- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This is just what I needed this morning! Thanks, t8!
I'll never look at a banana the same again. Praise God! Ha!
Oh this is so cute. Think to take a Banana to show God in it. Amazing, Ha You think it was created for the monkeys that way?
Thank you t8
Peace and Love Mrs.:D
Actually the funny thing is that monkeys from what I have been told, peel bananas the other way. I tried it and guess what, I think it is easier.
The top part of the banana becomes a handle.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 09 2007,11:02) Actually the funny thing is that monkeys from what I have been told, peel bananas the other way. I tried it and guess what, I think it is easier. The top part of the banana becomes a handle.
OK – now I'll have to try it too! See what you're doing to us, t8? You're turning us into monkey's! Hey, maybe that is a reverse evolution, do you think?That guy in the video is Ray Comfort. I remember him when he preached in the main square in Christchurch New Zealand in the 1980s. He use to get heaps of opposition too.
He went over to the US and hooked up with that Cameron guy.
I don't agree with everything Ray Comfort teaches, but I think God has used him greatly.
It looks to be that this is monkey business. So when we eat a banana are we feeding the monkey?
God Bless
I once worked with a chap from Sierra Leone who said that he grew up opening bananas from the “wrong” end, as did the rest of his countryfolk.
As inmate 942767 said, when we eat a banana we feed an ape (not a monkey, but you could say a primate – or is that a kind of clergyman?)
This idiot Comfort (I cringe at the thought of him being a fellow countryman of mine!) has missed a few points:
bananas have strings that make them inconvenient to eat – the “convenience” of the bend and tear-top might be great but why then the strings?
the bananas we eat are an artificially selected variety that does not produce seeds, unlike the native varieties that have large, hard seeds in them – humans have taken the “creator's” poor prototype and developed it into a (mostly) pleasant-to-eat and marketable product
bananas can cause potentially serious allergic reactions in some people
Just shows you how lousy Ray Comfort's “creator” is at designing things!
Stuart:D
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 09 2007,16:01) Just shows you how lousy Ray Comfort's “creator” is at designing things!
Stu,As far as the banana and it's flaws……I'm wondering, could that be from evolving too many times from it's original creation?
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 09 2007,16:12) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 09 2007,16:01) Just shows you how lousy Ray Comfort's “creator” is at designing things!
Stu,As far as the banana and it's flaws……I'm wondering, could that be from evolving too many times from it's original creation?
I haven't tried eating a native banana. I presume our distant ancestors did. I can't imagine it would be very easy judging from the pictures herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Cultivation
Stuart
Interesting….so our banana's have evolved. Well, I believe that everything evolves….we are always changing; our environment changes as we do. It's a proven fact that Americans, for instance, are much taller and larger than our forefather's. Why? Because of diet and lack of hard work. So, I do believe in evolution in this regard. However, I have faith in my Creator because I choose to.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 09 2007,16:26) Interesting….so our banana's have evolved. Well, I believe that everything evolves….we are always changing; our environment changes as we do. It's a proven fact that Americans, for instance, are much taller and larger than our forefather's. Why? Because of diet and lack of hard work. So, I do believe in evolution in this regard. However, I have faith in my Creator because I choose to.
Have you signed the poll on t8's Evolution thread in favour of evolution?Americans are taller that their medieval ancestors because of better nutrition and they are fatter because of poorly chosen nutrition. This is not evolution in the biological sense.
Stuart
I'm curious, is it a scientific fact that good nutrition makes you taller? For instance, does Norway have better nutrition? Why are Nordy's taller than Americans, generally speaking?
American's are not necessarily fatter because of poorly chosen nutrition, they are also fatter because lifestyles have changed. Lifestyles have changed because of evolution-of-sorts. We used to have to farm for our food, for instance. We used to have to walk miles for our water, for instance. Now we just get in our automobiles and drive to the market for our food and water. Our bodies adjusted (or evolved) in that we no longer need the muscle mass or energy required of our forefather's. Another example is that we use our brains more than our forefather's – we have seen that the skull is larger than those of ancient history. Why? Because scientists say our brains are larger, and so on.
So I believe environment also plays a part in evolution – not just on the cellular level.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 09 2007,18:06) I'm curious, is it a scientific fact that good nutrition makes you taller? For instance, does Norway have better nutrition? Why are Nordy's taller than Americans, generally speaking? American's are not necessarily fatter because of poorly chosen nutrition, they are also fatter because lifestyles have changed. Lifestyles have changed because of evolution-of-sorts. We used to have to farm for our food, for instance. We used to have to walk miles for our water, for instance. Now we just get in our automobiles and drive to the market for our food and water. Our bodies adjusted (or evolved) in that we no longer need the muscle mass or energy required of our forefather's. Another example is that we use our brains more than our forefather's – we have seen that the skull is larger than those of ancient history. Why? Because scientists say our brains are larger, and so on.
So I believe environment also plays a part in evolution – not just on the cellular level.
If you had eaten a medieval diet you would probably have ended up shorter than you are.If you were to adopt a young child “through time” who had been born before the agricultural revolution 30,000 years ago, and brought him or her up in today's world, you would not be able to tell the difference. The genetic change in the human population in that time has been negligible.
You list correctly some contributing factors to the obesity epidemic, but I'm afraid this has nothing to do with evolution – actually, it is most likely that we are now putting selection pressure on in favour of those who are genetically most resistant to putting on weight and losing survival fitness through western lifestyle illnesses. The pressure must be small though, as only a minority of the world's population are accustomed to a western lifestyle anyway.
Stuart
OK, I had to look-up “negligible”
Um, yes you are probably correct, but I still wonder how the brain is able to expand due to diet? Why have skulls changed through time?Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 09 2007,18:47) OK, I had to look-up “negligible” Um, yes you are probably correct, but I still wonder how the brain is able to expand due to diet? Why have skulls changed through time?
This is a very interesting question. A recent view says that there are, of course, advantages in a bigger brain but the evolution of bigger brains was constrained by the availability of iodine and/or certain fatty acids that are best sourced from fish or amphibians. Our earliest hominid ancestors lived in eastern sub-Saharan Africa (modern Tanzania), crucially it would seem, near the sea, where a diet that included seafoods removed a nutritional barrier to brain expansion. So in a sense your environmental argument is sort of right in this case – the environmental change allowed the genetic one.Stuart
Oh, goody! I love to be right!
Of course I only have a slight clue to a lot of information concerning the evolution argument. I find it interesting, and as I've shared before, I have a friend who believes strongly in evolution. We chat about it every now and then; she is completely persuaded that the scientific method is the only explaination. While I agree with some of the findings, I also believe that it takes nearly as much faith to believe in the Big Bang theory as it does to believe there is a Creator. “Proof” is only as solid as it's origins. Who can prove the initial origin?
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 09 2007,19:18) Oh, goody! I love to be right! Of course I only have a slight clue to a lot of information concerning the evolution argument. I find it interesting, and as I've shared before, I have a friend who believes strongly in evolution. We chat about it every now and then; she is completely persuaded that the scientific method is the only explaination. While I agree with some of the findings, I also believe that it takes nearly as much faith to believe in the Big Bang theory as it does to believe there is a Creator. “Proof” is only as solid as it's origins. Who can prove the initial origin?
Well you certainly have a much better grasp than many. Your concept of the uncertainty of the science is in the right order – scientists are as certain as it is reasonable to be about evolution by natural selection. Going backwards in time there is really only intelligent speculation about abiogenesis (although it really is intelligent) and while the Big Bang theory is widely accepted and supported by evidence, it looks as if it is not possible to see “before” the Big Bang because “before” doesn't mean anything at that point.If you are truly committed to a biblical view then that is fair enough, but it is refreshing to know that you do find the science interesting, and are not blind to the possibilities (especially the ones that seem to be right even though they contradict scripture).
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
