was speaking in regards to the giraffes.
If in fact the females could eat from lower food sources couldn't the males just do the same thing thus having no reason to evolve?
Evolution supposedly happens based on an environmental change but the terms presented for giraffes there was no need for such a change if what you say is true.
If they could just eat from other sources why evolve? -
I should've specified, I was speaking in regards to the giraffes.
If in fact the females could eat from lower food sources couldn't the males just do the same thing thus having no reason to evolve?
Evolution supposedly happens based on an environmental change but the terms presented for giraffes there was no need for such a change if what you say is true.
If they could just eat from other sources why evolve?
To not compete with females for food could be one answer, but it could be the general difference between males and females giraffes, Also change due to environment is only one tenet of evolution.
It's silly to assume that because male giraffes have longer necks than females that the females would die. "Long" and "short" are relative.
Why are human males taller than human females on average? Human males are bigger, faster and stronger than human females we should have eaten all the food and they should have died out....right? -
I see atheist still avoiding j beezy nuclear bomb like the plague!
Question: (simplified version)
HOW DOES NON-LIFE PRODUCE LIFE?
http://youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg
